VFL vs SANFL vs WAFL

[TeeJay]

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

[Mailman the 2nd]

I vote AFL

[AFEV]

This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...

[Ziplock]

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 here
I'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

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.

[Ziplock]

and yeah, there are some spelling/ punctuation/ formatting errors in there. Deal with it.

[tbagrocks]

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?

[tbagrocks]

This isn't what we were arguing. We were just saying the VFL wasn't the dominant league for the entire century...

Exactelly

[TeeJay]

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?

[TeeJay]

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

[AFEV]

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.

[TeeJay]

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?

[tbagrocks]

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

[AFEV]

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.

[TeeJay]

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

[tbagrocks]

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?