VFL Premierships......

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's


The only point I can see to this pedantic exercise is that it allays fears that the interstate clubs will compare unfavourably to the more successful VFL clubs when a novice fan takes a quick glimpse at the history books and forms an opinion accordingly.

I disagree. I am not realy interested in trying to glorify Port's history...it is what it is. What concerns me is that if you walk into any schoolyard in Melbourne, or Adelaide for that matter , and ask 2 questions:

1. When was the Port Adelaide Football Club Formed ?

2. How many premierships have they won ?

You will get the predictable answer. It is not about glorifying our history, or an inferiority complex...it is a real fear that as the AFL history is now equated to the code's history Port's history is lost altogether....not to mention Woodville's....not gloryfied, not inferior....lost.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
yes, but being a South Australian I have the unfair advantage of being able to read and write of course....more skillful you see. You spent all your primary school days running in the mud.

Maybe but then you needed every advantage to even come close to matching my god given talent. As I said you made a pretty good fist of it .... most of the time. It was only natural that your quality would drop off from time to time. Such a good honest toiler, proud to have you with us so you can learn the skills to compete in the big time.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
I honestly don't think Victorians think of AFL records as anything more than the records of that competition. Of course they generally regard that competition as superior (rightly or wrongly) but that's another debate, although I feel as though that it is that belief or attitude which drives this type of debate.

I think if you sat where I do, you would hear it differently. Every time language such as, "The Greatest/Longest/Highest/ EVER is used I cringe. Kids in Adelaide will grow up thinking that the greatest player of all time was Ted Whitten ...why ? Because that is all that is fed to them....and there is no alternative....everytime we even mention 34 premierships the response is "Different Competition"..."your records don't count"...well they do count...they count in a context....but they count nonetheless. If the history of Australian football becomes the history of the VFL then we all lose.

 

[Roylion]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Between the two years 1989 & 1990 there wasn't much different, as you say.

So when does the AFL competition begin? Surely not on the basis of a one word change to the name of the competition? On that basis the the Kangaroos can't count their premierships from 1996 and 1999. Weren't they known as North Melbourne at that stage and not as the Kangaroos. Hasn't their decision to play in Canberra and Sydney and attempt to portray themselves as a national club, changed their scope as a club. Shouldn't the AFL portray the records of that club as the 3 premierships to North Melbourrne and 1 to the Kangaroos.

Originally posted by ok.crows
Over the whole period as the AFL evolved out of the VFL, the change from the start to the end was dramatic. The whole scope was changed. The most important aspect of that change in scope was that a club like Collingwood can today pick players from all over Australia, whereas in VFL days (nominally anyway) they were constrained to one small suburb of Melboure. That is a dramatic difference in the scope of the club & the competition it played in.

But so what! The VFA has changed its scope as well, expanding interstate with teams in NSW (the former Murray Kangaroos) and Tasmania. Should they report their clubs premiership as x VFA premierships and x VFL premierships. Seems unncessary and unwieldy to me.

Originally posted by ok.crows
You betcha. They now draft players from all over Australia. When they played in SANFL, they had bugger all chance of getting a young kid from Victoria.

So you are telling me that Port Adelaide is a NEW club. I don't think that is the case. I'm reliably informed that legally the Port Adelaide Football Club in the AFL is exactly the same entity as the Port Adelaide Football Club in the SANFL. If it's not, why are we having this argument? In that case the current Port Adelaide Football Club in the AFL never competed in the SANFL, so your argument is moot.

Originally posted by ok.crows
The numbers of teams isn't that significant. The scope of the teams that are involved is however significantly different.

So any competition that expands it's scope or it's scale is a new competition is it? Surely to follow that logic, all clubs that expanded their scope are new clubs are they? Apparently I was mistaken in thinking that my club Fitzroy was formed in 1883 and competed in the VFA and then the VFL. Apparently because it expanded in scope (e.g being able to draft from all around Australia instead of from a zone), the club's records before that time shouldn't be counted, because the scope of the club changed.

Originally posted by ok.crows
Yes it does - but the point is a little moot anyway. The real point is this - what is actually WRONG with just labelling a VFL flag differently to an AFL flag ? Where is the rub ? Who misses out on any credit ?

What is actually wrong with labelling the SANFL flags as seperate from VFL-AFL flags? What is actually wrong with acknowledging Essendon as the winner of 16 premierships in the current competition (known as the AFL)?

Originally posted by ok.crows
It is not at all clear. It might have attempted to keep a link to the old name (the VFL/AFL clumsy construct that people like to use) - so people may be continually trying to cling to the association, but the scope has clearly changed.

But the competition hasn't. Whether you acknopwledge it or not the current AFL competition started in 1897, with eight teams, seven of whom are still in the current competition. In other words they make up jusst under half of the current competition.

Originally posted by ok.crows
I can't see the harm. What is wrong with saying that Footscray has 9 VFA flags, 1 VFL flag and 0 AFL flags ? Or Essendon having (however many) VFA flags, 14 VFL flags and 2 AFL flags.

Quite simply because the VFL and AFL are the same competition. There's noting wrong with saying that Footscray has 9 VFA flags and one VFL-AFL flag. They are clearly seperate competitions and the records should be kept seperate.

Originally posted by ok.crows
And the benefit is - Port can be given their due credit for 34 SANFL flags, without in any way claiming them as AFL flags or indeed VFL flags, when they weren't.

Why does Port need due credit? The club has 34 SANFL flags. Everyone acknowledges that. Essendon has a number of flags in the current competition.

Originally posted by ok.crows
So we would end up with a winner (giving Port due credit) and no losers (every other team also given due credit). There is your justification.

Port Adelaide 34 SANFL flags.....Essendon 16 VFL-AFL flags. Seems pretty simple and just to me.

Had the SANFL developed into the national competition (say NAFL) and my team joined the competition from the VFL I would be arguing exactly the same way. The VFL records of that club would not, could not, be included in that competition. The SANFL clubs records would be included, because they were already in the competition.

Originally posted by ok.crows
That is a fair question. The club has actually changed. How about this - Brsibane Lions have 3 AFL flags, and Fitzroy Lions have 10 VFL flags.

Well it's actually a couple of VFA flags and 8 VFL-AFL flags to Fitzroy as well as 3 VFL-AFL flags to the Brisbane Lions. For convenience VFL-AFL is shortened to AFL.

Originally posted by ok.crows
Agreed. Port have 34 SANFL flags and (as yet) no AFL flags.

That then gives them their due credit.

They already get that credit.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
I can still compare Port's history (34 SANFL 0 V/AFL) flags with Essendons (4 VFA, 16 V/AFL)...it is a meaningful statistic. You don't have to change the official records of the AFL to use it....that point is moot IMHO. But generally, Victorians brought up in the VFL see the VFL as the only benchmark for comparison...even to the detriment of the old VFA which was the only show in town for 20 years.

Agree. Now all we have to do is decide WHO'S falgs are worth more and WHO's 100 goal kicker was a better effort.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
Agree. Now all we have to do is decide WHO'S falgs are worth more and WHO's 100 goal kicker was a better effort.

Right.

K
e
n

F
a
r
m
e
r

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
Do you not agree that Craig Bradley has played the highest number of senior games in the history of the sport at the top level ?

To play devils advocate, why not include the VFA since at various times the VFA may have been comperable to or better than the SANFL? Does the fact that there was a better comp than the VFA in Victoria mean the VFA games tally doesn't count even if the VFA was a better standard than the SANFL/WAFL and/or does the Tassie league count?

I think we safely say Bradley has a great record and played a lot of games at a very high level but perhaps everything else is too subjective to be definitive. I mostly just throwing things around here not trying to defeat your argument really.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
Maybe but then you needed every advantage to even come close to matching my god given talent. As I said you made a pretty good fist of it .... most of the time. It was only natural that your quality would drop off from time to time. Such a good honest toiler, proud to have you with us so you can learn the skills to compete in the big time.

yes but you propped up your posts by raping and pillaging the greatest posters on the planet. Just because you earn more than I do....

Anyway...I'm off for a balfours.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
To play devils advocate, why not include the VFA since at various times the VFA may have been comperable to or better than the SANFL? Does the fact that there was a better comp than the VFA in Victoria mean the VFA games tally doesn't count even if the VFA was a better standard than the SANFL/WAFL and/or does the Tassie league count?

I think we safely say Bradley has a great record and played a lot of games at a very high level but perhaps everything else is too subjective to be definitive. I mostly just throwing things around here not trying to defeat your argument really.

I think it comes down to "pinnacle leagues". For much of the history of the sport players did not move states, or clubs for that matter, other than for work. So, the highest achievement a kid from Whyalla could aspire to is to play League football for Port and win a flag or 6. The VFA is different....if a club wanted to they could go to the VFL and grab a player or players and jag the flag....the highest a kid from Bendigo aspired to was not to play for Coburg....it was to play for Port Adelaide ....I mean Collingwood. So Collingwood had to win a flag with the very best talent Vicotria had to offer, and Port had to win a flag with the very best talent SA had to offer....this makes sense to me....it also deals out Vermont or a DVFL club as it is a different business running a second teir club to a first.

Tassie is the exception....I just think that the standard was just too different to make meaningful comparisons....and yes that open's up my flank !

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
You will get the predictable answer. It is not about glorifying our history, or an inferiority complex...it is a real fear that as the AFL history is now equated to the code's history Port's history is lost altogether....not to mention Woodville's....not gloryfied, not inferior....lost.

How can Port's SANFL history be lost when the SANFL is still going and they record their history?

On the same note, if we differentiate between VFL and AFL it is only a matter of time before people only start referring to the AFL component and the VFL is thought of as a defunct competition and that history is forgotten. The VFL history is recorded only in the AFL competition.

I find it a little unfair that the very competition that was able to provide the framework for a National competition where others could not, should now be considered to be a separate comp and virtually consigned to the pages of history while those that joined in on the National party still have their state comps running along quite nicely.

btw VM, looks like the 100% agreement was short lived. Another indication of the consistency of your argument?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
yes but you propped up your posts by raping and pillaging the greatest posters on the planet. Just because you earn more than I do....

I think it is fair to say that we already had some of the greatest posters on the planet and probably more per capita. Besides, those posters only came because the standard of writing where they were was unprofessional and occasionally substandard in comparison. Oh sure they were quaint in their own way and plenty of fun but you can't build a career on that can you?

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's

On the same note, if we differentiate between VFL and AFL it is only a matter of time before people only start referring to the AFL component and the VFL is thought of as a defunct competition and that history is forgotten.

Thats what Ok Crows and friends want. They want to rewrite history and pretend Victoria never existed.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
How can Port's SANFL history be lost when the SANFL is still going and they record their history?

On the same note, if we differentiate between VFL and AFL it is only a matter of time before people only start referring to the AFL component and the VFL is thought of as a defunct competition and that history is forgotten. The VFL history is recorded only in the AFL competition.

I find it a little unfair that the very competition that was able to provide the framework for a National competition where others could not, should now be considered to be a separate comp and virtually consigned to the pages of history while those that joined in on the National party still have their state comps running along quite nicely.

btw VM, looks like the 100% agreement was short lived. Another indication of the consistency of your argument?

of course the history is not lost....but the context is lost. Conmpare Brisbane's 2003 premiership with Central's 2003 SANFL premiership....chalk and cheese.

Compare Port's 1980 flag with Richmond's 1980 flag....hmmmmm (personally I think Port were the better side). So the 1980 flag had a status....it meant something in 1980 which the 2003 flag does not....that is what is lost. Today and in the future the ONLY flag that matters on a national scale is the AFL flag....but that is a very recent phenomena.
.
.
.
.
should have quit whilst I was ahead....in 1999.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
I think if you sat where I do, you would hear it differently. Every time language such as, "The Greatest/Longest/Highest/ EVER is used I cringe. Kids in Adelaide will grow up thinking that the greatest player of all time was Ted Whitten ...why ? Because that is all that is fed to them....and there is no alternative....everytime we even mention 34 premierships the response is "Different Competition"..."your records don't count"...well they do count...they count in a context....but they count nonetheless. If the history of Australian football becomes the history of the VFL then we all lose.

That is all fair enough. What you are referring to, though, is the natural state of things when the bigger/better or whatever you call it superceded the smaller/weaker or whatever. It's up to the SANFL and it's devotees to keep their heritage alive. The VFL successfully smothered the VFA and consigned its records into obscurity for all but the devotees of either the VFA or the historians. The name change of the VFA to the VFL along with the introduction of AFL alliances will only ensure that the VFA is remembered as a relic. In the pre color days players left VFL clubs to play VFA and country football for more money. It was a very strong competition. It wasn't as good as the VFL by any means but it was nonetheless meritorious.

If SANFL devotees and SA footy fans in general want to preserve their history and identity I reckon trying to push the barrow up the AFL hill is a waist of time. When SA fans try so hard to add Port's flags into the equation they as often as anyone omit the context which you rightly referred to as the relevant point. It isn't one way omission.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Where's Dan24 btw ? always good to keep the winning percentage up on threads like these !

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
Right.

K
e
n

F
a
r
m
e
r

You mean Polly? Surely you don;t mean Jeff?

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
You mean Polly? Surely you don;t mean Jeff?

Ken, Jeff & Polly Farmer....hmmmmmm there are two things those players have in common !

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
I think it is fair to say that we already had some of the greatest posters on the planet and probably more per capita. Besides, those posters only came because the standard of writing where they were was unprofessional and occasionally substandard in comparison. Oh sure they were quaint in their own way and plenty of fun but you can't build a career on that can you?

you could before the bloody internet came along....

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
Ken, Jeff & Polly Farmer....hmmmmmm there are two things those players have in common !

All 3 are about 100 times better than Scott Hodgers and all 3 are 100 times better than Rick Davies?

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
All 3 are about 100 times better than Scott Hodgers and all 3 are 100 times better than Rick Davies?

.
.
.
.
.
never, and I am deadly serious, never mention Scott Hodges and the "Jumbo Prince" in the same breath again.

alright....3 things then.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by MarkT
That is all fair enough. What you are referring to, though, is the natural state of things when the bigger/better or whatever you call it superceded the smaller/weaker or whatever. It's up to the SANFL and it's devotees to keep their heritage alive. The VFL successfully smothered the VFA and consigned its records into obscurity for all but the devotees of either the VFA or the historians. The name change of the VFA to the VFL along with the introduction of AFL alliances will only ensure that the VFA is remembered as a relic. In the pre color days players left VFL clubs to play VFA and country football for more money. It was a very strong competition. It wasn't as good as the VFL by any means but it was nonetheless meritorious.

If SANFL devotees and SA footy fans in general want to preserve their history and identity I reckon trying to push the barrow up the AFL hill is a waist of time. When SA fans try so hard to add Port's flags into the equation they as often as anyone omit the context which you rightly referred to as the relevant point. It isn't one way omission.

it is my sole reason for lurking on BF !....in fact it is becomming my sole reason for living....following Port's "performance" in the last 2 final's series.

 

[billy big ears]

I have to agree with MarkT the VFL/AFL have done a pretty good hachet job on the "old enemy" the VFA.
The so called new VFL is nothing more than an AFL reserves comp using the resources of the former VFA clubs and their supporters and workers for free.
Most of the ex VFA clubs would be better off returning to a local league and keeping some sort of identity and integrity instead of propping up some of the struggling AFL clubs.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by billy big ears
I have to agree with MarkT the VFL/AFL have done a pretty good hachet job on the "old enemy" the VFA.
The so called new VFL is nothing more than an AFL reserves comp using the resources of the former VFA clubs and their supporters and workers for free.
Most of the ex VFA clubs would be better off returning to a local league and keeping some sort of identity and integrity instead of propping up some of the struggling AFL clubs.

On the contrary. The VFL has a bright future and crowds are coming back to suburban football. There are a lot of teething problems with aligning AFL clubs with the old VFA clubs, but these problems are not insurmountable.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by hotpie
On the contrary. The VFL has a bright future and crowds are coming back to suburban football. There are a lot of teething problems with aligning AFL clubs with the old VFA clubs, but these problems are not insurmountable.

It has a future that is independant of it's heratige though. There is no resemblance to the competition that sporned the VFL or that ran along side it in it's heyday with Freddy Cook the king of the goal square (before he became king of the gaol square that is). It has a bright enough future but it aint the VFA. The reality is the Williamstown is the Collingwood reserves and their players in the main were relegated to VFL reserves premiers as the bulk of the side was made up of Collingwood players.

 

[hotpie]

Much like the VFL of 20 years ago had to change to survive, the VFA has done the same. (Same history, different name, different structure)

Nothing will beat the days out at Shepley Oval where Frosty Miller, Pat Flaherty, Brian Shinners and Ray Orchard ruled the roost for the mighty Dandy Redlegs.