3 Extra Flags for the Dees?

[Demonland 70,281]

 And 7 more for the Cats …

How the flag table would change

		Including VFA 1870-1896	1897-2022
	Carlton	22	16
	Essendon	20	16
	Geelong	17	10
	Collingwood	16	15
	Melbourne	16	13
	Richmond	13	13
	Hawthorn	13	13
	South Melbourne/Sydney	10	5
	Fitzroy	9	8
	North Melbourne	4	4
	West Coast	4	4
	Brisbane Lions	3	3
	Footscray/Western Bulldogs	2	2
	Adelaide	2	2
	St Kilda	1	1
	Port Adelaide	1	1
	Fremantle	0	0
	GWS	0	0
	Gold Coast	0	0
	Brisbane Bears	0	0

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,793]

?????????? Were there 'premierships' in some form between the 1870 referred to in the article and the 1877 starting point referred to below?

1877–1896: Victorian Football Association

 

Melbourne side of 1879

In 1877, Melbourne became a founding member of the Victorian Football Association (VFA). During the same year the club took part in the first interstate football match involving a South Australian side, Victorian, defeating the home side 1–0.^[14] Melbourne never won a VFA premiership, although they were consistently one of the stronger teams in the competition, finishing as runners-up four times, to Carlton in 1877, Geelong in 1878 and twice to Essendon in 1893 and 1894.

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,793]

Further 'research': Before the 1877 formation of the 'roof body' VFA,

'In 1861 the first moves towards the establishment of a roof body were seen when the Athletic Sports Committee presented a Challenge Cup for the champion Senior team, which was donated by the Royal Caledionian Society of Melbourne. The result was disputed in 1869, with both Carlton and Melbourne claiming the Cup. In the following year, Melbourne and South Yarra both claimed champion status. In 1870, South Yarra put up a new Challenge Cup for competition. A few years after the Challenge Cup was first presented, Junior teams were able to compete for a Junior Challenge Cup.^[20]

Prior to the actual establishment of an official football-only roof body in 1877, there was still a great degree of organisation and cooperation between the various clubs. Regular meetings were held between the secretaries of the clubs at which, inter alia, the following matters were discussed:
- changes and refinements to the rules;
- fixtures for each season;
- the naming of the Champion club at the end of each season.'

Hard to claim 'premierships' in this period! I'd say the answer to the thread question is a fairly resounding NO.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Timothy Reddan-A'Blew

[Demonland 70,281]

1870 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_Victorian_football_season

1872 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1872_Victorian_football_season

1876 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_Victorian_football_season

[Demonland 70,281]

This is the book where the claim is made. 

[Dr. Gonzo 23,710]

He's been going on about this for ages, it's a ridiculous notion. Check out how some of those premierships were "won" pre-1897.

It was a different comp, with different teams and different rules. Club's can celebrate their own achievements but as far as competition records are concerned they should and do commence in 1897 with the breakaway VFL.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,648]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He's been going on about this for ages, it's a ridiculous notion. Check out how some of those premierships were "won" pre-1897.

It was a different comp, with different teams and different rules. Club's can celebrate their own achievements but as far as competition records are concerned they should and do commence in 1897 with the breakaway VFL.

On the other hand, there have been regular changes to the competition structure. University left at the outbreak of WW1; Richmond joined in 1908; Footscray, North Melbourne and Hawthorn joined in 1925; West Coast and Brisbane Bears joined in 1987; Fitzroy involuntarily "left" in 1996; and, of course, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle, GWS and Gold Coast have all joined the competition since the VFL became the AFL in 1991. Isn't the argument that if pre-1897 does not count, neither should the period before 1925? Or 1991?  

[Macca 16,625]

An emphatic yes from me!

Why ignore history and footy was huge before 1897

The breakaway league formed in 1897 was effectively the same league minus a few teams

Similar to how the AFL was formed back in 1991 (was it?)

[layzie 32,869]

How far does he want to go back? The Ming Dynasty?

[whatwhat say what 22,152]

Do port’s flags in the sanfl count?

What about south Freo in the wafl?

both part of their history but contextually irrelevant to modern afl

[Macca 16,625]

6 minutes ago, layzie said:

How far does he want to go back? The Ming Dynasty?

Ming Dynasty was a long time ago layz, but you're happy to recognise it in all its form (?)

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

It's not "the AFL's" eariest era. It's a different bloody competition.

Even VFL "premierships" in the early years are not what we'd call premierships these days. Let alone in the early VFA where they were awarded by opposition captains, based on who sang "for he's a jolly good fellow" the loudest.

This guy.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

32 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 Isn't the argument that if pre-1897 does not count, neither should the period before 1925? Or 1991?  

We should regard 1991 and onwards as a different comp. Happy to celebrate our VFL cups but IMO all records should have reset and started again in 1991 (or 1990 or 1987 or whatever date you want to put on it).

[old55 22,803]

St.Kilda would still only have 1 flag 

[Jibroni 4,928]

Then Port Adelaide should have 40 if you start include these

[mauriesy 7,160]

8 minutes ago, old55 said:

St.Kilda would still only have 1 flag 

Go back to the beginning in 1865 and Albert Park would have two premierships.

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,793]

9 hours ago, Demonland said:

1870 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_Victorian_football_season

1872 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1872_Victorian_football_season

1876 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_Victorian_football_season

 

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He's been going on about this for ages, it's a ridiculous notion. Check out how some of those premierships were "won" pre-1897.

It was a different comp, with different teams and different rules. Club's can celebrate their own achievements but as far as competition records are concerned they should and do commence in 1897 with the breakaway VFL.

Particularly check out how our 3 pre-1877 'premierships' were 'won'! (very generous of Mr Carter to include them, though, considering Geelong did not compete!)

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,793]

43 minutes ago, Macca said:

An emphatic yes from me!

Why ignore history and footy was huge before 1897

The breakaway league formed in 1897 was effectively the same league minus a few teams

Similar to how the AFL was formed back in 1991 (was it?)

True from 1888, but it was only us, Geelong, Carlton and St Kilda in the VFA before then. Stay with us, Macca!

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,793]

51 minutes ago, layzie said:

How far does he want to go back? The Ming Dynasty?

 

43 minutes ago, Macca said:

Ming Dynasty was a long time ago layz, but you're happy to recognise it in all its form (?)

I'm definitely for this version!

My 'civics' education shows this to be the years 1939 to 1941 and 1949 to 1966. Not so long ago, Macca? And the Dees collecting 10 of the 20 premierships contested (with an 11th as he was waiting on the bench for his second go!) 

 

[Macca 16,625]

17 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

True from 1888, but it was only us, Geelong, Carlton and St Kilda in the VFA before then. Stay with us, Macca!

For those who don't know, the Tigers and North were excluded from the new league as they were regarded as thugs, and Port, Willy & the 'Scrays were not included because their grounds were deemed too far away to travel to (on muddy roads in the horse & cart days)

Ironically Richmond, Footscray & North all rejoined the VFL later on

And Essendon played at East Melbourne for logistical reasons as well (?)

The Cats were included at the last moment I believe but I don't know why

The book is a must read for myself as I've been fascinated by the era prior to 1897

Per capita, the crowds were huge and footy was just as big a talking point as it is now

[Gator 17,260]

1 hour ago, Jibroni said:

Then Port Adelaide should have 40 if you start include these

This is an incorrect assertion.

The VFL changed its name to the AFL in 1990.  As the AFL, formerly the VFL, expanded with new teams, ie Port Adelaide in 1997, those entering the competition knew it had derived from the VFL.  They also knew their premierships from the SANFL had no currency in the expanded VFL.

Any additional premierships have no bearing whatsoever on Port Adelaide or any other clubs that entered the new competition post 1990.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Gator

[Demonland 70,281]

We should start counting from 2012 when GWS entered the competition.

Hawthorn 3

Richmond 3

Geelong 1

Melbourne 1

Sydney 1

West Coast 1

Western Bulldogs 1

The Rest 0

 

 

 

[layzie 32,869]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Ming Dynasty was a long time ago layz, but you're happy to recognise it in all its form (?)

To be honest Macca I just wanted to use that line.

All jokes aside I don't mind the idea of shining more light on the game's history pre 1897. Very little is known about it in the mainstream. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by layzie

[BangBnagBang 584]

not sure it would be extra flags. Melbourne has either won them already or they haven't. if we have won them already they are not extra.

The VFA was a different competition.

The VFL changed its name to AFL.

[Macca 16,625]

10 minutes ago, layzie said:

To be honest Macca I just wanted to use that line.

All jokes aside I don't mind the idea of shining more light on the game's history pre 1897. Very little is known about it in the mainstream. 

I'd say virtually nothing is know in the mainstream ... it's a bit like the era prior to the SuperBowl era in the NFL.  As the years roll on the SuperBowl era dominates the talk and what happened prior gets more and more ignored

As for the footy, there would be a large percentage of people who probably think that the first game of footy was played in 1897

The other part is what was so different from 1 year to the next? (1896 to 1897) It was the same league with less teams.  One could argue that 1896 was stronger and more competitive as Willy, Port & North were reasonably competitive in 1896 (ironically the Cats & Blues were at the base of the ladder in 1896)

So it wasn't necessarily a stronger comp in 1897

Anyway, I'm going to buy the book and I'll lend it to you if we catch up at the local. haha