Swans have ten premierships

[Dazzler9]

Interesting that the Swans treat their AFL flags as separate to their VFL flags. Different things, I guess?

MSN

 

[Underarm]

I think it makes sense. Flags won 90 years ago while your club is in another state with a different name and nickname are probably going to mean less to the club.

But not every club is going to have the same view on that, so if an official tally has to be made the best way is to make is objective. I.e count them all.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Not at all a new thing, and not at all complicated when there's transparency.



You don't need approval from the AFL to say "we've won 37 flags in the SANFL & AFL" if the words written on your cups/flags already say that.

 

[rapidfire7]

Good on them, but I believe they are selling themselves short and that those flags should be formally recognised in the club's premiership list by the AFL - just as Geelong's, Carlton's, Melbourne's, Collingwood's and Essendon's (etc.) extra flag/s should be.

I believe that all flags from 1870 should be counted. That is, all flags from the premier Australian Rules competition in the country at the time (sorry Port Adelaide), which contained the majority of the teams which then made up the VFL in 1897. What many people don't know is that these flags were in fact counted in each club's official totals up until about 1920, before the revisionists came along and essentially erased them from history. It's all unpacked in Colin Carter's book - 'Football's Forgotten Years'.

As we know, Carter has been pushing for history to be properly restored for some time now. Trying to correct what the revionists all but wiped out 100 years ago, and to properly honor the accomplishments of these great and pioneering teams of the past with the respect and recognition they deserve.

Clubs like Sydney, Carlton, Melbourne and Essendon should really get behind the push too and show solidarity with Carter and Geelong to make this important restoration of history come into fruition. Let's be honest, if Collingwood had more than 1 flag to gain, Eddie would be first in line kicking and screaming.

 

[Philhawk]

When you’ve won **** all last 100 years, I’m not surprised at the measures you’ll go to to bump your tally.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Swans short changing themselves. I count the Dogs as having 20 flags:


VFL/AFL (2)

• 1954
• 2016

Reserves (8)

• 1936
• 1945
• 1962
• 1988
• 1994
• 1998
• 2014
• 2016

VFA (9)

• 1898
• 1899
• 1900
• 1908
• 1913
• 1919
• 1920
• 1923
• 1924

AFLW (1)

• 2018

 

[rapidfire7]

Swans short changing themselves. I count the Dogs as having 20 flags:


VFL/AFL (2)

• 1954
• 2016

Reserves (8)

• 1936
• 1945
• 1962
• 1988
• 1994
• 1998
• 2014
• 2016

VFA (9)

• 1898
• 1899
• 1900
• 1908
• 1913
• 1919
• 1920
• 1923
• 1924

AFLW (1)

• 2018

You seriously don't get it. None of those flags warrant being counted. Read Carter's book, or at least look a bit deeper to understand the difference between the ones you have put forward and the Swan's ones in question.

 

[M Malice]

Lions have eleven Premierships.

 

[STPer18]

Colin Carter won.

 

[Colonial]

I think it makes sense. Flags won 90 years ago while your club is in another state with a different name and nickname are probably going to mean less to the club.

But not every club is going to have the same view on that, so if an official tally has to be made the best way is to make is objective. I.e count them all.

So Port should be able to count their state flags?

 

[Underarm]

So Port should be able to count their state flags?

Yes. And they do whenever anyone asks.

 

[Colonial]

Giants have won 1!

 

[Roobs321]

They should probably count their minor premierships. Lost the last six times they entered the GF as minor premier (1935-6, 1945, 1996, 2014, 2016).

 

[Leeda]

Bout... are they looking for "critical alliance reverse porno....graphies"
Rumbawamba...

 

[rapidfire7]

Lions have eleven Premierships.

They absolutely should be counted. Don't know why they are not. Brisbane is expected to take on Fitzroy's history without the glory. Seems like a bad deal

 

[RUNVS]

No we don't as only premierships from 1990 count.

Who gives a shit who won the premiership in a very amateur league in 1919 or whenever South Melbourne won a flag.

 

[sherb]

Good on them, but I believe they are selling themselves short and that those flags should be formally recognised in the club's premiership list by the AFL - just as Geelong's, Carlton's, Melbourne's, Collingwood's and Essendon's (etc.) extra flag/s should be.

I believe that all flags from 1870 should be counted. That is, all flags from the PREMIER Australian Rules competition in the country at the time (sorry Port Adelaide), which contained the majority of the teams which then made up the VFL in 1897. What many people don't know is that these flags were in fact counted in each club's official totals up until about 1920, before the revisionists came along and essentially erased them from history. It's all unpacked in Colin Carter's book - 'Football's Forgotten Years'.

As we know, Carter has been pushing for history to be properly restored for some time now. Trying to correct what the revionists all but wiped out 100 years ago, and to properly honor the accomplishments of these great and pioneering teams of the past with the respect and recognition they deserve.

Clubs like Sydney, Carlton, Melbourne and Essendon should really get behind the push too and show solidarity with Carter and Geelong to make this important restoration of history come into fruition. Let's be honest, if Collingwood had more than 1 flag to gain, Eddie would be first in line kicking and screaming.

Ideally, a club should recognize all flags it has won - across all competitions. But if it chooses not to, or chooses to give different flags different weightings, that's fine too. It's the club's history, it can record it however it sees fit.

A competition/league should be recognizing all flags won in that competition. That's it. It shouldn't be acknowledging flags won elsewhere.

So as things currently stand, the AFL has got it right. The current competition started in 1897, so flags won since then are acknowledged. Flags won outside the VFL/AFL competition (in this case pre-1897) do not belong in VFL/AFL records - they belong in the club records.

 

[RUNVS]

Ideally, a club should recognize all flags it has won - across all competitions. But if it chooses not to, or chooses to give different flags different weightings, that's fine too. It's the club's history, it can record it however it sees fit.

A competition/league should be recognizing all flags won in that competition. That's it. It shouldn't be acknowledging flags won elsewhere.

So as things currently stand, the AFL has got it right. The current competition started in 1897, so flags won since then are acknowledged. Flags won outside the VFL/AFL competition (in this case pre-1897) do not belong in VFL/AFL records - they belong in the club records.

I would say though that the completely amateur competition, which it was for a very long time has nothing to do with the modern game.

I doubt winning the flag would have even been that big a deal to a lot of the players a century ago. They still fronted up to work the next day.

 

[sherb]

No we don't as only premierships from 1990 count.

Who gives a s**t who won the premiership in a very amateur league in 1919 or whenever South Melbourne won a flag.

It's how recording the history of sporting leagues or competitions works though. Achievements from back in the day still count, and are given equal weighting, despite the nature or quality of the competition changing.

It's why Test cricket records go back to 1877. Or Wimbledon records back to (coincidentally) 1877 as well. Or the modern Olympics back to 1896. And so on.

 

[sherb]

I would say though that the completely amateur competition, which it was for a very long time has nothing to do with the modern game.

I doubt winning the flag would have even been that big a deal to a lot of the players a century ago. They still fronted up to work the next day.

See my subsequent post.

 

[Leeda]

Are we throttling the diff when we also say that we cannonise a person or club or
sending a dearly beloved club/team into categorical sensitivity...reaching the finish line is holy mannah

 

[Underarm]

I would say though that the completely amateur competition, which it was for a very long time has nothing to do with the modern game.

I doubt winning the flag would have even been that big a deal to a lot of the players a century ago. They still fronted up to work the next daday

AFL was a officially a professional competition from 1911.

 

[RUNVS]

It's how recording the history of sporting leagues or competitions works though. Achievements from back in the day still count, and are given equal weighting, despite the nature or quality of the competition changing.

It's why Test cricket records go back to 1877. Or Wimbledon records back to (coincidentally) 1877 as well. Or the modern Olympics back to 1896. And so on.

Test cricket paid all their players a lot earlier than the AFL did though. They had squads go on boat all the way to the UK, which back before planes was a lengthy operation.

 

[RUNVS]

AFL was a officially a professional competition from 1911.

I think for me "professional" means all players are paid and don't need to work other jobs to make ends meet.

 

[the harry]

Sure is a big fall from grace for such a successful club when they can't get it done in September anymore