Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[Demonic Ascent]

A premiership is a premiership. Even though the VFL was a different league in 1897 to what the VFA was in 1896. The VFA prior to 1896 was the highest level of competition in Victoria. After 1897, through to 1990, it could be argued all the best players in Victoria didn't necessarily have a desire to play in the VFL, with an option to play in the high quality VFA, let alone the best players around Australia. Yes, the VFL was the strongest competition in the country, but it was nothing to what the AFL would become in 1990 and beyond, when football became professional, there was a team in every major city in Australia and every kid in the country had a desire to play AFL.

So regardless of the behind the scenes administration:

1896 and prior VFA equals or was higher standing than 1897-1986 VFL, when Victoria had two main competitions
1986 VFL made a huge leap to 1987 VFL which made another huge leap to 1991 AFL when all the main cities in the country had an AFL team

So the merging of VFL/AFL is cheapening the flags won more so than counting the VFA flags prior to 1897.

The best way is to count your VFA flags, count your VFL flags, count your SANFL flags and separately, count your AFL flags. Any premierships and awards won since 1990 are higher standing than the same named awards won prior. Just like the Magarey Medal these days, whilst still called the Magarey Medal, is not the prestige it was prior to 1990 in South Australia, when that competition was much stronger.

Almost every year, prior to 1990, there were State Carnivals and games. Victoria even had the VFL represented and the VFA. Look here to see the best players in Australia. There were also Champion of Australia matches between teams, not always won by the VFL. The AFL is without doubt where all roads lead to these days, and has been since the 1990's, but that wasn't always the case, despite what we always hear.

The VFL and the AFL are the same competition. The record books of the competition date back to 1897, that's why those premierships are recognised in the premiership tally and premierships won in other competitions are not. Arguing the merits or otherwise of those achievements in other competitions is irrelevant.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

The VFL and the AFL are the same competition. The record books of the competition date back to 1897, that's why those premierships are recognised in the premiership tally and premierships won in other competitions are not. Arguing the merits or otherwise of those achievements in other competitions is irrelevant.

But they are qualitatively not the same competition. Yes, yes, I have heard the infantile arguments that have been repeated ad nauseam across the thread, which is basically just the is/ought fallacy.

One was a state amateur competition. One is a professional national competition. And they changed the name to reflect this. Just because a national competition evolves as the administration of the dominant state consolidates the other states over time, doesn't mean a national competition is the same as a state competition.

The early VFL did not contain all the recognised top talent in the country - it was dispersed throughout multiple state leagues and even divided within its own state. AFL contains ALL the recognised top talent. VFL players were amateurs. AFL players became professionals.

These are two massive differences which make the fixation on any technical continuity laughable.

There's nothing illogical at all about separating state titles from national titles. The only point of contention is when you do it. And the change from VFL to AFL provides the most logical basis.

The one thing the people who are terrified of change are right about is that all it comes down is that the AFL has the power to decide to define it however it likes. And so if they did decide to change it, separating AFL from VFL flags, incorporating VFA flags etc., you would also have to accept it and also accept that there is nothing inherently 'objective' about your simplistic arguments.

So you defending the current status quo doesn't make your argument superior. The status quo is simply a choice that can and should be changed.

 

[Grin]

Geelong has been one of, if not the most professionally and best run club this century. Despite it's sustained extraordinary success, they cannot seem to shake their culture of insecurity and small man syndrome. It seems really ingrained and there's no self awareness. Any other club supporters would be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for Colin Carter and Geelong supporters.

 

[Grin]

There's nothing illogical at all about separating state titles from national titles. The only point of contention is when you do it. And the change from VFL to AFL provides the most logical basis.

Count AFL flags from 1990 sounds reasonable

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Count AFL flags from 1990 sounds reasonable

But West Coast and Brisbane entered in 1987, and South Melbourne’s relocation to Sydney began in 1982?

 

[Grin]

Flags since 1990:
5. Hawthorn.
4. Brisbane. Geelong. West Coast.
3. Collingwood. Richmond.
2. Adelaide. Essendon. North Melbourne. Sydney.
1. Carlton. Port Adelaide. Western Bulldogs. Melbourne
0. Fremantle. Gold Coast. GWS. St Kilda.

 

[Grin]

But West Coast and Brisbane entered in 1987, and South Melbourne’s relocation to Sydney began in 1982?

1990's when the name changed

 

[rapidfire7]

Geelong has been one of, if not the most professionally and best run club this century. Despite it's sustained extraordinary success, they cannot seem to shake their culture of insecurity and small man syndrome. It seems really ingrained and there's no self awareness. Any other club supporters would be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for Colin Carter and Geelong supporters.

The real insecurity seems to be with those who all but have a meltdown / go on the attack at the mere thought of their club dropping a couple of places in the Premiership table.

I really feel sorry for such people . At the end of the day, it's just a game.



*The above table is up to date as of the end of 2022 and based upon the work and analysis of revered Australian football historian - Colin Carter.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

But West Coast and Brisbane entered in 1987, and South Melbourne’s relocation to Sydney began in 1982?

And Adelaide didn't join until 1991, so there was still one of the major states missing.

Of course we can twist ourselves into knots like a bunch of nuffies overthinking it.

Or we can just accept 1990 was when the league formally recognised it was a national competition, not a Victorian competition, and changed its name, thus making it the blatantly obvious point at which to make the distinction.

Whatever the case, it will be far, far less stupid than pretending divided state league amateur flags should be counted the same as national league professional flags.

 

[PhatBoy]

Geelong has been one of, if not the most professionally and best run club this century. Despite it's sustained extraordinary success, they cannot seem to shake their culture of insecurity and small man syndrome. It seems really ingrained and there's no self awareness. Any other club supporters would be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for Colin Carter and Geelong supporters.

‘their’?

Sorry who the f**k are you talking about?

Colin Carter is a former club president.

He’s no more a representative of us than you are of Richmond.

He has a right to speak his mind, he can speak his case and at the time he was president he perhaps had a right to believe he spoke it on behalf of his club but I don’t agree with him and while I’m sure many cats fans like needling other people about it I don’t believe the vast majority would subscribe to his theory either.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Count AFL flags from 1990 sounds reasonable

VFA pre-VFL is only a relevant discussion point if we get into ridiculous arguments about historical continuity based on technicalities.

We can instead put all that nonsense aside, accept that a professional national competition with a monopoly on top talent is a different thing from amateur state leagues where top talent is dispersed, and then let teams count these historical divided amateur state league flags however they like.

This would be actually properly preserving history, because it wouldn't allow state amateur teams to falsely claim equivalence to national professional flags while others can't, even though none had a monopoly on top national talent. It allow them all to respect their own state flags without distorting history.

 

[peetoo]

2030 is 40 years since 1990 and the league will be on its way to having 20 teams, only 10 remaining in Victoria

Surely by then it’s time to draw a line under the name change and only celebrate the 40 premierships since, of which at least 11 have gone to teams outside victoria.(and another 4 with some ‘ownership’ in Tasmania)

EPL has been wrongly quoted as a pro argument, but they officially do not record anything prior to that, but the nature of the competition has changed much less than AFL.

 

[Grin]

‘their’?

Sorry who the f**k are you talking about?

Colin Carter is a former club president.

He’s no more a representative of us than you are of Richmond.

He has a right to speak his mind, he can speak his case and at the time he was president he perhaps had a right to believe he spoke it on behalf of his club but I don’t agree with him and while I’m sure many cats fans like needling other people about it I don’t believe the vast majority would subscribe to his theory either.

Ahhh, so it's not a display of embarrassing insecurity. It's disingenuous tongue in cheek. A bit of ribbing.
Fair enough. Good one

 

[rapidfire7]

EPL has been wrongly quoted as a pro argument, but they officially do not record anything prior to that, but the nature of the competition has changed much less than AFL.

Yea, but titles won before the formation of the Premier League are still recognised as League Titles won in English football.

English foorball doesn't mock or undermine the achievements of those from yesteryear and claim that they are somehow less significant. They incorporate and celebrate them.

 

[peetoo]

Yea, but titles won before the formation of the Premier League are still recognised as League Titles won in English football.

English foorball doesn't mock or undermine the achievements of those from yesteryear and claim that they are somehow less significant. They incorporate and celebrate them.

View attachment 2133169

‘Australian football’ records all the titles in all state leagues and the currently accepted national AFL

Hall of fame recognises them. But the argument is AFL official premiers should be just that

 

[Dazzler9]

The early VFL did not contain all the recognised top talent in the country - it was dispersed throughout multiple state leagues and even divided within its own state. AFL contains ALL the recognised top talent. VFL players were amateurs. AFL players became professionals.

These are two massive differences which make the fixation on any technical continuity laughable.

There's nothing illogical at all about separating state titles from national titles. The only point of contention is when you do it. And the change from VFL to AFL provides the most logical basis.

This is the whole crux of the argument for mine. Up until the comp evolved into the AFL, there was no single, top tier league. Talent was spread across the country.

By the early 90s this had changed. The AFL came into being and from that point on it was the sole league that top players aspired to.

So, clubs can rightly be proud of their total number of flags, VFL, AFL VFA, whatever. But the only tally for comparison purposes is national era AFL flags.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

But they are qualitatively not the same competition. Yes, yes, I have heard the infantile arguments that have been repeated ad nauseam across the thread, which is basically just the is/ought fallacy.

One was a state amateur competition. One is a professional national competition. And they changed the name to reflect this. Just because a national competition evolves as the administration of the dominant state consolidates the other states over time, doesn't mean a national competition is the same as a state competition.

The early VFL did not contain all the recognised top talent in the country - it was dispersed throughout multiple state leagues and even divided within its own state. AFL contains ALL the recognised top talent. VFL players were amateurs. AFL players became professionals.

These are two massive differences which make the fixation on any technical continuity laughable.

There's nothing illogical at all about separating state titles from national titles. The only point of contention is when you do it. And the change from VFL to AFL provides the most logical basis.

The one thing the people who are terrified of change are right about is that all it comes down is that the AFL has the power to decide to define it however it likes. And so if they did decide to change it, separating AFL from VFL flags, incorporating VFA flags etc., you would also have to accept it and also accept that there is nothing inherently 'objective' about your simplistic arguments.

So you defending the current status quo doesn't make your argument superior. The status quo is simply a choice that can and should be changed.

None of that is relevant. It is the same competition. The competition began in 1897 and continues to this day. Arguing the merits of the 1916 flag vs the flag won in 2024 is a completely different discussion and not relevant to the record books of the premier of the competition.

It's not about which argument is superior, it is about what is historical fact. The fact is the competition began in 1897 and the premiership tally records the premiers of the competition commencing at that time.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ahhh, so it's not a display of embarrassing insecurity. It's disingenuous tongue in cheek. A bit of ribbing.
Fair enough. Good one

Again, is the Colin Carter or the person who created this thread, or the cats poster who has been doing most of the posting in the last few days, EVERY cats fan? Yes or no? It’s not a hard question to answer.

Is Cleansweep every tigers fan?

If he is, then mate you’d best get yourself to a spinal surgeon because you are an excuse making weak, whinging, footy fan who can’t accept when a side not called Richmond has any success.

See? I can do it too.

Fact is, it’s one man’s opinion and he’s entitled to it. I don’t agree with it, they were titles that took place 110 years before I was born in a different competition and I couldn’t give a shit.

So I am not ‘cats fans wanting titles to be awarded to bump up their number,’ am I.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

And Adelaide didn't join until 1991, so there was still one of the major states missing.

Of course we can twist ourselves into knots like a bunch of nuffies overthinking it.

Or we can just accept 1990 was when the league formally recognised it was a national competition, not a Victorian competition, and changed its name, thus making it the blatantly obvious point at which to make the distinction.

Whatever the case, it will be far, far less stupid than pretending divided state league amateur flags should be counted the same as national league professional flags.

Whether it was state, national, international, local - none of that is relevant. The competition that is now called the AFL commenced in 1897 and that's why the record books count all records dating back to that time. It's not solely about premierships, though that is the one people get hung up on. It's also about games played, Coleman medals, Brownlow medal etc - the competition recognises all records dating back to 1897 which is exactly what it should do because those are the records of the competition.

Supporters can argue the merits or otherwise of those records or place arbitrary distinctions as to whether a Coleman/Brownlow/Premiership won in 1989 should not be counted but as the records of the competition they stand. Nothing before 1897 is relevant to the VFL/AFL records and nothing won outside the VFL/AFL is relevant either. Placing arbitrary cutoffs or subjectively applied criteria as to what is a "real" achievement is irrelevant as well, might be interesting for pub talk and talkback callers but the records of the competition won't change.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

VFA pre-VFL is only a relevant discussion point if we get into ridiculous arguments about historical continuity based on technicalities.

We can instead put all that nonsense aside, accept that a professional national competition with a monopoly on top talent is a different thing from amateur state leagues where top talent is dispersed, and then let teams count these historical divided amateur state league flags however they like.

This would be actually properly preserving history, because it wouldn't allow state amateur teams to falsely claim equivalence to national professional flags while others can't, even though none had a monopoly on top national talent. It allow them all to respect their own state flags without distorting history.

Clubs can celebrate their own achievements won in different competitions, in fact they should. It is part of their club history.

But the history of the VFL/AFL commences when the competition started in 1897. Whether you think those records should count or not because of subjective criteria you place on it is irrelevant to the record keeping of the competition. Competition records will always show Essendon as the initial premiers of the comp in 1897, that will never change.

 

[Grin]

Again, is the Colin Carter or the person who created this thread, or the cats poster who has been doing most of the posting in the last few days, EVERY cats fan? Yes or no? It’s not a hard question to answer.

Is Cleansweep every tigers fan?

If he is, then mate you’d best get yourself to a spinal surgeon because you are an excuse making weak, whinging, footy fan who can’t accept when a side not called Richmond has any success.

See? I can do it too.

Fact is, it’s one man’s opinion and he’s entitled to it. I don’t agree with it, they were titles that took place 110 years before I was born in a different competition and I couldn’t give a shit.

So I am not ‘cats fans wanting titles to be awarded to bump up their number,’ am I.

Wow! You're really angry about this. I can't even follow your rant. Somehow without any intention, I've really ****ed with your mind. Are you hungover?

Anyway, your overly sensitive and furious response just adds evidence to my point about the Cats ingrained culture of deep insecurity.

 

[Roylion]

Whether it was state, national, international, local - none of that is relevant. The competition that is now called the AFL commenced in 1897 and that's why the record books count all records dating back to that time. It's not solely about premierships, though that is the one people get hung up on. It's also about games played, Coleman medals, Brownlow medal etc - the competition recognises all records dating back to 1897 which is exactly what it should do because those are the records of the competition.

Exactly.

The Coleman Medal to the highest goalkicker in the VFL-AFL has been awarded since 1981. In September 2001, the AFL decided to recognise all leading goalkickers prior to 1981 back until 1955 - the year after John Coleman's last match in the VFL - as Coleman Medallists.

The Brownlow medal to the best and fairest player in the VFL-AFL competition has been awarded since 1924.

The Norm Smith Medal has been awarded to the best player in the VFL-AFL competition since 1979.

A new club joining an existing competition (from whatever geographical region) does not in itself make a new competition.

 

[PhatBoy]

Wow! You're really angry about this. I can't even follow your rant. Somehow without any intention, I've really ****ed with your mind. Are you hungover?

Anyway, your overly sensitive and furious response just adds evidence to my point about the Cats ingrained culture of deep insecurity.

Ok mate.

You got me.

I’m every cats fan and although I don’t agree we should have these titles added to our tally, we should have these titles added to our tally.

Stand rule.

 

[Grin]

Ok mate.

You got me.

I’m every cats fan and although I don’t agree we should have these titles added to our tally, we should have these titles added to our tally.

Stand rule.

It was only a generalisation. Of course not every Cats fan is insecure. This push just reeks of it. If you say it's only a fairly small minority, I accept it. I didn't mean to annoy you. I find you a solid poster. Sorry if my post offended you.

 

[rapidfire7]

‘Australian football’ records all the titles in all state leagues and the currently accepted national AFL

Hall of fame recognises them. But the argument is AFL official premiers should be just that

The VFA was the Premier comp of the day and was made up of all the teams (plus a few others) who would make up the VFL the following season.

In this regard, you can't say that the VFA was just another state league at the time like the SANFL, which was obviously made up of entirely different teams.

The VFL was born out of the old VFA, which then became the new Premier comp. This is Col's main argument in all of this, which I obviously agree with.