Port or Collingwood: which is the better club?

[FuManchu]

Originally posted by Sturt2002
Please, FuManchu, dont start this one AGAIN

Someone has to make these interlopers realise that they are only 7 years old, and the club that they abandoned are still in the SANFL, playing at Alberton and wearing the prison bars, calling themselves the Magpies.

Port Power, PAFC, whatever, are brand spanking new, have no AFL/VFL premierships (day), and that is the way the rest of the comp see them and the supporters.

 

[Fullarton Power]

Originally posted by FuManchu
Maybe you can afford the price for a ticket to watch the real Port, in ther SANFL (as a traditionalist)

FMC, I can easily afford finals tickets . I choose not to pay exorbitant prices when i have a great venue less than 100 metres from my door, where i can view the game in comfort, drink as much as I like and not have to worry about getting home from the other side of the city, have a good meal, and still outlay less than half the price of a match ticket. If the AFL is fair dinkum about finals crowds in Adelaide it should address this disparity.

 

[Jumbo]

Originally posted by Sturt2002
I had the choice of Sturt or Central (SANFL) growing up.
But in the AFL, I had my own choice. And it aint the Cows.
Go the Power.

Check your profile Sturt2002, you appear to have an allegiance towards the cows as well!

 

[captain ebert]

Originally posted by FuManchu
Its amazing how you'll revert to semantics to try and justify the fact that you abandoned the Port Magpies and the SANFL, and have the cheek to try and tell us all you are the same entity.

oh i get it.

when "national" changed their name to "panasonic" they became a completely new company did they? never mind the fact that the staff were the same, the facilities were the same....etc etc etc.

sure the identity changes but the entity remains the same.

look fumunching, "port adelaide football club" (for the 100th time) left the sanfl & joined the afl. in its absence from the sanfl, the "port adelaide magpies football club" was created.

how hard can it be to get that into your thick head?

 

[understudy]

Originally posted by FuManchu
Someone has to make these interlopers realise that they are only 7 years old, and the club that they abandoned are still in the SANFL, playing at Alberton and wearing the prison bars, calling themselves the Magpies.

Port Power, PAFC, whatever, are brand spanking new, have no AFL/VFL premierships (day), and that is the way the rest of the comp see them and the supporters.

Well ur a passionate fan obviously i see.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Just as there is no comparison between the former VFL and the current AFL.
The current top AFL teams would cream any old "champion" VFL side.
The old VFL sides were made up of Victorians and a few token, usually past their prime, interstaters. Now we have the cream of the crop from everywhere.

Is that relevant? Name one sport where the current day competitors are not a long way ahead of their forebears. A current AFL side would smash a 70's VFL side which in turn would smash a 50's VFL side who would smash a 30's VFL side etc etc. That means nothing except that humans continue to get bigger and stronger, sports continue to get more professional and technological advancement marched on.

You are right we have more no Victorians. I don't know those Victorian teams have many more non Victorians than teams from the 80's or even 70's had though. Maybe they do but I doubt it would be significant. There are now 4 additional teams that the extra talent is spread over. That is a 1/3 increase. Unless the non Victorian talent has increased by more than 1/3 then there is no difference in quality overall bar that which results from the advancement of time. If there is a greater increase then how much would it account for? It isn’t as cut and dried as you would like to make out.

Even if my gut feel for the proportion of non Vic players is wrong, it means little in the context of whether the VFL is the AFL or vice versa. It is a factual argument.

 

[captain ebert]

Originally posted by FuManchu
Port Power, PAFC, whatever, are brand spanking new, have no AFL/VFL premierships (day), and that is the way the rest of the comp see them and the supporters.

whatever fukmanchuk - just get off the 'shrooms.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
Is that relevant? Name one sport where the current day competitors are not a long way ahead of their forebears. A current AFL side would smash a 70's VFL side which in turn would smash a 50's VFL side who would smash a 30's VFL side etc etc. That means nothing except that humans continue to get bigger and stronger, sports continue to get more professional and technological advancement marched on.

You are right we have more no Victorians. I don't know those Victorian teams have many more non Victorians than teams from the 80's or even 70's had though. Maybe they do but I doubt it would be significant. There are now 4 additional teams that the extra talent is spread over. That is a 1/3 increase. Unless the non Victorian talent has increased by more than 1/3 then there is no difference in quality overall bar that which results from the advancement of time. If there is a greater increase then how much would it account for? It isn’t as cut and dried as you would like to make out.

Even if my gut feel for the proportion of non Vic players is wrong, it means little in the context of whether the VFL is the AFL or vice versa. It is a factual argument.

You have seriously got to be joking.

Have a look at the Brownlow count over the past few years and look at the split of the talent, and compare it to 1980. I am not suggesting that SA talent is better than Vic talent....but what you have now is EVERY top SA footballer is playing in the AFL and EVERY top WA player is playing in the AFL.

Lets do the maths (for the sake of the exercise we will take a list size of 40).

Pretent it is 1980

In the VFL you had

12*40 = 480 (I know that in 1980 the lists were bigger but that applies in all cases)

In the SANFL you had

10*40 = 400

In the WAFL you had

8*40=320

In all 1200 "League Footballers". Before you mention it let's knock off the bottom 20% of the SANFL and WAFL as not likely to get a game in the VFL and therefore not "league" footballers. This leaves

480+320+256 = 1056 league footballers.

Int he AFL we have

16*40 = 640 league footballers.

I will save you the keystrokes again. In 1980 of course some of the better talent in the SANFL was already in the VFL. Let's name them:

Blight
Phillips (although he came in 1981)
.
.
.
.
lets say 8 altogether. And not all of these were the "top" talent )(Ebert had gone home for instance and he did not win Port's B&F in 1980).

So what happened:

Well the best talent from SA (say 25% of the 640 AFL players today = 160 now play in the AFL instead of the VFL....minus the 8 who were there in 1980 = 152 additional players. Who did they displace ? Well some of them make up the 80 or so players on the Port and Crows list and the other 80 have displaced the bottom 80 Victorian players in the VFL.

The WA's have displaced the next bottom 80 players from the VFL.

So.....take the VFL from 1980 (480 players)....take away the bottom 160 players and send them to the VFA...and replace them with the top talent from SA and WA spread throughout the lists (some of this is real top talent...No. 1 on a list (Buckley (fropm NT I know) and some is No. 40 on the list but all of them are better than the guys now running around for Box Hill instead of Hawthorn.

This is not an evolution of the game in terms of training and fitness. This is a fundamental change to the talent pool that fills the VFL....which fundamentally changes the nature of the competition. Still the same competition but the biggest single change to affect it since 1896. Hard to see that because we are in the middle of if....but look back in 20 years time.

VM

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
This is not an evolution of the game in terms of training and fitness. This is a fundamental change to the talent pool that fills the VFL....which fundamentally changes the nature of the competition. Still the same competition but the biggest single change to affect it since 1896. Hard to see that because we are in the middle of if....but look back in 20 years time.

Don't doubt that for a minute but more talent is spread across more teams. I don't know if your numbers are more or less accurate than my made up, gut feel, wild guess. The point was simply that whether you or I are correct it is irrelevant. The issues was AFL 2004 v VFL (say 1980 as you used). Yes they are vastly different and no VFL team of that time could match an AFL team of today. Nor could any SANFL team of 1980 or any other time and I have doubts the 1980 SA state team could beat the 2003 premiers of the AFL. Given the 2004 training etc that may well change. There are a number of reasons and none relate to a comparison of 1980 VFL v 1980 SANFL let alone a 1960 or a 1920 comparison.

I am not dismissing your calculations although I am not accepting them as gospel either but it is not the issue. If you want to make it the issue then fine but please clarify for me what your point is and how it is relevant so I can address it in context.

I understand how you and others feel about effectively losing your state competition but that has little to do with whether as a matter of fact the AFL is the former VFL or even how much one resembles the other.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
Don't doubt that for a minute but more talent is spread across more teams. I don't know if your numbers are more or less accurate than my made up, gut feel, wild guess. The point was simply that whether you or I are correct it is irrelevant. The issues was AFL 2004 v VFL (say 1980 as you used). Yes they are vastly different and no VFL team of that time could match an AFL team of today. Nor could any SANFL team of 1980 or any other time and I have doubts the 1980 SA state team could beat the 2003 premiers of the AFL. Given the 2004 training etc that may well change. There are a number of reasons and none relate to a comparison of 1980 VFL v 1980 SANFL let alone a 1960 or a 1920 comparison.

I am not dismissing your calculations although I am not accepting them as gospel either but it is not the issue. If you want to make it the issue then fine but please clarify for me what your point is and how it is relevant so I can address it in context.

I understand how you and others feel about effectively losing your state competition but that has little to do with whether as a matter of fact the AFL is the former VFL or even how much one resembles the other.

the numbers are not the point. You said:


Unless the non Victorian talent has increased by more than 1/3 then there is no difference in quality overall bar that which results from the advancement of time. If there is a greater increase then how much would it account for? It isn’t as cut and dried as you would like to make out.

it is cut and dried. The teams have increased but the talent has increased more. But more importantly Nathan Buckley did not replace the number one Collingwood player. He replaced the number 40 Collingwood player. Replicate that with 160 players spread across the 12 Victorian teams and the difference in the standard of the competition is huge. Not "Due to the advances of time" as you suggest but because the talent pool has changed.

I care about the SANFL but that is not the point. The SANFL was going to be 2nd rate anyway either through an expanded VFL or a True national comp. The point is that the VFL (1980) is fundamentally different from the AFL (2004) but not in the same way as the VFL (1980) was different from the VFL (1958). One is evolution, one is a fundmental change in the way football talent in Australia is organized.

 

[MarkT]

So you believe that there has been a greater than 1/3 increase in non Victorian players or that the whole point I made is irrelevant? Not sure exactly which or is it both?

As for evolution or whatever you want to call it of the VFL, I would assume (again just my gut feel) that in 1902 very few players came over from tassie and not nearly as many as later on came to Melbourne from the outlying regions, let alone Wagga and ACT etc. Later on the influx increased. The addition of larger number of ex SA and WA players was gradual and steady over time as the money got better. There is no doubt the introduction of a WA and SA team increased the influx as did the introduction of second teams from those states. Once upon a time Collingwood v Carlton meant predominantly blokes from those suburbs squaring off against each other but that was the century before the last. New teams were introduced from the VFA, teams were relocated/merged and new teams were set up based out of WA and then SA. It is all the same thing on a modern scale as opposed to a time when distance was a bigger obstacle and money wasn’t as much a factor in sport.

Getting back to what I was actually saying, or trying to say, it is a matter of fact that the AFL used to be called the VFL. It is a matter of opinion how relevant that is. It seems to me those who support clubs who have VFL history insist it is relevant and those that don't insist it isn't (by and large). The fact that an old team can’t beat a new team means absolutely nothing though and that was my point. The reason for my point was that this was the basis used to argue Port v Collingwood.


So what are we arguing about exactly? I must be a little slow today because I am losing the point of the argument.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
So you believe that there has been a greater than 1/3 increase in non Victorian players or that the whole point I made is irrelevant? Not sure exactly which or is it both?

As for evolution or whatever you want to call it of the VFL, I would assume (again just my gut feel) that in 1902 very few players came over from tassie and not nearly as many as later on came to Melbourne from the outlying regions, let alone Wagga and ACT etc. Later on the influx increased. The addition of larger number of ex SA and WA players was gradual and steady over time as the money got better. There is no doubt the introduction of a WA and SA team increased the influx as did the introduction of second teams from those states. Once upon a time Collingwood v Carlton meant predominantly blokes from those suburbs squaring off against each other but that was the century before the last. New teams were introduced from the VFA, teams were relocated/merged and new teams were set up based out of WA and then SA. It is all the same thing on a modern scale as opposed to a time when distance was a bigger obstacle and money wasn’t as much a factor in sport.

Getting back to what I was actually saying, or trying to say, it is a matter of fact that the AFL used to be called the VFL. It is a matter of opinion how relevant that is. It seems to me those who support clubs who have VFL history insist it is relevant and those that don't insist it isn't (by and large). The fact that an old team can’t beat a new team means absolutely nothing though and that was my point. The reason for my point was that this was the basis used to argue Port v Collingwood.


So what are we arguing about exactly? I must be a little slow today because I am losing the point of the argument.

for what it is worth....there has been a > 1/3rd increase in talent and therefore your whole point is invalid.

We don't disagree much. You think it is more of the same (change) and I think it is revolutionary....not emotionally just based on the talent now in the AFL which was not in the VFL.

The AFL is the VFL. It is the same competition...it has always evolved.

The VFL has always looked for new talent but I suspect that things were pretty stable from about 1925 onwards. If you were a kid in Victoria or the Riverina then you wanted to play for a VFL side.

What has happened now though is:

a) much bigger
b) much faster

than what has happened before. The VFL went from a catchment area of say 3.0M in 1980 to more than 5M in 1990. That is huge.

My opinion is that the change is large enough to warrant a separate set of records. NOT STOPPING THE VFL RECORDS....the records of the competition are the records of the competition....so not being revisionist. But that acknowleding achievements performed in a competition with undeniably every best footballer in the country is worth doing IMHO. A different topic I know.

 

[brentoncowell]

Im a pies man so of course i rate our club over Port. I despise the Port Adelaide Football club with great passion and think they are intensly rude, obnoxious and arrogant football club, the players, officials and supporters(majority,especially South Australia based).
I don't think the pies are the best club, though we are pretty freaking close, but we are better Port. Even if we arnt we are the real magpies and we wear black and white.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
What has happened now though is:

a) much bigger
b) much faster

I agree. I said it was the same thing but on a moder scale. To mean that is the same as bigger and faster. It's evolved evolution if you like. Is still a seperate point to what the discussion you quoted was about - or at least what it started being about. Hell I didn't even start off seriously anyway.

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
than what has happened before. The VFL went from a catchment area of say 3.0M in 1980 to more than 5M in 1990. That is huge.

FWIW that is 40% compered to me 33.3% so as huge as it is, it wouldn't represent much, if any, increase in the rate of SA/WA infiltration per player. It was always growing and the difference between 33.3 and 40 would have IMO beem made regardless of a national comp. bearing in ming there was an increasing draw from SA & WA.

Also FWIW I was trying to find Collingwood and Richmonds 1980 grand final teams on the net which I couldn't. It would be interesting to see how many were not from Victoria and compare with say Collingwood's 2003 grand final side. There may be more SA/WA players but I am not certain. Not that this would be conclusive of anything but I was just wonderring. I do recall that little pryk kicking 7 on a WA boy though.

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
My opinion is that the change is large enough to warrant a separate set of records. NOT STOPPING THE VFL RECORDS....the records of the competition are the records of the competition....so not being revisionist. But that acknowleding achievements performed in a competition with undeniably every best footballer in the country is worth doing IMHO. A different topic I know.

This is what I was referring to in an earlier post. I know what your opinion and agenda is and I knew where you were heading but it doesn't have anything to do with the original issue or the argument that was taking place at the time. As it happens I disagree with you but it's a discussion for a different over done deabate thread.

My opinion is that the AFL is "VFL plus". Some actually think it is "VFL minus" and I presume you believe it is just "AFL" with little to do with VFL anything. At the risk of insighting a riot from my perspective it is simply a question of the biggest game in town getting bigger in every respect.

 

[FuManchu]

How many AFL/VFL premierships have Port won?

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
I agree. I said it was the same thing but on a moder scale. To mean that is the same as bigger and faster. It's evolved evolution if you like. Is still a seperate point to what the discussion you quoted was about - or at least what it started being about. Hell I didn't even start off seriously anyway.
FWIW that is 40% compered to me 33.3% so as huge as it is, it wouldn't represent much, if any, increase in the rate of SA/WA infiltration per player. It was always growing and the difference between 33.3 and 40 would have IMO beem made regardless of a national comp. bearing in ming there was an increasing draw from SA & WA.

Also FWIW I was trying to find Collingwood and Richmonds 1980 grand final teams on the net which I couldn't. It would be interesting to see how many were not from Victoria and compare with say Collingwood's 2003 grand final side. There may be more SA/WA players but I am not certain. Not that this would be conclusive of anything but I was just wonderring. I do recall that little pryk kicking 7 on a WA boy though.
This is what I was referring to in an earlier post. I know what your opinion and agenda is and I knew where you were heading but it doesn't have anything to do with the original issue or the argument that was taking place at the time. As it happens I disagree with you but it's a discussion for a different over done deabate thread.

My opinion is that the AFL is "VFL plus". Some actually think it is "VFL minus" and I presume you believe it is just "AFL" with little to do with VFL anything. At the risk of insighting a riot from my perspective it is simply a question of the biggest game in town getting bigger in every respect.

Personally I see it as VFL+.

The ultimate difference is that the players who entered the Victorian clubs entered at all points on the list....but displaced Victorians only from the bottom of the list. To put it simply Buckley did not replace Rocca....he replaced Betheras. So the numbers (I still think an addional 150 or so from all states combined, had a disproportional impact on the talent in the competition.

It is still the VFL though.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by FuManchu
How many AFL/VFL premierships have Port won?

none. next question...

 

[andrew coombs]

I cant believe this thread is still going. We really do need the season the start dont we?

 

[FuManchu]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
none. next question...

No question, just a statement: when Port have accumulated more flags than Collingwood, in the nations best comp, then they can boast that they are better than Collingwood. (in answer to the original post) I don't expect to be alive by then anyway, so I wont hear any of it

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
Personally I see it as VFL+.

The ultimate difference is that the players who entered the Victorian clubs entered at all points on the list....but displaced Victorians only from the bottom of the list. To put it simply Buckley did not replace Rocca....he replaced Betheras. So the numbers (I still think an addional 150 or so from all states combined, had a disproportional impact on the talent in the competition.

It is still the VFL though.

I think we are done "debating" this thing and I'm not even sure how we got here now but is Buckley replacing Betheras or is he replacing Abbernathy, Phillips or even that bloke they paid 3 clubs not to draft - Garry Shaw?

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by andrew coombs
I cant believe this thread is still going. We really do need the season the start dont we?

Start a thread on Choco v Malthouse, Wanganeen v Burns or heaven forbid, Nick Stevens v Alan Didak and come back in a week.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Originally posted by Fullarton Power
Port Adelaide, as always. The official name that appeared on the official AFL fixture, ladder, etc etc. Port Power was only for marketing purposes.

I've always thought "Port Power"was a dumb name.Can anyone tell me where Port Power is?,i looked at most maps of Aus and cant find it.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Originally posted by Jumbo
Check your profile Sturt2002, you appear to have an allegiance towards the cows as well!

Is Sturt2002 a new identity for Suzi?.And on a different subject,i suppose Fullarton aint Woodville,or is that Woodburg?.

 

[captain ebert]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
I've always thought "Port Power"was a dumb name.Can anyone tell me where Port Power is?,i looked at most maps of Aus and cant find it.

it doesnt exist, stop wasting your time.


by the way, where is "essendon bombers"? sounds like a weird suburb.....

 

[captain ebert]

Originally posted by FuManchu
No question, just a statement: when Port have accumulated more flags than Collingwood, in the nations best comp, then they can boast that they are better than Collingwood. (in answer to the original post) I don't expect to be alive by then anyway, so I wont hear any of it

collingwood havent won any flags in the best comp, & neither have port.

i assume we both understand that the comp became its "best" the year port joined it....