Poll
Question:
Which league was better before the VFL became the AFL in 1990?
Option 1: VFL
Option 2: SANFL
Option 3: WAFL
Option 4: About the same
Forget where you are from or what you grew up with and love.
Which league was the best league in the country and had the beat talent before the AFL was created?
Lets say from 1900-1990
I vote AFL
This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...
I've written basically half a novel on it by now. I'll just copy paste what I said in the other thread.
SANFL+ WAFL being stronger than VFL? I mean, that's not something that is really quantifiable, but I'd personally doubt that statement.
I mean in all three states, AFL is the major primary and dominating sport right?
well WA has (atm) a population of 2.4 million, SA of 1.6 million and Victoria of nearly 5.6 million.
all of their growth rates are close enough to linear and at roughly the same % increase, to be approximated as remaining proportional to back when VFL, SANFL and WAFL existed without the AFL.
logically, considering victoria has more than double the population of WA, and more than triple of SA, assuming that australians are about evenly distributed in skill and athleticism (which there's no real reason to say otherwise), over a sample size that huge, it would be completely justified to assume that for every good footballer at the elite level WA produced, victoria produced 2 of, and for every good footballer in SA, Vic produced 3 of, on average.
So logically, assuming all competitions had the same number of teams/ the same sized squads (this is the only thing I'm not certain on), Victoria, due to its higher population and subsequently more diverse talent pool to select from, would have a significantly higher calibre of football teams and populations.
I mean, you can see the validity of these state talent productions in modern football- there are far less NSW and QL footballers than there should be given our large population- it's not because we're less skill or talented, it's because rugby dominates so much that the talent pool for AFL is significantly decreased.
I know people are going to be like- yeah, you can say that, but you didn't see the competitions, the players etc. etc. etc. but basically you're all going to be either biased on this issue, misinformed, stubborn, stupid or a combination of all 4- we're talking about victoria having more than twice as many people, MILLIONS more as a population basis.
I mean, obviously you're going to have year by year discrepancies etc.
but it can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football#Inter-league_competition.2C_1879.E2.80.931976
that victoria won a majority of its interstate games... although, that could have been since it had more money to get better players from elsewhere.
statistically, you can't really compare them on individual performances like 'SA had player XYZ who averaged 30 disposals a game while VIC had only A averaging 30 + disposals', as logically in a weaker competition it would be easier for a player to dominate more, even if of an inferior quality.
that's all.
you can try to convince me otherwise, but I'll just call you a flowering idiot, so I would suggest not to bother.
actually, the point about SA and WA footballers moving to victoria because of more opportunities is moot- it still increases the quality of VFL and decreases SANFL/ WAFL.
the age ratio (from 20-35, so footballing age), is currently pretty similar as well. Although obviously that'll vary for whatever reasons yearly.
I couldn't find any information on racial demographics, but it's probably best to leave that out anyway lol...
it wouldnt be significantly different though.
you can still see it today- look at the under 18s AA teams- VIC will come out with the most AA nearly every time- that's why the get split into 2 teams for it.
(In response to 'by this logic india would be dominating the cricket)- indias a different scenario
firstly, they do pretty well at cricket
but secondly, because of their cast system and ridiculously uneven distribution of wealth, the majority of indians won't ever get the opportunity to seriously take up a sport like cricket- they don't have the luxury, a lot of them wouldnt be able to afford the equipment, and a lot more would be too busy working to spend the time to reach an elite level.
on top of that you have genetic differences between the races, which could mean that some races are more suited to some sports than others.
a poor analogy since you're comparing extremely different demographics, while australian states have quit uniform demographics.
A better example is China at the olympics- as a semi communist country (nowadays anyway), wealth while not being evenly distributed, isn't anywhere near as bad as india. As well as that china doesn't have as stringent a cast system (although there is kind of one), and are very incessent to prove to the world they're superior, so have a lot of elite athlete programmes (to the degree that they've been suspected of eugenics). Hence why they dominate at the international stage in the olympics.
Even that's not great, but it's an example.
Basically, cultural, genetic and economical factors are going to effect the quality of sportsmen an area produces- VIC, SA, WA are relatively uniform in all those factors (obviously there are discrepancies, but not substantial ones in comparison to international levels), which means that the biggest difference is going to be probability due to the substantial % differences in population size. (end india response)
I'm not stating an opinion dude.
Almost nothing I've said has been opinionated.
unlike everything you say.
I'm going to leave this now so I dont flower with your draft thing anymore.
I'm not denying that SANFL/ WAFL had great footballers- I'm saying that VFL would have been pumping out more, and on top of that had more migrating over for opportunities.
and, as I said, this is still demonstrated today through the U18 AA team
2012- 9 Vic, 7 SA, 3 WA
2011- 11Vic, 6 SA, 2WA
2010- 11 Vic, 5 SA, 1WA
2009-7 Vic, 4 SA, 9 WA
2008- 10 Vic, 3 SA, 6 WA
Total: Vic- 48, SA- 25, WA-21
Average: Vic- 9.5, SA- 5, WA- 4.2
past 5 years- obviously not all these guys have or will make it to an elite level, but it's probably the best way to demonstrate the quality of victoria vs the other states. But even a relatively small sample size (110) like that is already showing a clear trend.
(In response to 'When was the VLF the better league, from what year to what year? I'm yet to hear it')
1995- 2008, victoria didn't lose an interstate game, that was post AFL though.
So, pre AFL, in VFL eras was before 1990.
1977-1989
Victoria- 39 interstate games, 24 wins, 62% win ratio
SA- 13 games, 7 wins, 54% win ratio
however, those games include Pre-afl games against tasmania (in which from 1977-1989 only ever beat queensland), and SA played 2 against tassie, while vic played 4.
so discounting those games, you leave vic with 35 games, 20 wins, 57%
SA 11 games, 5 wins, 45%
whether or not you choose to remove tasmania (which proves my point again about population), is your own decision. Doesn't really change that much.
Considering the best Win: lose ratio for an AFL club is collingwood on 61%, that's pretty much domination by victoria on 62%. That being said, 54% isn't bad, AFL win % wise, that'd be 6th.
if you remove the bottom teams though (which I really think we should with such a small sample size), that puts SA an equivalent of 14/21, right below fitzroy, while victoria would be sitting at = 3rd.
I'm using the AFL clubs WL ratios since it's statistically the most comparable for this statistic.
and now I really am leaving.
FTR, I got my data from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football#Inter-league_competition.2C_1879.E2.80.931976
and
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/teams/allteams/overall_wl.html (for the comparison to AFL teams).
and I know that technically doesn't compare VFL/ SANFL, but it's literally the best you can do from a non-biased objective.
I'd like to put a disclaimer hereI've never seen a pre-AFL VFL or SANFL game (as I was born in '92), so I'm just pointing out the stats here.
TL;DR[/size]What effects the distribution ofelite athletes is essentially a combination of genetic, economic and cultural factors. Since Australia is mostly uniform (or close enough not to make a massive impact), the major contribution to the quality f the SANFl, WAFL and VFL leagues would have been population size- the larger the population, the more likely you're going to get an elite athlete, assuming random distribution. Since victoria has twice the size of western australia and 3x the size of south australia, logically they would be producing more talented athletes to compete in their competition.
But on top of that, because VFL could pay more, and subsequently represented a better footballing pportunity, the best footballers from the country were more enticed to go and play in the VFL, further depreciating the quality of SANFL/ WAFL etc.
That isn't t say the SANFL/ WAFL players weren't good- but the better ones would have been made to look even better since the rest of the competition wouldn't have quite been at VFL level- and even small differences in skill level make a massive difference at a professional level.
AFEV- to quote c4
Quote from: c4v3m4n on November 10, 2012, 08:57:42 PM
In their haydays, the WAFL and the SANFL were comparable (in strength) if not better than the VFL.
Most sensible people that know their footballing history know this.
and then that's what the argument became about with one eyed tbag.
and yeah, there are some spelling/ punctuation/ formatting errors in there. Deal with it.
I love sports statistics as much as the next guy but leave the statistics to those boring bureaucracts, although Victoria did have a superior S.O.O record which favors your arguement, statistics are floored
Wayne Carey and Gary Ablett never won a brownlow and yet Shane woewodin did :o Dennis lillee isn't even Australia's second leading wicket taker, Don Bradman isn't the leading run scorer. Phar Lap only won one Melbourne cup and Kingston Town never got there. Ayrton Senna didn't win the most races. Tiger Woods hasn't won the most Majors.
Get the point?
Serious Experts, so past great players and coaches without the sarcastic bias of a BT, Know that the WAFL and SANFL have been in times as good or better than the VFL, you might say Gary Ablett or a Ted Whitten were the greatest players but did you ever see Barrie Robran?
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:25:17 AM
This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...
Exactelly
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:25:17 AM
This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...
Is that not what this poll is asking in as many words?
Its based on the 90 years prior to the AFL. I can add an extra 10 years to make it 100 if that would make you feel better?
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
I love sports statistics as much as the next guy but leave the statistics to those boring bureaucracts, although Victoria did have a superior S.O.O record which favors your arguement, statistics are floored
Wayne Carey and Gary Ablett never won a brownlow and yet Shane woewodin did :o Dennis lillee isn't even Australia's second leading wicket taker, Don Bradman isn't the leading run scorer. Phar Lap only won one Melbourne cup and Kingston Town never got there. Ayrton Senna didn't win the most races. Tiger Woods hasn't won the most Majors.
Get the point?
Serious Experts, so past great players and coaches without the sarcastic bias of a BT, Know that the WAFL and SANFL have been in times as good or better than the VFL, you might say Gary Ablett or a Ted Whitten were the greatest players but did you ever see Barrie Robran?
Rambling on again tbag...
Yes robran by all reports was a fantastic footballer. His wikipedia write up suggests that he was offered several contracts to play in the vfl and continually denied them. So I guess we will never know how he stacked up against the best
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 12:40:15 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:25:17 AM
This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...
Is that not what this poll is asking in as many words?
Its based on the 90 years prior to the AFL. I can add an extra 10 years to make it 100 if that would make you feel better?
Obviously the VFL spent more time as the premier comp than SANFL/WANFL, which is what your poll is asking.
Based on our conversation earlier, it should read 'Were there points in the 20th century in which the SANFL and or WANFL were of a higher playing standard than the VFL'.
Just saying. Obviously the VFL is going to win the poll as is.
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:47:03 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 12:40:15 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:25:17 AM
This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...
Is that not what this poll is asking in as many words?
Its based on the 90 years prior to the AFL. I can add an extra 10 years to make it 100 if that would make you feel better?
Obviously the VFL spent more time as the premier comp than SANFL/WANFL, which is what your poll is asking.
Based on our conversation earlier, it should read 'Were there points in the 20th century in which the SANFL and or WANFL were of a higher playing standard than the VFL'.
Just saying. Obviously the VFL is going to win the poll as is.
How could I possibly do that when none of you have told me what era it was that the sanfl or wafl was apparently of a higher standard that the vfl??
Was it in the earliest recorded years of either league? During the war? When?
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 12:46:17 AM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
I love sports statistics as much as the next guy but leave the statistics to those boring bureaucracts, although Victoria did have a superior S.O.O record which favors your arguement, statistics are floored
Wayne Carey and Gary Ablett never won a brownlow and yet Shane woewodin did :o Dennis lillee isn't even Australia's second leading wicket taker, Don Bradman isn't the leading run scorer. Phar Lap only won one Melbourne cup and Kingston Town never got there. Ayrton Senna didn't win the most races. Tiger Woods hasn't won the most Majors.
Get the point?
Serious Experts, so past great players and coaches without the sarcastic bias of a BT, Know that the WAFL and SANFL have been in times as good or better than the VFL, you might say Gary Ablett or a Ted Whitten were the greatest players but did you ever see Barrie Robran?
Rambling on again tbag...
Yes robran by all reports was a fantastic footballer. His wikipedia write up suggests that he was offered several contracts to play in the vfl and continually denied them. So I guess we will never know how he stacked up against the best
But that's your opinion and your opinion is wrong therefore this statement has no merrit
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 12:51:11 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:47:03 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 12:40:15 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:25:17 AM
This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...
Is that not what this poll is asking in as many words?
Its based on the 90 years prior to the AFL. I can add an extra 10 years to make it 100 if that would make you feel better?
Obviously the VFL spent more time as the premier comp than SANFL/WANFL, which is what your poll is asking.
Based on our conversation earlier, it should read 'Were there points in the 20th century in which the SANFL and or WANFL were of a higher playing standard than the VFL'.
Just saying. Obviously the VFL is going to win the poll as is.
How could I possibly do that when none of you have told me what era it was that the sanfl or wafl was apparently of a higher standard that the vfl??
Was it in the earliest recorded years of either league? During the war? When?
Off the top of my head the WAFL was better than the VFL immedately after WWII for quite some time. I believe they won several SOO matches against Victoria in a row and there was a team (I've forgotten which) that won quite a few exhibition matches against Victorian teams.
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:54:00 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 12:51:11 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:47:03 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 12:40:15 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 12:25:17 AM
This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...
Is that not what this poll is asking in as many words?
Its based on the 90 years prior to the AFL. I can add an extra 10 years to make it 100 if that would make you feel better?
Obviously the VFL spent more time as the premier comp than SANFL/WANFL, which is what your poll is asking.
Based on our conversation earlier, it should read 'Were there points in the 20th century in which the SANFL and or WANFL were of a higher playing standard than the VFL'.
Just saying. Obviously the VFL is going to win the poll as is.
How could I possibly do that when none of you have told me what era it was that the sanfl or wafl was apparently of a higher standard that the vfl??
Was it in the earliest recorded years of either league? During the war? When?
Off the top of my head the WAFL was better than the VFL immedately after WWII for quite some time. I believe they won several SOO matches against Victoria in a row and there was a team (I've forgotten which) that won quite a few exhibition matches against Victorian teams.
Tbag I still dont even know what it is your arguing.
Do you think the sanfl has always been better? Is it about the same? Was it better for a period? Explain it to me without your S.A tinted glasses on
Just basically what Sid has been saying, the VFL has not always been the dominant league and at times other leagues were in fact better standard, and to Say Barrie Robran cannot be compaired against the best because he didn't play the best is stupid and irrational which is why I respond the way I do.
I said you were bias for Victoria but I never said you were Victorian, btw where are you from?
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 01:01:36 AM
Just basically what Sid has been saying, the VFL has not always been the dominant league and at times other leagues were in fact better standard, and to Say Barrie Robran cannot be compaired against the best because he didn't play the best is stupid and irrational which is why I respond the way I do.
I said you were bias for Victoria but I never said you were Victorian, btw where are you from?
When though? No one has answered me still! Between what years or decades was the sanfl or wafl of better standard than the vfl? Please enlighten me as my Australian rules football knowledge must be way off!
I was born in qld, moved to nsw when I was 10 untill I was 15 and have since lived in nearly every state in the country since 1980
Vic, 12 years
Sa, 5 years
Tas, a year
w.a, a year
Qld 10 years
Now been back in vic the past 4
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:14:07 AM
When though? No one has answered me still!
I did...?
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 01:18:49 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:14:07 AM
When though? No one has answered me still!
I did...?
The wafl was better than the vfl for a period after word war 2? Thats what your argument is based on? Unbelievable
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 01:18:49 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:14:07 AM
When though? No one has answered me still!
I did...?
The wafl was better than the vfl for a period after word war 2? Thats what your argument is based on? Unbelievable
Still just based on opinions, which is all your argument is as well, you can't prove the VFL has always been supirior it's just your opinion, and most good football experts know this is just not true
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 01:26:35 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 01:18:49 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:14:07 AM
When though? No one has answered me still!
I did...?
The wafl was better than the vfl for a period after word war 2? Thats what your argument is based on? Unbelievable
Still just based on opinions, which is all your argument is as well, you can't prove the VFL has always been supirior it's just your opinion, and most good football experts know this is just not true
How is it just my opinion?? Zip backed everything up with statistics. Take a look through the state of origin and state vs state history. They have been playing each other football games since 1879. Victoria have dominated from the start.
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
I love sports statistics as much as the next guy but leave the statistics to those boring bureaucracts, although Victoria did have a superior S.O.O record which favors your arguement, statistics are floored
Wayne Carey and Gary Ablett never won a brownlow and yet Shane woewodin did :o Dennis lillee isn't even Australia's second leading wicket taker, Don Bradman isn't the leading run scorer. Phar Lap only won one Melbourne cup and Kingston Town never got there. Ayrton Senna didn't win the most races. Tiger Woods hasn't won the most Majors.
Get the point?
Serious Experts, so past great players and coaches without the sarcastic bias of a BT, Know that the WAFL and SANFL have been in times as good or better than the VFL, you might say Gary Ablett or a Ted Whitten were the greatest players but did you ever see Barrie Robran?
As I already stated, statistics are for bureaucrats! Was Ricciuto better than Andrew McLoed? No but McLoed didn't win a brownlow, along with Goodwin all three won three Malcome Blight Medals, so are they then equal players? People will tell you McLoed was better, but others will say it was Roo
It comes down to opinion, statistics say Port Adelaide have won more league Premierships than anyone else in the country does this make them the best team in history? Statistics mean squat when compating different leagues,
What about the run of wins SA had over Victoria in the 80/90s does this mean they were better? State of origin is extreamely passionate and like in a football world cup or champions league, you get upsets. It's not always the team with the best players (still opinion on who was best) that wins origin games, pride gets in the way!
Omfg ??? You are just impossible.
If a clear dominance by victoria over 100 years carved out in the record books cant convince you of something then nothing will.
What domimance? Vic beat s.a more times through the 80's and 90's as well mate. I have read through everything over everything just to make sure
And need i remind you that the majority of the s.a state of origin players were playing in the vfl in the 80's
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:51:14 AM
Omfg ??? You are just impossible.
If a clear dominance by victoria over 100 years carved out in the record books cant convince you of something then nothing will.
What domimance? Vic beat s.a more times through the 80's and 90's as well mate. I have read through everything over everything just to make sure
Clearly you don't get it and you are stuck on facts as being proof, if you cannot see as I have proven that statistics and facts don't allow for things like: Pride, emotion, opinion,
Stats will show Roo won the Coleman but clearly Buddy and Tex were better forwards this year, open your flowering eyes
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 01:57:45 AM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 01:51:14 AM
Omfg ??? You are just impossible.
If a clear dominance by victoria over 100 years carved out in the record books cant convince you of something then nothing will.
What domimance? Vic beat s.a more times through the 80's and 90's as well mate. I have read through everything over everything just to make sure
Clearly you don't get it and you are stuck on facts as being proof, if you cannot see as I have proven that statistics and facts don't allow for things like: Pride, emotion, opinion,
Stats will show Roo won the Coleman but clearly Buddy and Tex were better forwards this year, open your flowering eyes
Ok so over 100 years of victoria dominating the state of origin thats not because they were better that was because of emotion?
& jack won the coleman because he played 22 games and those guys didnt mate? No one said hes better than buddy ???
But that's the thing, the records won't show that Buddy and Tex (yep if Taylor played 22 games he would have won the Coleman) did not play 22 games and therefore didn't win the Coleman, no, only Jack Riewoldt won it and only Jack's name will be there. But people who witnessed the 2012 season will know (opinion) that Jack was not the best forward for the year!
Yeah ok mate and sydney shouldnt be premiers because they werent the best team this year its just written in the record books.
And geelong werent the best team last year, collingwood were so the grandfinal means nothing.
Watson shouldnt have won the brownlow because ablett played more better games than him but played in a worse side.
Do you see how ridiculous you sound?
The records are all that are remembered at the end of the day when talking about things like tht.
When comparing 2 leagues in an era we never saw all we have are the raw facts to base it on! Its not like it was neck and neck... Vic DOMINATED for 100 years. Theres no way around that mate its written right there for all to see! No opinion can overturn a dominance by one state. If it was even people could argue either way but there is nothing to argue when its a one sided affair surely??
Still your opinion that Sydney weren't the best, once you take out the media hype around the Victorians for 2012 Sydney were pretty dam impressive, same can be said for Geelong, and also opinion that Jobe wasn't the best, some think he was, again opinion
This riddiculous notion that the VFL was always the best for 100 years is stupid and juvenile, not sure if you're trolling or what but yours is just an opinion and most good football judges will disagree, or at least agree that at times in the 1900s, the WAFL and SANFL were at least as good, if not better than the VFL, stop trying to prove otherwise it's just getting silly and you are just plain wrong
How am I wrong? Omg!
It is written for all to see. How can victoria DOMINATE s.a for nealry 100 years and that be wrong to you?? It makes no sense at all mate. Al numbers and stas aside.... They dominated! The vfl atracted the best players from the country from day one, it got stronger and stronger as the years went on. These are not opinions, they are facts!
Despite your outrageous accusation, the poll shows 6 people say the VFL was the best, I'm not argueing against that, but 6 others think that it wasn't so now it's a 50/50 that the VFL was even the best league, how them apples grab ya ;)
Argentina have the best players in the world but they can't win a world cup, Italy did recently but everyone knows they are not in the top three leagues in Europe atm, the Premier League might be one of if not the best league but England don't get close in the World cup. Your arguement is floored man!
12 people have voted mate give it a chance?
Your soccer examples are ridiculous. Its played by almost every country in the world. Not 3 states.
Less than half of the epl's players are english.....
Four states and a Territory but whatever ::) So the examples of all the other sports just don't compare? Face it you're hanging on to some basic statistics like a bureaucratic moron and are basically calling all the footy experts throughout history as stupid, well once again you're wrong, but I see you will not be convinced so... either stop trolling or wake up ;D
Interesting argument guys.
I have read through the debate from both sides and have done my best to look at it from a completely neutral perspective but my opinion lies in favour of the VFL having been the dominant league for a majority, if not the entire history of Australian rules football.
Call me bias if you wish but I will do my best to explain why I came to this conclusion.
Im only 24, I never saw an SANFL game nor did I see a VFL game prior to the start AFL. My opinion can only be based on what the record books and opinions of people who did see these leagues say.
The only people that I know or have heard the opinion of would all agree that that the VFL was certainly the dominant league in the country during the 70's and 80's. This is not debatable. The VFL was the major league, the highest paying and attracted the best players from all over the country. I think everyone that follows football knows this. A caption from Wikipedia to back this up, By the 1970s, VFL clubs were signing up an increasing number of the best players from other states and Victoria dominated state games
Pre 1970 I dont know anyone that knows enough about it so I have looked over a few books I have and websites to see what it was like.
I cant find anything to support the WAFL or SANFL ever being better or even level with the VFL.
The only instances that it was considered as strong was briefly following WW2 and very early on because of the split between the VFA and VFL and teams going back and forth between leagues.
The reasons for the VFL always having been stronger than the rest are simple.
Population and finances. They have always been superior in both areas.
This is a quote from Wikipedia "As the birthplace of Australian rules, and with advantages of population and finances, Victoria dominated the first hundred years of intercolonial and interstate football"
That is just it in a nutshell.
The VFL always attracted the best players because they wanted to play in the best leagues that could offer them the best pay. This may have not been as strong a pulling tool in earlier years but it does seem it was from very early on and just grew more and more over time.
As far as the population point goes, that's just common sense. More people means bigger talent pool. More money means more attraction. Its the same as any sport. Money and population will always develop or attract the best.
I know when comparing countries and large populations it doesn't always stack up as to why we, as a country of 20 million would be able to challenge a country of 1 billion but money invested into our sport in this country and our genetic make up allow us the opportunities to play and be good at sport.
When comparing Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia though, genetically we are the same, we have the same average talent, the same opportunities. The thing in favour of Victoria developing Footballers is the much larger population and the thing in favour of our league was the larger finances to lure players over.
There's no doubt the WAFL and SANFL have produced some of the games greats. Its a shame that the AFL wasn't developed earlier so we could have seen them all play with and against each other. Perhaps Barrie Robran was the greatest player ever. Perhaps Ken Farmer was the best full forward ever and would have kicked 100, 11 years in a row in the AFL aswell. We'll never know.
But the VFL was the strongest and most talented league as a whole over the history before it became the AFL. I cant see how that could be debated by anyone given the facts in front of us
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 03:07:57 AM
Four states and a Territory but whatever ::) So the examples of all the other sports just don't compare? Face it you're hanging on to some basic statistics like a bureaucratic moron and are basically calling all the footy experts throughout history as stupid, well once again you're wrong, but I see you will not be convinced so... either stop trolling or wake up ;D
You are actually the most moronic and bias opinionated person I have ever spoken with.
Neither of us were alive to see the sanfl or vfl in the era's we are talking about so how is looking over the stats from that time and reading that victoria dominated for 100 years make me a bureaucratic moron? It is fact written in the history books. An era described as a "dominance" from one state cant be seen as anything other than just that!
Are they lying? Are the history books fake? I know footbal isnt played on paper but when its a dominance for 100 years then thats what it is!!
What experts mate, give me some names? What decades was the sanfl better, give me the decades? I back everything I say up with facts, you just talk crap because you have got yourself in so deep that you dont want to admit you are wrong even though I have blatantly proven you wrong for all to see. Give me some proof of anything tou say that isnt of your own opinion because im not giving you my opinion im giving you cold hard facts.
I think quinny88 has just backed up everything me and ziplock said aswell with more cold hard FACTS right there for your dumb ass to read.
Someone shoot me please, its like talking to a brick wall
Well this is a better arguement and to think I liked you Quinny :P ::)
Still the debate is not about Victorian football being the dominant, it's about the fact they at times weren't the dominant state league in footy, don't ask me when, I was born in 1979, all I know is good judges say that other leagues were at times as good or better than Victoria.
Also the bigger the population, the more people there are to agree that a league is better, but trust me, this has not been always the case, as always it's only opinion, but many purists agree that other leagues have been as good as the Vics ;)
TeeJay you one eyed poser, maybe read something written outside Victoria for once ::)
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 04:00:52 AM
Well this is a better arguement and to think I liked you Quinny :P ::)
Still the debate is not about Victorian football being the dominant, it's about the fact they at times weren't the dominant state league in footy, don't ask me when, I was born in 1979, all I know is good judges say that other leagues were at times as good or better than Victoria.
Also the bigger the population, the more people there are to agree that a league is better, but trust me, this has not been always the case, as always it's only opinion, but many purists agree that other leagues have been as good as the Vics ;)
How else can you measure it other than the states playimg against each other tbag, honesty? Your measuring it on some so called "expert opinins". Who are the experts?
I have heard the odd person in football say the sanfl was as good a league the vfl in parts. I have never heard anyone apart from you say it was better at any point in the history and vast majority vic and non vic agree the vfl has always been the best.
How can you actually argue something when the people in favour of the vfl have given you facts, quotes, statistics and opinions in their favour and all you have given in your favour is opinion?
Explain that to me....
You did not see this era you just think it was the way you believe because you have heard some people say it was... Thats it. Thats all you have and we have given you all of the proof against that argument and you still are so one eyed and stubborn to admit maybe your opinion was wrong.
Its 3am and im arguing with moron ::) goodnight
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 04:00:52 AM
Well this is a better arguement and to think I liked you Quinny :P ::)
Still the debate is not about Victorian football being the dominant, it's about the fact they at times weren't the dominant state league in footy, don't ask me when, I was born in 1979, all I know is good judges say that other leagues were at times as good or better than Victoria.
Also the bigger the population, the more people there are to agree that a league is better, but trust me, this has not been always the case, as always it's only opinion, but many purists agree that other leagues have been as good as the Vics ;)
Haha sorry tbag.
No your right, but as tj has said, its the only way it can really be measured.
I don't doubt that there may have been years here and there that the SANFL could have been at as good a standard as the VFL but for the large majority of the history I believe that the VFL would have been better because of the 2 main factors of
population and
finance. They are the only factors that I find majorly relevant really. The same as every professional sport. The bigger the talent pool and funding, the better the competition.
Meh, still opinion! We can argue all night and until christmas but you won't convince me, we accept that the Vics like to think they were always the best, but we know that they weren't. It's just folk law, which most of history was written by ::)
Stits and stats meh! Call a radio station outside Victoria I dare you (Tas, WA and SA only for propper feedback) and ask them, see what responce you get, then let me know!
so just when was the SANFL better than the VFL, well at least from 1877 till 1896 and from 1990 to present, maybe I'm messing around but this if fact!
P.s calling me a moron doesn't make me a moron :P Sheesh some people are stupid ::)
Look at me, I'm a moron because I believe that there were some state leagues that were as good or better than the victorian league at some point in history ::) flower you're a stupid moron tj :P
Hahaha you are a grade A flowering idiot! I see now what everyone was talking about when they call you bias and have a go at you!
You're one of a kind mate, well not really, your just another one eyed tosser that cant be proven wrong despite solid proof infront of your face.
From 1877 till 1896 it was better was it? Haha impressive stat there mate im amazed....did you miss the part where it said from 1900 -1990? the vfl teams werent established or finalised before 1896 and the afl was introduced after 1990... Or is that just my opinion as well?
if I called a radio station or ran a poll from every state I would probably get a result saying that about half think the same, bit less than haf think vfl was better with a few in favour of other leagues.. Fair call?
And you would therefore think that those opinions of "experts" that werent there and didnt see sanfl or vfl football from 1900 onwards would be of a more valid answer to the debate than what is written out in the history books? That is just stupid. Victoria beating s.a and w.a year after year for 100 years is the only true proof anyone can give and its there infront of your face. If you cant make sense of that then you are quite simply a moron. Theres no other way to describe it
Have a go at me all you want, like I give a pile of toad stools, was just messing around with that SANFL stat and you take it seriously :-X
Call me names all you want but we as non victorians know the truth, deny it all you want we really don't care, we're used to it!
One state beating another state does not prove a league is better than another league ::) fridge you are stupid!
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 04:00:52 AM
Well this is a better arguement and to think I liked you Quinny :P ::)
Still the debate is not about Victorian football being the dominant, it's about the fact they at times weren't the dominant state league in footy, don't ask me when, I was born in 1979, all I know is good judges say that other leagues were at times as good or better than Victoria.
Also the bigger the population, the more people there are to agree that a league is better, but trust me, this has not been always the case, as always it's only opinion, but many purists agree that other leagues have been as good as the Vics ;)
....
literally, agreed with all the points teejay and I had been making over the last 5-6 hours.
I'm a non-victorian, and I'm still backing VFL.
'Was Ricciuto better than Andrew McLoed? No but McLoed didn't win a brownlow, along with Goodwin all three won three Malcome Blight Medals, so are they then equal players? People will tell you McLoed was better, but others will say it was Roo'
those medals and awards are all subject to bias of one form or another. I've expressed my distaste several times before on the precedence the brownlow gives to winning team + mids, but w.e
the stats I pulled up were free of bias- I honestly dont give a flower who was better, vfl or SANFL/ WAFl. I'm just saying stastically, what it most probably was.
SANFL was the dominant after 1990? Once again, the only way to compare them are by SOO matches... of which victoria didn't lose between 1995-2008.
We've given you numerous, unbiased statistical evidence of why the VFL was the dominant competition, and produced the best players. And you just started spewing opinionated bs. As normal.
You can pretend that your bureaurocrartic statistics mean something but again you'd be wrong, going by stats to prove pro 1990 lol I thought you were stupid ::) Are you not aware that good players now play in the AFL ???
Life is not about facts, stats and proof of anything no.
Life is about discussion, relationship, communication, things are measured by opinion and folk law not stats and records. The greatest gift we have is communication, the ability to relate and communtcate, these are lifes fundamentles, it is what history is based on
You can believe in your stats and record books all you want but it's the opinions of people that count, to be able to discuss the events with your fellow man. That's what brings life!
Obviously the VFL was the premier league for the majority of the period, money and population ensured that.
But that's not what we're (or at least I) am arguing against. I'm just saying that the VFL was
not the premier competition from 1896-1990. For the overwhelming majority they were the best, and when they started poaching players in the 70s there was no way that the SANFL/WANFL could compete.
But of course the main reason this actually came up - The SANFL/WANFL weren't so far behind the VFL that you can discredit an entire career just because they played there. Especially if they were one of the most dominant players on the international team of their time.
Of course the player being mentioned is
Ken Farmer. TeeJay has already outright said there are several VFL full forwards that are better than him:
Quote from: TeeJay on November 10, 2012, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 10, 2012, 09:46:24 AM
I would've given it to Lockett, Dunstall, Hudson. Ablett or Coleman.
But I guess I'm pretty clueless :(
Not clueless at all your spot on.
The person these guys are talking about is quite clearly NOT the best full forward of all time.
So lets investigate.
Playing career - 1929-1941 (During the same era as some of the leagues best defenders ie. Scott.)
Interstate - 81 goals in 17 games @ 4.76.
Had he played a 'full' interstate season - 104.72 goals.
Now lets compare his SANFL record against all the records set in the VFL -
Goals in a game:
Ken Farmer (23), Fred Fanning (18).
Total goals:
Ken Farmer (1,419), Tony Lockett (1,360). Hudson did kick more goals than both, but if you don't rate the SANFL I seriously doubt you're going to value the goals he kicked in the TANFL/TFL.
Most goals in a season:
Ken Farmer (134), Bob Pratt/Peter Hudson (150).
Most seasons as leading goalkicker:
Ken Farmer (11), Dick Lee (8 )
Highest goals per game:
Ken Farmer (6.33), Peter Hudson (5.64)
Most seasons with 100 goals or more:
Ken Farmer (11), Tony Lockett (6).
Now, I know that you don't think that the SANFL/WANFL was as good as the VFL, but if you honestly think this man shouldn't (at the very least) be considered for the title 'Best FF Ever'...Well...I don't know. :P
Robran has a similar case, as does Doig etc. etc.
There are a lot of great players that are forgotten simply because they didn't play in the 'right' league...
Thankyou sid, im glad you came up with an honest and educated response with some proof and stats to back up your knowledge.
Tbag could maybe take a leaf out of your book but he only bases his opinions on what he thinks must be right.
You're back peddling a little sid I must say. You made out as if the sanfl and wafl were as strong as the vfl up untill the 70's, now you are saying the vfl was dominant for the vast majority of the century. You're right, it was. There is nothing in the history books to ever suggest that the vfl wasn't always the dominant league. As I said earlier there may have been the odd season here or there that the other leagues were very close but for almost the entirity of Australian rules, the VFL has been dominant.
Maybe I was a tad harsh suggesting that the sanfl players cant be graded along side the vfl greats. I have no doubt there are some of the games best players that came from those leagues. I just find it a lot harder to judge them when they werent playing in the best league.
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 03:10:18 PM
Thankyou sid, im glad you came up with an honest and educated response with some proof and stats to back up your knowledge.
Tbag could maybe take a leaf out of your book but he only bases his opinions on what he thinks must be right.
You're back peddling a little sid I must say. You made out as if the sanfl and wafl were as strong as the vfl up untill the 70's, now you are saying the vfl was dominant for the vast majority of the century. You're right, it was. There is nothing in the history books to ever suggest that the vfl wasn't always the dominant league. As I said earlier there may have been the odd season here or there that the other leagues were very close but for almost the entirity of Australian rules, the VFL has been dominant.
Maybe I was a tad harsh suggesting that the sanfl players cant be graded along side the vfl greats. I have no doubt there are some of the games best players that came from those leagues. I just find it a lot harder to judge them when they werent playing in the best league.
Ah, that's probably why we're disagreeing. Of course it is ludicrous to say that the SANFL/WANFL were as strong as the VFL up until 1970, and sorry if it came off as me saying that.
Just saying there were periods where they were as if not stronger than the VFL. They weren't particularly common but enough so that the difference of quality isn't great enough to discount the careers of some of the greats. :)
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 11:31:46 AM
You can pretend that your bureaurocrartic statistics mean something but again you'd be wrong, going by stats to prove pro 1990 lol I thought you were stupid ::) Are you not aware that good players now play in the AFL ???
Life is not about facts, stats and proof of anything no.
Life is about discussion, relationship, communication, things are measured by opinion and folk law not stats and records. The greatest gift we have is communication, the ability to relate and communtcate, these are lifes fundamentles, it is what history is based on
You can believe in your stats and record books all you want but it's the opinions of people that count, to be able to discuss the events with your fellow man. That's what brings life!
So stats and records mean absolutly nothing tbag and opinions mean everything?
You are actually retarted arent you....
Opinions and "folk law" grow and change over time the more the stories are told! Someone that caught a fish the size of there arm and in 50 years time the story says "the fish was 5 meters long" its a story mate! If you take the measurement of the fish its written down in the record books forever. Its fact!
Is the written measurement of the fish right or the peoples stories about how big it was??
You didnt see ken farmer play, you didnt see the sanfl or vfl before the 70's so you dont know what it was like. All you have is the record books and peoples opinions. The people you call "experts" that have said the sanfl was just as good as the vfl are obviously wrong! Because there is proof written down infront of your moronic head for you to see that they are wrong. Just because they are from s.a or played in the sanfl doesnt make there opinion any more valid than anyones. It cant have been better or over the 100 years sa would have broke even with vic inhe games they played, not be DOMINATED.
Victoria has always had a much larger population amd bigger finance for the vfl so unless you are suggesting that south australians are genetically better bred for football then you have no argument, sorry mate
Quote from: Sid on November 11, 2012, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: TeeJay on November 11, 2012, 03:10:18 PM
Thankyou sid, im glad you came up with an honest and educated response with some proof and stats to back up your knowledge.
Tbag could maybe take a leaf out of your book but he only bases his opinions on what he thinks must be right.
You're back peddling a little sid I must say. You made out as if the sanfl and wafl were as strong as the vfl up untill the 70's, now you are saying the vfl was dominant for the vast majority of the century. You're right, it was. There is nothing in the history books to ever suggest that the vfl wasn't always the dominant league. As I said earlier there may have been the odd season here or there that the other leagues were very close but for almost the entirity of Australian rules, the VFL has been dominant.
Maybe I was a tad harsh suggesting that the sanfl players cant be graded along side the vfl greats. I have no doubt there are some of the games best players that came from those leagues. I just find it a lot harder to judge them when they werent playing in the best league.
Ah, that's probably why we're disagreeing. Of course it is ludicrous to say that the SANFL/WANFL were as strong as the VFL up until 1970, and sorry if it came off as me saying that.
Just saying there were periods where they were as if not stronger than the VFL. They weren't particularly common but enough so that the difference of quality isn't great enough to discount the careers of some of the greats. :)
Thanks for clearing that up sid, probably doesn't help when you have a nuff nuff like tbag batting on your side with his bias and opinionated garbage that has no merrit to it.
Im sure deep down he's conceeded that he is wrong. If not then im actually concerned with his well being and ability to grasp a simple series of facts.
Keep insulting people if you like it just makes you a flowering White Goodman, which in it's self is moronic. You still don't get it you must be retarded ::) You cannot say a league is better based on results of state games, that's just not an accurite measure, which you seem so keen on basing all your opinions based on facts. I'm smarter than you'll ever be and one day you might learn how to relate to people, then you will see that relationships is actually what matters, not the measure or "proof" of somethings existence.
If it's your goal in life to try and demean anyone who you think is of less intelligence than yourself well good luck to you, of course that just makes you a bully, and nobody likes a bully ;)
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 03:48:13 PM
Keep insulting people if you like it just makes you a flowering White Goodman, which in it's self is moronic. You still don't get it you must be retarded ::) You cannot say a league is better based on results of state games, that's just not an accurite measure, which you seem so keen on basing all your opinions based on facts. I'm smarter than you'll ever be and one day you might learn how to relate to people, then you will see that relationships is actually what matters, not the measure or "proof" of somethings existence.
If it's your goal in life to try and demean anyone who you think is of less intelligence than yourself well good luck to you, of course that just makes you a bully, and nobody likes a bully ;)
im not just basing it on state games (even though thats the only way it really can be measured) im also basing it on the fact that vic has always had 5 times the population of s.a and a larger finance in the vfl league. They are plain as day facts ontop of the fact that vic dominated s.a for 100 years in state of origin. Then opinion is split 50/50 which is all you have.
I cant believe I have to repeat myself to you so many times and you still cant grasp it? I would have more luck convincing every member of fanfooty that you're not a bias opinionated tosser. No one would ever believe it.
Yeah you're right, no one will believe you! Because you have no class, you have proven that you yourself are the tosser in that you feel the need to call anyone who you don't agree with an idiot or a moron, I'm simply calling you on it and if that makes me a tosser so be it, but I will not stand by while you ungracefully go about insulting everyone.
I never said the VFL has not been the best league for most of the century, but that's just it, "most"
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 04:19:31 PM
Yeah you're right, no one will believe you! Because you have no class, you have proven that you yourself are the tosser in that you feel the need to call anyone who you don't agree with an idiot or a moron, I'm simply calling you on it and if that makes me a tosser so be it, but I will not stand by while you ungracefully go about insulting everyone.
I never said the VFL has not been the best league for most of the century, but that's just it, "most"
Im not insulting everyone? Ive insulted YOU and you've insulted ME. I have no reason to insult anyone else, as they are capable of a reasonable debate and take on board the facts that I put forward and admit the areas they were perhaps wrong in. You on the other hand get yourself so deep into a debate without realizing when you're wrong and you're too stubborn to admit when you got it wrong so you just keep digging and coming up with new crap to pile ontop of your already flawed argument.
Yes tbag, you have said exactly that you dont think the vfl was the best league for most of the century. Thats what this whole debate was about.. I did say most, if not the entire century from the start. Dont back peddel now
Just how was I wrong? For me to admit a mistake I must first have made one ??? I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here, I gave you some facts based on what has happened in other sports but you seem to think that some how footy is different :-\ You certainly won't admit to any wrong so how are you less bias than what I have said? ??? Do we just assume you are right because you said it therefore it must be true? This would make you perfect and you have already proven that you're not.
This is the point that I am arguing. Read it carefully!
Between 1900-1990 the vfl was the dominant football league in Australia. The sanfl may have had seasons or periods here and there where they were close in comparrison, but for the vast majority, the vfl was dominant and the best league due to the states much bigger population, talent pool and funding of the league that attracted other players from outside the state. The dominance can be seen in the one sided record victoria had over s.a and w.a state games for over 100 years.
Can you read that and understand it tbag? Or is it just too much for you to wrap your head around?
I have admited I was maybe to harsh about sanfl greats being graded alongside vfl greats. I just think its harder to do because they didnt play in the best league. Thats not unreasonable, thats my opinion and most peoples and thats why the sanfl players arent in the AFL record books aswell.
Thats the only personal opinion I have given. The rest is fact. All you have given is opinion with no fact. Do you understand the difference?
I am mostly agreeing, however when I copared the VFL and SANFL to that of Australian and English cricket, you simply would not take the point, it is easy to say population and money should make a league better but as I have been trying to point out that is not always the case, statistics and facts can be floored which I have also proven but again that was simply dismissed.
I am all for proving things with stats but you need to understand that they can be misleading for example, who was the better batsman over the whole career Mark or Steve Waugh? Again it comes down to opinion and I think people will say Mark was the more gifted batsman however Steve's ave was higher, does that mean set in stone Steve was better? he probably was but opinions will be divided. Does that then make me an idiot if I say Mark was better because I like the way he played?
That's all I'm saying and I have grown bored of this now.
Im seriously that far over this and im not going to have a debate with you about cricket now but your examples arent relevant as it is 2 different countries, 2 different demographics, 2 different genetics, opportunities etc in a world aport played by 11 people.
Im glad we agree that the VFL was the dominant league for the majority allbeit you thinking it was an even match more often than I do. Ill delete this thread so I dont have the temptation of it going on any longer. I dont think I could bare it
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 11, 2012, 11:31:46 AM
You can pretend that your bureaurocrartic statistics mean something but again you'd be wrong, going by stats to prove pro 1990 lol I thought you were stupid ::) Are you not aware that good players now play in the AFL ???
Life is not about facts, stats and proof of anything no.
Life is about discussion, relationship, communication, things are measured by opinion and folk law not stats and records. The greatest gift we have is communication, the ability to relate and communtcate, these are lifes fundamentles, it is what history is based on
You can believe in your stats and record books all you want but it's the opinions of people that count, to be able to discuss the events with your fellow man. That's what brings life!
firstly- no.
I mean you can argue all that bs, but stats, mathematics and science are the things that afford us most of the comfort we have today, unless you dont use technology?
Stats mean a lot- 'Hitler killed some jews'
'Hitler killed 6 million jews'
Massive difference.
I'm not going to argue it though, because you're so wrong that it's pointless to argue it.
Sid- I've said, many, many times, that SANFL/ WAFL would have produced great players too. Possibly even the greatest player, hypothetically. That being said, VFL would have been churning out great players at a far faster rate than SANFL and WAFL.
Tbag doesn't have the ability to look past his bias and comprehend this though.
Whether that's a fault in his personality, or just a lack of intelligence, I don't know. But I'd be pretty sure it's one of them.
Tbag- that's because your comparison on an international level is invalid.
as are your individual comparison.
we're talking about evenly distributed populations number in the millions, not individuals or teams in completely different situations. Anyone with even a vague understanding of how statistics works would understand this- not even necessarily someone who's studied it, it's really intuitive.
Can't be bothered entering in to the debate as I have got no clue about how strong any leagues were ever and couldn't care less really, but just going to bring up a point about the whole population theory. If having a bigger population indicates better success why is it in the domestic cricket competitions Tasmania has been so successful recently when they would have the smallest population of any of the states?
In the last 8 seasons Tasmania has won the one day league 3 times and been runner up twice (the last 2 years), and won the 4 day competition twice and runner up once (last season)? They have the smallest population so surely they should be coming last every year ;)
Haven't read this topic. But I voted VFL.
Quote from: CrowsFan on November 11, 2012, 10:05:59 PM
Can't be bothered entering in to the debate as I have got no clue about how strong any leagues were ever and couldn't care less really, but just going to bring up a point about the whole population theory. If having a bigger population indicates better success why is it in the domestic cricket competitions Tasmania has been so successful recently when they would have the smallest population of any of the states?
In the last 8 seasons Tasmania has won the one day league 3 times and been runner up twice (the last 2 years), and won the 4 day competition twice and runner up once (last season)? They have the smallest population so surely they should be coming last every year ;)
Cricket is different in that you can have one great player with a massive influence on the game
^+1
all you need is just one freak batsman or bowler, and they can carry a team in a game like cricket for close to a decade.
places like tasmania can still produce those like once in a generation player, it's just more unlikely.
More players are selected from other states for international or other cricket duties as well
Also just to counter your population argument Zip.
VFL - 12 teams.
SANFL - 8 teams.
WAFL - 7 teams.
While SA and WA might have had shallower talent pools, they didn't require the amount of players the VFL did to fill their teams.
Quote from: Sid on November 13, 2012, 11:14:23 PM
Also just to counter your population argument Zip.
VFL - 12 teams.
SANFL - 8 teams.
WAFL - 7 teams.
While SA and WA might have had shallower talent pools, they didn't require the amount of players the VFL did to fill their teams.
5 times the population sid. Thats a lot more people to pick from to fill 4 extra teams.
I did say I wasnt sure of the number of teams in each respective comp.
That'd even out the comps a bit, but really not enough.
Vic has nearly 4x the population of SA, and nearly 3x WA.
that's still a talent pool of millions + for vic.
WAFL best
Quote from: elephants on November 14, 2012, 01:35:13 PM
WAFL best
at the moment I'd just about agree with you! the WAFL seems to be churning out some ripper mature agers over the last few years! :D
Quote from: Toga on November 14, 2012, 02:01:08 PM
Quote from: elephants on November 14, 2012, 01:35:13 PM
WAFL best
at the moment I'd just about agree with you! the WAFL seems to be churning out some ripper mature agers over the last few years! :D
Haha I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread so I just thought 'where did Horsley come from' BAM. WAFL. :P
Quote from: TeeJay on November 14, 2012, 03:41:43 AM
Quote from: Sid on November 13, 2012, 11:14:23 PM
Also just to counter your population argument Zip.
VFL - 12 teams.
SANFL - 8 teams.
WAFL - 7 teams.
While SA and WA might have had shallower talent pools, they didn't require the amount of players the VFL did to fill their teams.
5 times the population sid. Thats a lot more people to pick from to fill 4 extra teams.
Five times the population :o lol where'd you pull that stat from :o has been around 3 times an SA and WA for a century ::) maybe closer to 4 but meh, at least it's no where near 5 :P
Quote from: Ziplock on November 14, 2012, 12:13:40 PM
I did say I wasnt sure of the number of teams in each respective comp.
That'd even out the comps a bit, but really not enough.
Vic has nearly 4x the population of SA, and nearly 3x WA.
that's still a talent pool of millions + for vic.
Victoria: 5,603,100
Western Australia: 2,410,600
So there is a difference of 3,192,500 or 56.98%.
WAFL had 5 less teams - a difference of 41.67%.
That lessens the difference considerably, I'd go further and look at the numbers for players but I'm actually not entirely sure about the squad sizes.
Are people still debating this? haha
I never thought there was any argument against the VFL being the strongest competition for the majority of history?
Have I missed something? Is there actually some evidence to suggest otherwise or is this just a SA vs Vic thing?
I could understand a debate between which was better of the WAFL and SANFL but the VFL has the history to prove its domination unless im reading it wrong?
Quote from: quinny88 on November 14, 2012, 08:39:45 PM
Are people still debating this? haha
I never thought there was any argument against the VFL being the strongest competition for the majority of history?
Have I missed something? Is there actually some evidence to suggest otherwise or is this just a SA vs Vic thing?
I could understand a debate between which was better of the WAFL and SANFL but the VFL has the history to prove its domination unless im reading it wrong?
That's just it Quinny the owner of the thread is refusing to acknowledge that there may have been at some point another leage that was better, he does not agree to the majority theory but a complete dominant one, thus the discussion.
Quote from: quinny88 on November 14, 2012, 08:39:45 PM
Are people still debating this? haha
I never thought there was any argument against the VFL being the strongest competition for the majority of history?
Have I missed something? Is there actually some evidence to suggest otherwise or is this just a SA vs Vic thing?
I could understand a debate between which was better of the WAFL and SANFL but the VFL has the history to prove its domination unless im reading it wrong?
I think we have all agreed that the VFL was the dominant league for the majority of the time.
At this point I'm not actually sure why I'm still arguing. Just trying to present the case for SANFL/WANFL/WAFL as we never really did while it was being debated.
A tl;dr for everyone reading the thread.
Zip provided the facts, tbags thinks facts are stupid.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 14, 2012, 09:06:49 PM
A tl;dr for everyone reading the thread.
Zip provided the facts, tbags thinks facts are stupid.
Complete misunderstanding of the thread, facts are fine but stats can be misleading is all I said, fact: Jack Riewoldt won the Coleman this year, fact: Buddy Franklin and Taylor Walker had better years as forwards who through injury and stupidity lost the Coleman, you can't always rely on facts and stats for an honest result
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 14, 2012, 08:56:36 PM
Quote from: quinny88 on November 14, 2012, 08:39:45 PM
Are people still debating this? haha
I never thought there was any argument against the VFL being the strongest competition for the majority of history?
Have I missed something? Is there actually some evidence to suggest otherwise or is this just a SA vs Vic thing?
I could understand a debate between which was better of the WAFL and SANFL but the VFL has the history to prove its domination unless im reading it wrong?
That's just it Quinny the owner of the thread is refusing to acknowledge that there may have been at some point another leage that was better, he does not agree to the majority theory but a complete dominant one, thus the discussion.
Yeah I get that, but my confusion is that if everyone agrees on the VFL being dominant for the large
majority of history then why is it so unbelievable that it was dominant the
entire history with nothing to suggest otherwise?
Do people mean that there was one odd year that it was equal or a decade it was equal or a stretch of decades? Im not sure what the argument in favour of the SANFL and WAFL is?
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 14, 2012, 09:20:04 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 14, 2012, 09:06:49 PM
A tl;dr for everyone reading the thread.
Zip provided the facts, tbags thinks facts are stupid.
Complete misunderstanding of the thread, facts are fine but stats can be misleading is all I said, fact: Jack Riewoldt won the Coleman this year, fact: Buddy Franklin and Taylor Walker had better years as forwards who through injury and stupidity lost the Coleman, you can't always rely on facts and stats for an honest result
Haha thats true but considering we weren't alive in 1900 we have nothing but facts and stats to go on.
P.s its your turn in the all time draft mailman ;)
I think the argument is simply that yes, we accept the fact that the VFL has been dominant for the majority of history, but there have been some periods (1-2 years patches) that the competitions were on par with one another.
..I think... :-[
Only going to say it once then I will let it go, there is no accurite way of proving the VFL was always better, that's where opinion comes into it, how many think that discussing these topics in the bar, at parties or with friends or at work, is truely the best way of communicating the events that happened. Life is about relating and communication, always has been always will be, that's the fascination and beauty of our existance
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 14, 2012, 09:35:26 PM
Only going to say it once then I will let it go, there is no accurite way of proving the VFL was always better, that's where opinion comes into it, how many think that discussing these topics in the bar, at parties or with friends or at work, is truely the best way of communicating the events that happened. Life is about relating and communication, always has been always will be, that's the fascination and beauty of our existance
These are probably a list of places that the most exagerrated stories and lies have been told since the beginning of man kind haha.
I think I will believe fact over stories but I do see where you're coming from in that stats dont always tell the full story
Quote from: quinny88 on November 14, 2012, 09:27:41 PM
P.s its your turn in the all time draft mailman ;)
Thanks quinny :P
Well I mostly agree that the facts are the best way of judging, Bradman has an unbeatable record, but folk law will probably be the most communicated, I have had great discussion about the Great Mare (Black Caviar) and Phar Lap, Big Red won more races but the Great Mare won 21 underfeated like we've never seen in our life time. Imo discussing these events is more valuable than the actual truth of the out come!
the two horses never raced eachother, so they can't really be compared, except by stats.
Who had a better win ratio in that case? they were probably the more superior horse. 21 wins in a row is great, but nce again, it can all come down to probability. If you have a freak of a horse, who's going to win 80% of his races, he has 0.9% chance of winning 21 in a row.
Once again though, these are individuals you're comparing, not large populations.
Another example- say hypothetically you could talk to a guy who saw the first ever modern olympics in 1896. Talk to him about it (well, he's dead, so it's a bit pointless), and he might say 'Tom Burke was amazing, he flew the hundred metres, was superior to everyone else by far, definitely the greatest athlete I've ever seen.'.
But then you actually look at burkes time, and he took 12 seconds to run the 100... when fit, I can run the 100 in that.
Obviously that's for a different reason to the discrepancies that would have been between SANFL/ WAFL/ VFL, change in time create a change in culture, meaning that people train harder to be elite athletes.
But it serves my purpose anyway.