The history of the VFL was perhaps one of the great sports stories of the sporting world. An indigenous game created by a small young outpost of the world, that developed over a century into the greatest game in the world.
In hindsight, the period between 1965 and 1981 was the apogee of the game. Thereafter, up until 1993, the aesthetic appeal of the game was unchallenged, but events off the field cast a dark shadow over the game.
This was partly a result of clubs not being able to manage their finances as the game became more professional. But also it was a result of the evangelistic zeal of the likes of Allen Aylett who wanted to export the game to the rest of Australia, and ultimately to the world.
Things like ‘consolidation’ were not part of the plan. Hence we lost South Melbourne in 1981, and ultimately Fitzroy in 1996.
The game was perfectly conceived with the big bad ogre – due to their strictly working class status? – in Collingwood, who after 1958 were the clear premiership leader with 13, ahead of Essendon on 10.
Thereafter, for the next 23 years, they proceeded to provide the rest of the competition with endless joy through losing grand finals in all sorts of a manner, yet never losing their position as the most successful team (unintentional socialism in practice). Even the teams not in those grand finals could take some small comfort from Collingwood’s losses.
The game itself, while successful in the post-war era, reflected the Menzian era – conservative. Scoring was low, lower than the Depression era when teams were more desperate than ever to win and provide their supporters and players with something. (It is interesting that that desperation translated into attacking football, whereas nowadays desperation stemming from extreme professionalism has translated into negative football.)
But in 1965 the appointment of Ron Barrasi by Carlton – and perhaps the adoption by Richmond’s Tom Hafey of his predecessor Len Smith’s football philosophy – heralded the new era. Menzies departed the scene, succeeded by the more ‘modern’ Harold Holt. These two clubs started their uphill climb with attacking football that was soon to be adopted by the whole competition, especially in 1969 when the out of bounds rule was changed to penalise out-on-the-full kicks.
The game was seemingly perfect. Big scores, century goal kickers, great marks and goals – what other sport has two forms of spectacular highlights? – increasing crowds, the last ‘first ever premiership’ by the standard bearer of the era in North Melbourne, and a series of grand finals that remained unmatched, highlighted by the 1970 grand final. Yes, Collingwood lost eight of them!
Then, slowly things started to unravel. As stated before, South were gone. Then crowds started to retreat for the first time in decades as a result of the 1982 recession, the decline of Collingwood, and the continued disparity between the dominant clubs and the rest. But the evangelical zeal of the competition showed no boundaries as we pushed into Brisbane, and even adopted a Western Australia team. (In hindsight I can’t believe Western Australia and later, South Australia supporters accepted this state of affairs.)
Allen Aylett was removed and a commission was set up to properly control the competition in order to stop the haemorrhaging, which was for the most parts successful (except for the forced destruction of Fitzroy). But as I said, evangelism proceeded.
Throughout all this, the football was still fantastic, but a series of poor grand finals had people thinking that the game was not as good as it used to be.
Then the late 1980s and early ’90s saw two diametrically opposite styles of football enter the fray. Unfortunately, and this perhaps had major ramifications over the ensuing 20 years, the defence of West Coast prevailed over the offence of Geelong. (Strangely Malcolm Blights’ unique insights into the game were rewarded with a double premiership later in the decade with an average Adelaide team.)
The 1993 season proved to be the last season of modern football, it was immediately evident in 1994 that packs were forming more regularly. I do have a theory and it’s based on the fact that the negative tactics were formulated in the preceding two or three years in the lower competitions by younger coaches more able to instil into younger more impressionable players new methods in play.
The senior players of the AFL took longer to indoctrinate. By 1997, the scoring rate had dropped dramatically. But 1997 was so even, with the likes of Footscray and St Kilda vying for premiership glory, that no one really focussed on this. Further to this, the grand finals themselves were relatively closer than the 1980s.
The game continued to become more professional. But it had started to turn its players into automatons or zombies (Matthew Lloyd of Essendon was a prime example). Perversely, he is now a very human commentator of the game.
And in 2005, the nadir was reached with a grand final that featured a low score that had not been seen since 1964 (quite appropriately, the last premiership by Melbourne in the last year before the modern era began). But because of the closeness of the game, the first win by Sydney, and the pressure involved, not to mention the last-gasp saving mark, the low aesthetic standard was completely ignored. It was a game reflective of the era – the Howard era, not coincidently – where the people were seemingly unconcerned by dire football.
Then Geelong and Hawthorn emerged to finally provide some light to the football world. But unfortunately the darkness that Sydney bestowed upon the competition would not yield. Other clubs didn’t look to emulate Geelong and Hawthorn, which were long-term projects. They went for the instant impact that Paul Roos had and, even more so, with Ross Lyon. And as a result, 2014 has proven to be the lowest scoring season since 1968, with 2015 on target for even lower scoring.
Solutions? Hmmm.
I believe we have to remove two players from the arena – like the VFA had, which assisted their high scoring. This does have the added bonus of reduced wages.
We also need to restrict access to the centre square at ball ups after goals or at the start of quarters. The best way to do this is to have all players positioned behind the 50-metre arc. This also ensures players start in their positions at that stage. No flooding of the defence.
Some of the other solutions offered by commentators are silly (penalising backwards kicks?) and would require more officiating.
Footnote: The South Australia and Western Australia completions, and the lesser VFA, provided even higher scoring than the VFL, but didn’t have the aforementioned perfectness of the VFL.
Port Adelaide were too dominant and were a dour team as opposed to the offensive but relatively unsuccessful Glenelg. Western Australia was a very democratic league where all eight clubs won premierships within a 10-year period. But their grand finals were still not up to the VFL standard of thrills, and with only eight teams the competition lacked a bit of gravitas.
Savvas Jonis
Guest
As much as interstaters were getting a raw deal during the VFL era, the one thing they never had to suffer was losing a Football Club. Fitzroy and to a lesser extent, South Melbourne supporters, lost their clubs. I say this with the experience of my Soccer team, South Melbourne Hellas, no longer being in the top division. BUT, they still exist and are doing quite well in the State League.
Interesting article, mate. From the point of view of the fans I believe most would be happier if the AFL fragmented itself back to the setup of the old leagues (VFL, WAFL, SANFL). I can't speak for interstate supporters, but as a Victorian, the most obvious thing lacking from the game is the intense and frequent rivalries that came from a 12-team competition. In 2015, historic rivals, and the most successful Victorian clubs of all-time, Essendon and Carlton, played each other just once at the beginning of the season and are now both destined for a bottom-four finish. Yawn. Now obviously reverting back to the old league will never happen. While it would reward the fan, there is no business efficacy to the idea, and business is the primary (perhaps sole?) motivation for the AFL. But I can't help but wonder how amazing it'd be to see a renovated Victoria Park hosting a top-of-the-table clash between Collingwood and Richmond in Round 22, not Round 23. I would assume it would be equally pleasing for SA & WA fans to see the equivalent occur in their own states.
Savvas Jonis
Guest
The title of my article was not my choosing. I do not have a panacea for the aesthetic problems the game currently has. I was more interested in placing into context why I, and many others, are so embittered about the current style being employed, by looking at what many of us consider a Golden Age of the game.
Savvas Jonis
Guest
'Perfectness' is a relative term. There were many problems. One of them being the bleeding of the other states of their best players. The creation of a national league was to 'save' the VFL game. I, and nearly EVERYONE (including WA and SA) never wanted that. But the 1% (a term not invented back then) wanted it. We wanted consolidation. But the likes of Carlton and John Elliott (my team, would you believe) were part of this push. I feel very little pity for their current predicament. The other stuff you list is minutiae.
Savvas Jonis
Guest
That's like trying to police the Offside rule! Hard enough in Soccer. Why introduce that level of complexity? If he kicks it sideways, how can you tell if it went a millimetre each way?
joe b
Guest
Limit interchanges to 15/qtr, and implement the proposed 50m arc rule (zoning) for center bounces. That would be the simplest way, without radical rule changes. See how that fares over 3 or 4 seasons. If more interference is required, they might consider further zoning for throw ins (esp. for inside 50m arc throw ins).
bryan
Guest
Yeah,Victoria,it's all about you! You "adopted" a WA team?--------How magnanimous of you! WA had to pay to get into the AFL,& The Eagles were established specifically for that League. Of course,they stole the best players out of the WANFL to do so. We were used to the VFL doing that,& playing them against us in Interstate games,so we didn't mind it so much when WCE did it instead. By the way,there is no such word as “perfectness .”----the correct word is "perfection",although not one I would use in connection with the VFL. Mike:-, What the hell would a Canadian know about ugly? They watch ice hockey--a game which has been well & truly "hit with the ugly stick"! . By the way,who are these Northern States? I've pointed out before that SA extends further North than NSW,WA occupies the whole western third of the country,& AR is popular in the NT(OK,it isn't a State)-----that just leaves QLD!
Leapin Leo
Guest
I like your reference to the political eras. I've never thought of it before but there are some similarities between the styles of "Jack Boot" John Howard and Andrew "Vlad" Demetriou, and it's a toss of the coin for which mullet is the more stunned between Gil McLachlan and Tony Abbot. Both pairs do bookend quite neatly though. (Not to mention Mike "Latham" Fitzpatrick). With 18 teams and the concept of equalisation - every team capable of winning a premiership - there's more intensity among clubs to do whatever it takes to win. Whether that's being "unsociable" or crowding the back half. No matter what changes are made you can't force an attractive game style. Look at the *high pressure* games of the past and you'll see some pretty ugly footy too. Reducing on field numbers or creating starting zones won't change much after time on is blown. If 2 players are removed they probably should be the sub and one off the bench. Reduce the interchange to 10-15 per quarter, forcing teams to rest their on-ballers in the forward/back pockets like it used to be. Let teams play tired by the end, a slug-out of will and determination. There's nothing better to keep a forward line populated when the ball's in the back half than being too tired to sprint. The problem with this scenario is that all games would need to be moved back to a Saturday so everyone has an even 7 day turnaround. There were heaps of great games in the Golden Age of footy but they were run at a slower pace - go back far enough and they had a beer and a cigarette at half time!
jax
Guest
Nice little walk through VFL history. For mine, the modern era began in 1987 when WC and Brisbane came onboard. Some will say 1991 when the Crows joined. I'm cool with either but I'm not sure what this 1964 modern era you speak of is? "the WAFL and SANFL didn’t have the aforementioned perfectness of the VFL." - is this a joke? The VFL was far from perfect. Here's a quick rundown of how the national competition was born from a WC perspective. 1. In the 80's VFL clubs were often paying $100,000+ player transfer fees to WAFL clubs plus the players salary. This policy was financially reckless and unsustainable and it placed a number of VFL clubs under severe financial duress. WAFL clubs that had by this time become addicted to the VFL transfer money even encouraged WA boys to play in the VFL so that they could get their hands on the cash. This weakened the WAFL competition over time. 2. By 1986 six of the twelve VFL clubs were technically bankrupt and the VFL competition was in serious trouble. This meant fewer transfer fees would be paid to WAFL clubs which in turn put WAFL teams and the WAFL competition at risk. The SANFL owned Football Park and made more than enough money from gate receipts etc to ignore the initial request to join forces with the WAFL and push for better terms in an expanded competition. The SANFL chose to go it alone and not join the WAFL in the expanded comp. 3. The VFL agreed to grant a license to a WA and QLD club in return for a $4M license fee from each club to be repaid over 10 years. 4. Terms were agreed in approx August 1986 but at the last minute the VFL said that the $4M license fee had to be paid in full within 30 days. The WAFL had to scramble and they secured a bridging loan from R&I Bank so as to pay the license fee (now Bankwest). Five wealthy WA supporters of the concept (incl. Richard Colless) created a publicly listed vehicle called Indian Pacific Ltd to raise funds for the WCE. They failed to raise the required money from the public so they each tipped in $1M to kick off the team. They later sold their stakes back to the WAFL. These men deserve huge kudo's for creating the WCE and helping to save the VFL. 5. Many VFL clubs were against the national competition and they threatened to vote against the concept. In the end the motion was passed and the national competition was born but with some caveats. 6. Between the time WC were accepted and recruiting their first players the VFL clubs were given a trade window to go out recruit as many WAFL players as they could before WC picked their squad. 17 of the best WAFL players were signed by VFL clubs during this window and some of the clubs (eg Richmond) used tactics like "we are going to vote against the national competition so sign with us or play in the WAFL next year because the national competition will not get off the ground" - well the motion did pass and the VFL clubs had just taken 17 of the best WAFL players in one final raid on the WAFL. 7. Each VFL club had 52 players on their list - WC were only allowed to have 35 players. The WAFL clubs were against the concept and blocked access to their facilities so the WCE had to train at suburban grounds all over Perth and these grounds changed from session to session. The players got changed in the car park and didn't have showers, massage rooms etc. 8. WC were only allowed to recruit one player back to WA from each VFL club. 30 years ago six VFL clubs were bankrupt and because of this the VFL was expanded. Fast forward 30 years and we still have original VFL clubs that are dependent on handouts. We can't change history but if we had our time again every club should have had to reapply and pay a license fee if they wanted to partake in the new competition. Here's a link to a short video on the topic https://youtu.be/fm3SiTme-T0
Mike
Guest
The game sure needs something. Where is the free flowing play and big one on one marking contests that used to be the hallmark of the game?? The AFL is going to continue to struggle to gain acceptance in the northern states and elsewhere whilst the game is played in it's current style. You can throw as much money as you like at advertising, marketing, Auskick etc etc but if the game is not attractive to watch it won't mean a thing. I met a Canadian through business a couple of weeks ago and we started talking about sport. He's watched some AFL out here and said his honest opinion was that it is the ugliest professional sport in the world. Not a great recommendation.
Graeme Membrey
Guest
To reduce stoppages and deliberately formed groupings, restrict 'back passing' back inside the defensive 50 meter arc! All other suggested issues are then resolved. Forward movement is maintained and hopefully scores will rise!? Graeme