All Time Footy Draft Game, best 18!

[Mailman the 2nd]

I think Gordon Coventry is good enough  :'(

[AFEV]

You dont think the vfl was the premier league? (before afl)

First I just want to clear this up -

VFL --> AFL
VFA --> VFL

That's why they use the VFL records, not because it was the best league. ;)

Anywho, no I don't think it was the strongest league throughout the enture century. Even if you do think that, his interstate record was equally as impressive, his goals per game was good enough there to (hypothetically) kick 100 in a season as well.

Now, was the VFL at a higher standard than even interstate football? :o

[c4v3m4n]

Not before the 70s when the vfl started buying other players before that they were all somewhat equal.

Thats a personal opinion.
If you look through the history books the vfl/afl are the records that are reguarded as the true records for Australian rules football. The others arent even kept with them because it was and is the best league. If he was that good he would have come across to the big time. Comparing any league to vfl/afl is like comparing local footy records to afl records

Um, they don't use the VFL records because it was the 'best league'.

I'm sorry but arguing the VFL has always been the premier league is just ignorant, and that's coming from a Victorian. :-X

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.

[TeeJay]

Not before the 70s when the vfl started buying other players before that they were all somewhat equal.

Thats a personal opinion.
If you look through the history books the vfl/afl are the records that are reguarded as the true records for Australian rules football. The others arent even kept with them because it was and is the best league. If he was that good he would have come across to the big time. Comparing any league to vfl/afl is like comparing local footy records to afl records

Um, they don't use the VFL records because it was the 'best league'.

I'm sorry but arguing the VFL has always been the premier league is just ignorant, and that's coming from a Victorian. :-X

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.

What era are you talking about here? From when till when was the wafl and sanfl as good as the vfl?

[Ziplock]

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.

[Ziplock]

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.

[Ziplock]

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.

[TeeJay]

Thankyou zip! Thankyou for explaining the one and only dominant reason for the vfl being superior to the sanfl and wafl....
More population = bigger talent pool.

The money side of things and players coming across to the vfl wasnt so much an issue earlier on in the games history but the fact was and still does remain that the population of victoria is and always has been far larger than s.a and w.a therefore the talent pool was and always will be mach larger. So yes. The vfl was always a better league than the sanfl and wafl

[monstrum]

Mark ricciouto

[tbagrocks]

You dont think the vfl was the premier league? (before afl)

No, and get the hell out of my draft thread you moron!

[Ziplock]

Thankyou zip! Thankyou for explaining the one and only dominant reason for the vfl being superior to the sanfl and wafl....
More population = bigger talent pool.

The money side of things and players coming across to the vfl wasnt so much an issue earlier on in the games history but the fact was and still does remain that the population of victoria is and always has been far larger than s.a and w.a therefore the talent pool was and always will be mach larger. So yes. The vfl was always a better league than the sanfl and wafl

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.

[tbagrocks]

By this logic India would be dominating world cricket but they don't!

[TeeJay]

By this logic India would be dominating world cricket but they don't!

Thats because
A. India's population mostly live in poverty
B. They dont have the opportunities western civilization has in sport. Its not funded as much
C. They arent as genetically gifted for sport as other countries.

The genetics, funding and average talent for sport is no different from state to state in Australia. It simply comes down to talent pool size.

[Ziplock]

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.

[tbagrocks]

Ok I'll be more realistic, why hasn't England always dominated the cricket?