Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[Goggin Our Best]

The difference is that, unlike the logic used by Colin Carter, Dogs fans are not trying to represent that Essendon didn't win the 1924 VFL/AFL Premiership, however you want to interpret the meaning of a subsequent game.

We understand that Essendon were clearly the premier team of the 1924 VFL season.

There was no premier team of the 1896 VFL season, because it did not exist.

I wasnt saying that the VFA Flags should be counted

I just thought what i posted was interesting in the fact that in 1924 the VFA Premier defeated the VFL Premier in a play off game

Where as you could fast forward to say the early 1970s when the VFA comp was quite reasonble however a VFL Premier at that time would beat the VFA Premier by about 15 goals , flog them

Thus probably from the 1920s and going back from their its pretty mushy as to who were the champion teams

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I wasnt saying that the VFA Flags should be counted

I just thought what i posted was interesting in the fact that in 1924 the VFA Premier defeated the VFL Premier in a play off game

Where as you could fast forward to say the early 1970s when the VFA comp was quite reasonble however a VFL Premier at that time would beat the VFA Premier by about 15 goals , flog them

Thus probably from the 1920s and going back from their its pretty mushy as to who were the champion teams

Yeah, there's lots of interesting nuggets of footy history that get lost if you just view footy history through the eyes of just the VFL/AFL competition alone.

For example Port Adelaide won the 1914 SANFL flag undefeated, then defeated the rest of the competition put together in a team, then defeated Carlton, the VFL premiers of that season.

It's recognised by Port fans but it can be argued it's not recognised in the wider football context.

It's inarguable that the Australian Football Hall of Fame has a clear both Victorian and post-TV, mid 50's bias and doesn't do a very good job of what it's meant to do. It is an Australian Football Hall of Fame, not an VFL/AFL Hall of Fame.

Broadly speaking I can empathise and agree with Carter on the broad view that footy history, even in the context of wanting to examine the highest-quality Victorian or Australian football in a given point in time, is too often reduced to a competition that specifically began in 1897. Games like the Footscray vs. Essendon game, the Port Adelaide vs. Carlton game, or interstate carnival fixtures (which are forgotten in history but were big deals at the time, a mini world-cup of sorts for footy) are all interesting and bigger deals but forgotten.

Carter's book "Football's forgotten heroes" is a good title.
His subtitle "reclaiming the AFL competition's earliest years - 1870 to 1896" is an incredibly bad and flawed one.

There's no competition to reclaim. That competition still has a history that lasts to this day. Teams such as Port Melbourne and Williamston played in that competition in that period and now play in the same, evolved competition in 2024.

 

[peetoo]

Indeed given the increasingly difficult situation being in the 2.5 level competition, Port Melbourne Williamstown and a couple of other are to be admired

 

[Seedsfan]

The league started in 1897 so nothing before that is part of the league’s history. The AFL was only a name change not the start of a completely seperate league so there is no difference between 1989 and 1990 whereas there is a difference between 1896 and 1897.

Furthermore, it’s up to all the individual clubs how they honour their own history. It’s my belief that every premiership won is worthy of celebration. We tend to have a recency bias yet with the slow marching of time all the premierships we give more weight will become as relevant as the ones won 100 years ago

 

[rapidfire7]

Exactly. The top level of English Soccer is regarded and categorized as the same, and when Manchester United were closing in (and passed) Liverpool's record of 18 titles, much was made of it. All that really happened was that top tier broke away from the football league in an official sense but this had no impact on promotion/relegation, or the fact that it remained the top tier.

You know the funny thing also? The League Cup (not to be confused with the FA Cup) is the Cup competition played amongst the professional top-4 leagues of English Football. It is called the league cup because it comprises teams from the football league. Yet when the Premier League began, the top tier had broken away from the Football League, so theoretically the top tier shouldn't be in it. Yet the fact that the top-tier still compete in the League Cup (even though they're not part of the League), shows everyone really just treats the top tier the same way they treated it prior to 1992

List of English football champions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You speak an awful lot of sense mate. Truly.

Congrats on the 20 flags BTW and being the first side to win 4 flags in a row.

Essendon was always a team which I admired and envied growing up in the 90s (and still do today if I'm honest). Just going through a very rough patch in your history right now, which every club has obviously had at some point.

A bit off topic maybe, but I have never underestimated the effect of Bomber Thompson and the 'Essendon effect' on shaping the successful Geelong culture of today.

Essentially, changing Geelong's often high performing, yet mentally soft culture to one of high resilience and that knew how to win Premierships.

 

[HairyO]

The league started in 1897 so nothing before that is part of the league’s history. The AFL was only a name change not the start of a completely seperate league so there is no difference between 1989 and 1990 whereas there is a difference between 1896 and 1897.

Furthermore, it’s up to all the individual clubs how they honour their own history. It’s my belief that every premiership won is worthy of celebration. We tend to have a recency bias yet with the slow marching of time all the premierships we give more weight will become as relevant as the ones won 100 years ago

All true, but could shorten it to: Geelong should just get over their minnow status. Noone cares about their non-VFL flags from 150 years ago.

 

[rapidfire7]

Noone cares about their non-VFL flags from 150 years ago.

No one cares? Obviously they do, or it would not be such a touchy subject and people would not object so much to them being formally added to our Premiership tally.

If you don't care about them, let us add them. You could still choose to not count them if you wished.

 

[HairyO]

No one cares? Obviously they do, or it would not be such a touchy subject and people would not object so much to them being formally added to our Premiership tally.

If you don't care about them, let us add them. You could still choose to not count them if you wished

Oh people would care if your flags from before the VFL even existed were included. Noone cares about the 1870s.

That is my point.

Even the flags Collingwood won in the 1920s are bullshit. The rules then were a farce.

 

[rapidfire7]

Even the flags Collingwood won in the 1920s are bullshit. The rules then were a farce.

When should we start counting flags as legit then? 1961?

 

[HairyO]

When should we start counting flags as legit then? 1961?

Flags before then were legit. But during the late 1920s the VFL brought in a bunch of incredibly dumb rules designed to benefit the top teams, which were then removed because they were terrible.

Collingwood lost a grand final then were allowed to challenge and play it again. You think that seems legit?

 

[Seedsfan]

Flags before then were legit. But during the late 1920s the VFL brought in a bunch of incredibly dumb rules designed to benefit the top teams, which were then removed because they were terrible.

Collingwood lost a grand final then were allowed to challenge and play it again. You think that seems legit?

They used the double chance that 1 in 12 teams could earn.

Hawthorn finished 3rd in 15 lost to West Coast and was able to use a double chance to win the flag against West Coast. It could be argued that this is unfair and not a legit way to win. Yet it was the rules of the day

 

[HairyO]

They used the double chance that 1 in 12 teams could earn.

Hawthorn finished 3rd in 15 lost to West Coast and was able to use a double chance to win the flag against West Coast. It could be argued that this is unfair and not a legit way to win. Yet it was the rules of the day

It was a double chance after losing the grand final.

Would you be okay if it was brought back in? Afterall, apparently its no different to the double chance teams (now in the top 4) earn and has been around for many decades now.

 

[rapidfire7]

Flags before then were legit. But during the late 1920s the VFL brought in a bunch of incredibly dumb rules designed to benefit the top teams, which were then removed because they were terrible.

Collingwood lost a grand final then were allowed to challenge and play it again. You think that seems legit?

There were quite a few Premierships won via the challenge system in the early days.

Those were the rules of rhe day which were the same for all clubs.

It wasn't something which was only of benefit to Collingwood or other top clubs.

 

[peetoo]

When should we start counting flags as legit then? 1961?

Color TV?

 

[peetoo]

Flags before then were legit. But during the late 1920s the VFL brought in a bunch of incredibly dumb rules designed to benefit the top teams, which were then removed because they were terrible.

Collingwood lost a grand final then were allowed to challenge and play it again. You think that seems legit?

Didn’t they drop that system cos clubs were tanking for betting dosh then challenging to win anyway?

 

[Convocation]

No issues with counting all flags in your history, but when talking about flags they need to be differentiated based on the league not joint e.g.

Carlton have won 22 flags
6 VFA Premierships
15 VFL Premierships
1 AFL Premiership

Port Adelaide have won 36 flags
35 SANFL Premierships
1 AFL Premiership

 

[Sttew]

The simple and IMO uncontroversial solution is to allow clubs that came from the original VFA to officially record their premierships as follows:

Team A
VFA X premierships
VFL Y
AFL Z

This way VFA success CANNOT be used to skew VFL/AFL success, but we still recognise the history of the club. And I think there is a significant distinction between recognising VFA premierships and SANFL / WAFL premierships. The VFL was borne out of the VFA when a group of disaffected clubs broke away, so there is the direct link.

 

[Seedsfan]

It was a double chance after losing the grand final.

Would you be okay if it was brought back in? Afterall, apparently it’s no different to the double chance teams (now in the top 4) earn and has been around for many decades now.

They never lost that grand final, they lost the semi, knowing due to being the minor premiers they would have the right to challenge the winners of the week 3 final for the premiership in a grand final.

Back then 1 of 12 or 8.33% of the comp got a double chance as opposed to 25% when Brisbane used the double chance in 03 or 22.22% when Hawthorn did it in 15

 

[Seedsfan]

No issues with counting all flags in your history, but when talking about flags they need to be differentiated based on the league not joint e.g.

Carlton have won 22 flags
6 VFA Premierships
15 VFL Premierships
1 AFL Premiership

Port Adelaide have won 36 flags
35 SANFL Premierships
1 AFL Premiership

100% this, yet the history of the league and the clubs are separate

 

[Seedsfan]

The simple and IMO uncontroversial solution is to allow clubs that came from the original VFA to officially record their premierships as follows:

Team A
VFA X premierships
VFL Y
AFL Z

This way VFA success CANNOT be used to skew VFL/AFL success, but we still recognise the history of the club. And I think there is a significant distinction between recognising VFA premierships and SANFL / WAFL premierships. The VFL was borne out of the VFA when a group of disaffected clubs broke away, so there is the direct link.

Clubs are allowed to acknowledge and celebrate their VFA success. There is nothing to say they can’t

 

[Sttew]

Clubs are allowed to acknowledge and celebrate their VFA success. There is nothing to say they can’t

But officially. I'm not sure why the VFL doesn't officially recognise the VFA success of those clubs who broke away to form the VFL. If that had never happened, there would probably never have been a VFL

 

[Seedsfan]

But officially. I'm not sure why the VFL doesn't officially recognise the VFA success of those clubs who broke away to form the VFL. If that had never happened, there would probably never have been a VFL

Because the VFL acknowledges the history of the Victorian Football League. It’s not hard.

When a local club moves comps do they take down the old premiership flags from the club rooms and piss the old trophies off out of the cabinet? No but do they count as part of the history of the league they joined or created? No.

 

[Sttew]

Because the VFL acknowledges the history of the Victorian Football League. It’s not hard.

When a local club moves comps do they take down the old premiership flags from the club rooms and piss the old trophies off out of the cabinet? No but do they count as part of the history of the league they joined or created? No.

We differ. We aren't talking about a club moving from one league to another, as frequently happens in regional leagues. We are talking about 8 of 13 clubs breaking away from the VFA to form a new competition called the VFL in 1896.

 

[rapidfire7]

The simple and IMO uncontroversial solution is to allow clubs that came from the original VFA to officially record their premierships as follows:

Team A
VFA X premierships
VFL Y
AFL Z

This way VFA success CANNOT be used to skew VFL/AFL success, but we still recognise the history of the club. And I think there is a significant distinction between recognising VFA premierships and SANFL / WAFL premierships. The VFL was borne out of the VFA when a group of disaffected clubs broke away, so there is the direct link.

This is exactly what Col is arguing for.

He does not want old VFA Premierships to be called VFL or AFL Premierships per se.

He just wants those VFA Premierships to be acknowledged in their equivalence to VFL/AFL Premierships (as they were won in the Premier competition of the day with most of the same teams), and thus, allow them to be counted as such in clubs official tallies.

I went to Col's book talk a couple of months ago and he made this point unequivocally.

He argues for a clear distinction between the eras, but also argues that none of the 3 eras is any less relevant or less important than any other.

 

[Seedsfan]

We differ. We aren't talking about a club moving from one league to another, as frequently happens in regional leagues. We are talking about 8 of 13 clubs breaking away from the VFA to form a new competition called the VFL in 1896.

They formed a new league whose history is not tied to the VFA.

Also 11 years of the VFA the premiership was decided by the press and only two years did they have a GF. The VFA also started in 1877 not 1870