12 minutes ago, Macca said:

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

Spot on, NFL Championships pre 1967 don't get much of a look in when it comes to history discussions. Even the EPL is starting to go that way as the old First Division gets further away in the rear view mirror. 

All for it! Colin is definitely one for extensive research. Could be a decent read. 

Edited February 1, 20232 yr by layzie

Ripper, looking forward to more premiership merchandise 

9 minutes ago, layzie said:

Spot on, NFL Championships pre 1967 don't get much of a look in when it comes to history discussions. Even the EPL is starting to go that way as the old First Division gets further away in the rear view mirror. 

All for it! Colin is definitely one for extensive research. Could be a decent read. 

Our 3 extra flags is something that I'll have a look at too.  Whilst I know about the overall flag winners in the VFA (1877 - 1896) I don't know a great deal about 1870 - 1876

It's also fascination that all the teams that competed in 1896 are all still around today and doing ok (even Port & Willy)

Interestingly the current NFL in America resulted in the merger of two leagues the NFL and the AFL but premierships in both competitions carried over to the new competition, but a lot of people don't really count those premierships.  Success tends to be evaluated based on the post merger era, reffered to as "The Superbowl Era"

Edited February 1, 20232 yr by Orion

24 minutes ago, bringbackthebiff said:

Ripper, looking forward to more premiership merchandise 

They're selling like hotcakes.

Much prefer the 19th century outfits to the  underwear players run around in these days.

34 minutes ago, Demonland said:

They're selling like hotcakes.

Demonlanders with a good memory will recall Robbie suffering a nasty injury when his finger got caught in one of these jumpers during a retro round type thing in the mid-1980's. They were banned after that. 

Such a Melbourne thing to happen. 

I believe that official 'AFL' premierships should only be recognised from the period beginning with the Australia's declaration of war in WW2 until the first deployment of Australian combat forces to the US war in Vietnam.

5 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I believe that official 'AFL' premierships should only be recognised from the period beginning with the Australia's declaration of war in WW2 until the first deployment of Australian combat forces to the US war in Vietnam.

All records & awards to suspended for the year that Lake Eucumbene was completed. Out of respect. Whichever year that was.

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Our 3 extra flags is something that I'll have a look at too.  Whilst I know about the overall flag winners in the VFA (1877 - 1896) I don't know a great deal about 1870 - 1876

It's also fascination that all the teams that competed in 1896 are all still around today and doing ok (even Port & Willy)

What about Fitzroy and University?  Neither exist (as AFL clubs) any more.

I don’t know much about this.

But no way am I down with Geelong getting another 7 flags so it’s a big no from me.

37 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What about Fitzroy and University?  Neither exist (as AFL clubs) any more.

You've got me on a technicality

The point is still quite valid for those not afraid to embrace history

Those against might have a hidden agenda ... they don't want Carlton, Essendon & Geelong getting all those extra flags

Edited February 1, 20232 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, Grapeviney said:

Demonlanders with a good memory will recall Robbie suffering a nasty injury when his finger got caught in one of these jumpers during a retro round type thing in the mid-1980's. They were banned after that. 

I don't think it was a retro round, @Grapeviney.  Did they even have such gimmicks back then?

Several of the Tiger players of that era wore the canvas lace-up jumper by choice (it apparently made it harder for opponents to tackle) and the VFL banned such jumpers after Robbie's injury.

edit:  Just did some research and Robbie was injured when he tackled Michael Turner of Geelong in 1986, so it wasn't just Richmond players who wore the lace-up.  They were banned at the end that year.

Edited February 1, 20232 yr by Demonstone

41 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I believe that official 'AFL' premierships should only be recognised from the period beginning with the Australia's declaration of war in WW2 until the first deployment of Australian combat forces to the US war in Vietnam.

 

29 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

All records & awards to suspended for the year that Lake Eucumbene was completed. Out of respect. Whichever year that was.

Yes, as I said earlier: the Ming Dynasty. That left out the unrepresentative years 1942-1948, Goffy. Pity about 1948, but can't be greedy.

Lake Eucumbene no doubt helped to get Doc Evatt pipped at the post, Mazer. Who knows what damage might have been done to various then-current dynasties had the social landscape changed?

 

6 hours ago, Demonland said:

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

 

 

 

Hurry up the Tassie team, then, while we're still in the window. It might be Melbourne 3  The Rest 0 from that next restart!😁

Edited February 1, 20232 yr by Timothy Reddan-A'Blew

5 hours ago, old55 said:

St.Kilda would still only have 1 flag 

Somebody had to say it I guess. Whenever inclined to self-pity as a Dees supporter (pre-2021 of course), only had to think of the Saints. I do feel for them. 

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

I don't think it was a retro round, @Grapeviney.  Did they even have such gimmicks back then?

Several of the Tiger players of that era wore the canvas lace-up jumper by choice (it apparently made it harder for opponents to tackle) and the VFL banned such jumpers after Robbie's injury.

edit:  Just did some research and Robbie was injured when he tackled Michael Turner of Geelong in 1986, so it wasn't just Richmond players who wore the lace-up.  They were banned at the end that year.

My memory's pretty hazy DS so you may well be right, but I don't recall (m)any players wearing the lace-ups as late as '86.

There certainly wasn't a retro round, but I thought it happened during a round when everyone was wearing them (including the MFC) ie so an 80's equivalent of a nod to tradition. 

If you go back to the pictures from that era (early to mid-80's), players aren't wearing lace-ups.

Edit: Wiki says VFL teams stopped wearing them around the time of WWI, although in the SANFL and other leagues they were worn as late as 2001.

13 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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?  

No, because pre-1897 was a different competition. All those changes post 1897 were part of one continuous league, the VFL which changed its name to AFL in 1990. The governance of the league continued from 1989 to 1990, 1897 was a breakaway competition with a new structure and governance.

Some of the "premierships" awarded pre-1897 were done so by vote of media and the "fixture" was far from official with some teams playing more games than others, some teams not playing against other teams and doubling up against others etc. It was far more informal than the structured competition which began in 1897.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VFA/VFL_premiers

"From 1877 until 1887, the premiership was a title given to the best performing team, determined largely by press consensus. These premierships, as well as premierships between 1870 and 1876 decided in the same manner prior to the foundation of the VFA, were at the time an informal title, but have since been considered official.[1][2]"

13 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

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).

No, the AFL in 1990 (not 1991) was the same competition as the VFL in 1989. It was the same teams, same governance structure, same rules, same awards etc. The only difference was a name change, a rebranding.

It's like saying the Melbourne Fuschias and the Melbourne Demons are two separate clubs.

11 hours ago, Demonland said:

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

 

 

 

Just wait a few years and we can wipe the slate clean when Tassie enter. In fact let's just say the only flag that counts is the last one 🤔🤣

10 hours ago, Macca said:

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. 

It was not the same league though Macca. 1897 was a new breakaway league called the VFL. The VFA still existed and continued as a separate entity as I'm sure you know. Another change that occurred in 1897 with the breakaway league was the inclusion of behinds in the total score tally. Initially only goals were counted, then behinds were counted but not included in the score. In 1897 behinds were added as one point with goals awarded six points to calculate the total score.

For anyone interested in the history I recommend the podcast Kick to Kick, 2 (sometimes 3) Melbourne supporters and an Essendon supporter going through the history one year at a time (although they cover the pre 1897 stuff in one podcast from memory). They are all history teachers too from memory.

Edited February 1, 20232 yr by Dr. Gonzo

11 hours ago, Demonland said:

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

 

 

 

Don’t understand the logic here. Are you saying reset to 0 if when a Tasmanian team enters the comp? Why bother then?

35 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It was not the same league though Macca. 1897 was a new breakaway league called the VFL. The VFA still existed and continued as a separate entity as I'm sure you know. Another change that occurred in 1897 with the breakaway league was the inclusion of behinds in the total score tally. Initially only goals were counted, then behinds were counted but not included in the score. In 1897 behinds were added as one point with goals awarded six points to calculate the total score.

For anyone interested in the history I recommend the podcast Kick to Kick, 2 (sometimes 3) Melbourne supporters and an Essendon supporter going through the history one year at a time (although they cover the pre 1897 stuff in one podcast from memory). They are all history teachers too from memory.

I see the 1897 breakaway league as a new league that discarded the teams that didn't fit their criteria

In effect the same league minus 4 or 5 teams.  It's not like there were any new teams included.  They were teams that already existed in the prior league

The VFA continued on but it was obviously not a patch on the 1877-1896 league

And this is where people judge in an incorrect way (I believe) ... we associate the VFA as a lesser competion with teams like Brunswick or Caulfield when in reality, the VFA prior to 1897 was the premier league

All the best teams played in that league or derived from that league and that is indisputable

Put away any bias or prejudice and it should be recognised as such (the Premier football competition)

We can agree to disagree Gonzo but I'm probably as passionate about this revelation as Carter is

In fact, I've been banging on about it with mates for over 30 years.  One of my pet hates is ignoring history.  I've spent hours and days pouring over old archive newspapers in the State library from that era. 

Trust me, footy was huge back in the 19th century ... with big crowds considering only about 650,000 people lived in Melbourne at that time

Edited February 1, 20232 yr by Macca

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Just wait a few years and we can wipe the slate clean when Tassie enter. In fact let's just say the only flag that counts is the last one 🤔🤣

...except, particularly in the context of Carter's Geelong-centric thesis, when it's 2022's vs 2021's!

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

...except, particularly in the context of Carter's Geelong-centric thesis, when it's 2022's vs 2021's!

Not sure about counting anything before 1877 (when the new (back then) VFA comp was quite well organised and structured)

So that would rule out the 3 extra flags for us (as well as taking 3 flags off Carlton) ... applicable from 1870 to 1876

Google will lead people to each particular year (via Wiki) so 1870 itself seems to be more about games organised on the go! No real structure and an uneven amount of games played by the competing clubs

But I'm highly doubtful that anything will change with regards to the premiership count.  I'd change it but I'm part of s small minority

However, it's good that this past history has been brought to life and it will get people thinking.  There's lots of people interested in historical data especially when the newspapers of the day verify that data