VFL vs SANFL vs WAFL

[tbagrocks]

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

[quinny88]

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?

[quinny88]

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 ;)

[Toga]

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... :-[

[tbagrocks]

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

[quinny88]

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

[Mailman the 2nd]

P.s its your turn in the all time draft mailman ;)

Thanks quinny :P

[tbagrocks]

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!

[Ziplock]

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.