VFL vs SANFL vs WAFL

[13Brummy]

Can't be bothered entering in to the debate as I have got no clue about how strong any leagues were ever and couldn't care less really, but just going to bring up a point about the whole population theory. If having a bigger population indicates better success why is it in the domestic cricket competitions Tasmania has been so successful recently when they would have the smallest population of any of the states?

In the last 8 seasons Tasmania has won the one day league 3 times and been runner up twice (the last 2 years), and won the 4 day competition twice and runner up once (last season)? They have the smallest population so surely they should be coming last every year ;)

Cricket is different in that you can have one great player with a massive influence on the game

[Ziplock]

^+1

all you need is just one freak batsman or bowler, and they can carry a team in a game like cricket for close to a decade.

places like tasmania can still produce those like once in a generation player, it's just more unlikely.

[Mailman the 2nd]

More players are selected from other states for international or other cricket duties as well

[AFEV]

Also just to counter your population argument Zip.

VFL - 12 teams.
SANFL - 8 teams.
WAFL - 7 teams.

While SA and WA might have had shallower talent pools, they didn't require the amount of players the VFL did to fill their teams.

[TeeJay]

Also just to counter your population argument Zip.

VFL - 12 teams.
SANFL - 8 teams.
WAFL - 7 teams.

While SA and WA might have had shallower talent pools, they didn't require the amount of players the VFL did to fill their teams.

5 times the population sid. Thats a lot more people to pick from to fill 4 extra teams.

[Ziplock]

I did say I wasnt sure of the number of teams in each respective comp.

That'd even out the comps a bit, but really not enough.

Vic has nearly 4x the population of SA, and nearly 3x WA.

that's still a talent pool of millions + for vic.

[elephants]

WAFL best

[Toga]

WAFL best

at the moment I'd just about agree with you! the WAFL seems to be churning out some ripper mature agers over the last few years! :D

[elephants]

WAFL best

at the moment I'd just about agree with you! the WAFL seems to be churning out some ripper mature agers over the last few years! :D

Haha I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread so I just thought 'where did Horsley come from' BAM. WAFL. :P

[tbagrocks]

Also just to counter your population argument Zip.

VFL - 12 teams.
SANFL - 8 teams.
WAFL - 7 teams.

While SA and WA might have had shallower talent pools, they didn't require the amount of players the VFL did to fill their teams.

5 times the population sid. Thats a lot more people to pick from to fill 4 extra teams.

Five times the population  :o lol where'd you pull that stat from :o has been around 3 times an SA and WA for a century ::) maybe closer to 4 but meh, at least it's no where near 5 :P

[AFEV]

I did say I wasnt sure of the number of teams in each respective comp.

That'd even out the comps a bit, but really not enough.

Vic has nearly 4x the population of SA, and nearly 3x WA.

that's still a talent pool of millions + for vic.

Victoria: 5,603,100
Western Australia: 2,410,600

So there is a difference of 3,192,500 or 56.98%.

WAFL had 5 less teams - a difference of 41.67%.

That lessens the difference considerably, I'd go further and look at the numbers for players but I'm actually not entirely sure about the squad sizes.

[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?

[tbagrocks]

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.

[AFEV]

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?

I think we have all agreed that the VFL was the dominant league for the majority of the time.

At this point I'm not actually sure why I'm still arguing. Just trying to present the case for SANFL/WANFL/WAFL as we never really did while it was being debated.

[Mailman the 2nd]

A tl;dr for everyone reading the thread.

Zip provided the facts, tbags thinks facts are stupid.