By Savvas Tzionis
March 28th 2008 @ 1:39am
Loading ...Modern rugby league is better than AFL
I am a born and bred Aussie Rules fan. I once thought it was the greatest sport in the world. Not anymore.
To illustrate my point, I make the following comparison to the reigning sport north of Wagga Wagga, rugby league.
I have not attended an AFL match since 2000 for the simple reason that the game has become terribly boring.
I have actually been a critic of the game since 1994 when I first detected it was starting to deteriorate as a spectacle due to the clogging up of the play.
It has steadily become worse with “flooding” and various other defensive tactics now ever-present. You only have to look at the current scoring rates compared to the 80s and early 90s to see what I mean.
I have also noticed the virtual demise of our game’s greatest asset, the high mark (not to mention the complete demise of the Torpedo Punt).
Coincidental, or perhaps as a consequence, I started watching rugby league more often. In 2002 it dawned on me, whilst watching the relative final series of the two codes, that I was enjoying league more than AFL!
This was quite a shock as I was once a strong proponent of the term “Thugby” to describe league.
I draw the following comparisons in light of my “conversion” (pardon the pun!):
DURATION
The problem with AFL, is that the game is quite long (2 hours). In the old days, when the game had artistry and flair, it was simply a matter of getting more value for your dollar. Nowadays, the first quarter is like the first act of a long boring play, whereas in League, you know that each minute is quite important due to the short duration (80 minutes) of the game.
STYLE
One criticism that non-Aussie Rules people had of Aussie Rules was of its unorganised style. The critics probably didn’t appreciate that the flair, artistry and varied skills, depended, perhaps, on the unorganized nature of the sport. Unfortunately this disorganisation now just looks like “unorganised rugby union” with just as many packs but virtually no rules governing them!!! With Rugby League, the play (at least from a TV watchers perspective) is clearly defined. It is neat and crisp with very few grey areas.
UMPIRING
Free kicks reduced by between 30% and 70%, whereas ball-ups increased to a similar extent between 1994 until around 2005. Umpires became scared to pay free kicks. The AFL have made efforts to rectify this situation but the game has continued to adapt. The packs have to some extent dissipated recently but the coaches have flooded the backlines to an even greater extent and have perfected the art of chipping the ball around to each other. I never seem to hear the same angst from fans of league when it comes to umpiring. I think the fact that league appointed (Bill?) Harrigan every year over a period of time to the major games shows that there was consistency and relative satisfaction when it comes to refereeing in league.
ROMANTICISM
It helps that an “underdog” can occasionally win the premiership. In Rugby League we had Penrith in 2003 after a string of victories by the usual ‘top dogs’. And it has continued with the victory of the Western Tigers in 2005 (who also beat another lesser team in the Northern Queenslanders). Rugby League has also been assisted by the 7 different premiers over the last 7 years.
AFL, by contrast, has been dominated recently by the Interstate teams and, prior to that period, by the top dogs in Victoria.
Sydney’s win in 2005 was romantic in a very narrow sense. The team left South Melbourne 25 years ago and the manner they won the game left many of us less than enamoured with them. Conversely, that years NRL grand final brought together 2 Cinderella teams that played a very entertaining brand of League. Ok, Wests Tigers is a joint venture, but at least they are still in Sydney. And they still play at their old grounds (a point I will get to later).
Geelong’s win last year ended the drought for one of the perennial losers (finally!!). But even that only highlighted the comparison with the great Geelong teams of the Blight era from 1989-1995. Back then, playing offensive football, they lost 4 Grand Finals, 2 of them to the ultra defensive West Coast Eagles! Their modern equivalent did not display any of the flair evident back then. It just highlights how Australian Rules has changed.
VENUE’S
The use of the historical/traditional grounds is another major contrast:
* AFL in Melbourne uses 2 grounds
* NRL in Sydney uses at least 6 grounds
The use of different venues engenders and keeps the regional aspect of the teams and who they represent. Here in Melbourne we have lost that.
There are other comparisons (in rugby league’s favour) I could draw upon such as the State of Origin matches.
But as a starting point for discussion, perhaps this is enough.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(230)
Michael C said | March 28th 2008 @ 9:11am | Report comment
I’m struggling with some of your points.
Romance – I can see soccers FA Cup as about the only ‘romantic’ reality in sport. Most other romance is imagined. Maybe you’ve just grown up and it’s not like it used to be.
Romance – Geelong did NOT display flair?? Where are you coming from? Gary Ablett Junior is all flair, Paul Chapman is rugged flair, they played an aggresive play on style of game all year – it was known that they would almost always play on – stopping it was another thing altogether.
Romance – North and Collingwood making the top 4 – both expected to be bottom of the ladder. Winning the cup is the only measure. In fact, undeserved winners simply demean the competition. Does not the immediate success of Storm in ‘99 demean the NRL?
Btw – who do you barrack for? Not Richmond or Carlton per chance?
Are you a paid up member – I doubt it – if you haven’t attended since 2000. Which means you’re perhaps trapped to watching it on tele – which is the reality of your article then – that Rugby League is a better TV spectacle. And you’ve stated that. If you’re happy with the RL bogan commentators, the count of 6 tackles, the players gauging their performance NOT on possessions/disposals/goals but on tackles!!! If you’re happy with only one goal kicker and such a disrespect for kicking and goals that field goals have been reduced to 1 point and reserved only to avoid a drawn game……..if you happy with off-side and imaginary lines across the field and everybody facing each other all day in opposing lines rather than one on one match ups across the field etc, ……..then you’ve suitably ‘turned’.
AFL – the game evolves. I’m dirty on 4 on the bench and too many interchanges and less on ground rotation and the pace of the game being too great. However, the fact that teams have to try to congest the play is largely related to the fact they no longer play on grounds with a muddy cricket pitch in the middle – that was a ‘natural’ congester – take that away, and suddenly every game can be played like it’s March.
Sytle of Play -
this is a point of view one – surely. Rugby is a very, very structured ye olde battlefield style game – Union especially is all about what you can’t do. Where is the instinctive play? The make it up as you go play. My main gripe with AFL has been over coaching by coaches who coach the flair out of players – refreshing then to hear young Bachar Houli from Essendon stating that he’s actually being encouraged to be more daring. If you’re not excited watching Dale Thomas or Lance Franklin, Kosi and Jonathan Brown, Boomer Harvey or the Davey boys etc etc – then perhaps you are getting a little old and requiring the slow lane – so, please, keep left.
What to one person is ‘disorganised’ – such as the Rugby Union rolling mauls with bodies flayed and people seeming NOT concerned about possession of the ball – is quite something else to the ‘followers of the game’. The reality of Aust Footy is that the ‘live’ ball is contested – and with no knock on and no structure via off-side and tackle counts etc – well, gee, it’s a little unpredictable. Rugby League is quite predictable. Because of it’s ‘organisation’.
However – in AFL I’d love to see a rule brought in that no more than 2 tacklers will be rewarded with a free kick – I am sick of seeing 4 tacklers jump all over a fellow on the ground to hold the ball in. That is ugly and umpires perhaps need to place a greater requirement on a ‘legal’ tackle.
AFL (umpires) needs not to be afraid of ‘bouncing the ball’ – as, the neutral restart is a key feature as compared to turn sharing in other sports.
and – the ball up provides for the crucial skills and abilities of the ‘followers’ – the Ruckman, the rover and ruck-rover. Without which, there can be too great a sameness across the field. We must NOT devalue the roles of the variety of body types.
State of Origin – I went to the one recently at Telstra Dome – 75 mins of boredom before QLD suddenly came to life and almost justified the preceding 75 mins of people runnings 3 paces into a tackle……
remember, AFL/VFL HAD state of origin. But – when there’s more than just 2 states, and you have state based games each week – then, State of Origin died a natural death. I wouldn’t mind, now, in the full draft era and further removed from start up local concessions – I wouldn’t mind ever 4 years a SoO carnival – - but, the regular season competition IS DIMINISHED by SoO in RL. The players doubling up in a week or being unavailable – the regular season contest is compromised. Not enhanced. The reality is that AFL folk prioritised the club competition – for the premiership – ahead of the state bragging rights. RL SoO is just a reminder of a 2 state code.
Venues wise – the suburban grounds are fine for suburban comps – I’ll go down to Port Melbourne or Coburg and watch a ‘VFL’ game – but, thank god the AFL has out grown those and we can average 36K attendance per game. Have a bit of real rather than imagined atmosphere – have you tried taking kids to those old grounds with crap toilets, crap seating, crap roofing – - have you actually been to Telstra Dome and checked out the food court and the parents rooms???? Have you been to the further revamped MCG? I’m a NOrth Melbourne person and Arden St is a happy memory – by that, I’m happy it’s a memory – it was a dingy little inner suburban ground – yeah, history – not for me, I was from the country – it’s not the ground at the end of the street – to me, it was dirty, cramped, required a walk through industrial streets from the station…….
what I do love though, via local footy – people now get to play on grounds like Glenferrie Oval – and you realise just how bad it would be to still be playing top level footy there. Especially for vehicle access, but also the grounds were not always that big and you’d be complaining about the cramped congested play and muddy cricket pitches in the middle of the ground.
Which returns me to believe that you either just felt like a whinge and lament for your romantic notion of the good old days – or that your trying a bit of code vs code.
sledgeross said | March 28th 2008 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Michael C,
I think you are the biased whinger mate, because they are valid points!
It just comes down to opinions, doesnt it?
Obviously you are ignorant of Rugby League. The young Tigers won their premeiership based on flair and attack, while the unfancied Panthers were victorious over the latte sipping Roosters in wet conditions in 03. Thats fairytale stuff. Sattlers cover tackle of Todd Byrne to put him into touch, Benji Marshalls no look flick pass to Pat Richards. Comparable to Cinderella. The romance is there for sure. I agree that the Cats play a fantastic style of play. Rugged, mobile defenders, fast, skillfull midfielders and talented forwards. They are good to watch and are certainly a bright spark in the AFL.
As for your assertions about Rugby League in general, bah humbug! AFL has plenty of wanker commentators as well. Sam Newman is probably the biggest one going around! Players are not merely gauged on tackles, but many other facets as well. It is dependent on your position. The reason why kicking for goal has been so “undervalued” is because onus is placed more on attacking footy, and scoring tries. Look at the mundane nature of Rugby Union. The technical interpretation mean 3 points for a penalty kick, plus 3 for drop goals. No wonder teams dont back themselves to score “meat pies”. I cant comprehend your point on RL being predictable? Yes, you know that each team will have 6 tackles, that each half is 40 minutes, and the scrums are a non-event (dont get me started!), but the same could be said of AFL as well. Just because the game covers more area doesnt equate it to being any less predictable. Each team will play to their strengths. Thats professional sport. Besides the occasional glimmer from a Dale Thomas etc, AFL has become possession based more than ever.
“The reality is that AFL folk prioritised the club competition – for the premiership – ahead of the state bragging rights. RL SoO is just a reminder of a 2 state code”. No offence, but what else does AFL have besides its clubs. Its smart business sense when you have little prospect of a fair dinkum contest against another country, and noone actually gives a crap about an interstate contest. I wouldnt be too smug about your 2 state code quip either, especially when AFL is essentially a 3 state code, with its talent smeared around nationally.
I admit, suburban grounds can be dingy and antiquated. But there is something to be said about the cauldron atmosphere and the tribalism it evokes. Ok, walking a km back to your car isnt perfect, but you get to mix with other supporters, its part of “going to the footy”. I suppose it is different though, because as you point out, Aussie Rules is played on cricket grounds (mainly) while RL takes up less of an area.
Michael C said | March 28th 2008 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
sledgeross -
I was simply trying to illustrate that a negative slant taken to RL can portray a dull, tedious, predictable, flairless, skill-less game. HOW FAIR that is – that’s another story altogether and open to opinion. And – as you indicate – the romance and flair is there to be found.
I must say though that the problem with AFL on tele is it moves too fast and there’s not enough slow-mo replay opportunities. An awful lot of the ‘flair’ is lost on the average viewer – becuase the AFL has done all it can to create ‘continuous’ motion. THAT annoys me. Soccer is continuous motion to a degree – but, a lot of it is uncontested backwards and sideways stuff. Rugby is more ‘play by play’ or phase oriented (Grid Iron ‘downs’ oriented). I’m happy with enough delay after a behind to show a quick replay, or a few more bounces around the ground to show a replay – because on FTA – the best replay slot post goal – and that’s ads central. Perhaps the author of this article should get foxtel.
The odd ‘glimmer’ – - possession based it always has been – to a degree. Over use should be dangerous – but a roofed stadium at TD removes the impact of ‘rain’. Sadly. You may not like Sammy Newman, but, he is the ultimate advocator of just get it and kick it long down to the forwards one out – because, unlike soccer – they CAN use their hands and catch the ruddy thing.
Glimmer players though – (a lot of them are indigenous boys – there might be something in that!!)
Adelaide – Brett Burton (3 mark of the year contenders each week), Andrew McLeod
Brisbane – Jonathan Brown, Jarred Brennan
Carlton – Chris Judd, Eddie Betts?, Fev?
Coll – Thomas, Didak, L.Davis
Ess – Alwyn Davey, Jetta, Lovett
Freo – Pavlich, Farmer
Geel – G.Ablett, Chapman, S.Johnson, T.Hawkins, C.Mooney
Haw – L.Franklin, S.Crawford, L.Hodge
Melb – Aaron Davey, Russell Robertson
North – Boomer Harvey, Daniel Wells SHOULD BE!!, Corey Jones, Aaron Edwards
Port – Cornes x 2, Burgoyne x 2, Pearce, Tredrea
Rich – Richo, Nathan Brown
StK – Kosi, Riewoldt
Syd – that’s the hard one!!!!!
WBG – Brad Johnson, Giansiracusa, Cooney, Aker
WCE – Kerr, Lynch, Cox
—–
Just a quick list of the more obvious ‘X’ factor players at the clubs. Some more obvious than others.
Yes – each team will TRY to play to their strengths – and TRY to play the game on their terms, and TRY to sustain their preferred structures and TRY to dictate the matchups and TRY to sustain their rotations and TRY to efficiently convert when going forward. There’s a lot of ‘trys’ – and the result is hardly predictable and the number of ‘dead certainties’ are few.
Suburban grounds -
I DID love the old atmosphere around Flinders St station, and North Melb station and Spencer St station – as all the ‘colours’ would come in from which ever line (thus,grounds) and people would call out from over the platforms and there was a tremendous atmosphere – footy ‘owned’ the city on that Sat afternoon. However – those days have gone in all respects – even for the NRL with a team in Canberra, 3 in QLD, one in NZ and one in Melb and games spread over several days/nights including Monday and TV watching that much more prevalent than attending – - – the AFL retains a heap of the ‘romance’ by virtue that people go in larger numbers and ’sign up’ as members in larger numbers than ever before. It’s not a bad thing that my North Melb have MORE than 5000 members and one dingy old fire hazard grandstand. And Telstra Dome last Monday with 48K packed in was certainly cauldren enough and more so than old Arden St could offer – - alas, most of level 3 were Essendon folk (but, we’ll take their cash entry!!!). NRL – I guess is a bit different as the ‘neutral/big’ venues don’t seem to work as well as the MCG and TD do.
SoO -
Reality is interest wained around the time of the new clubs being established, such that WA was 85% the Eagles, SA 85% the CRows. Now – the concept would have legs again – at very least 2 clubs each state – and via the draft greater mixing of players. Although Judd has now returned to Victoria, the obvious is for Jonathan Brown to wear the big V, and Pavlich to wear the SA jumpber, and Lance Franklin to wear the WA jumper. It’d have legs again now – it’s the format that needs to work.
AFLQ recently defeated Tassie in interstate footy. The reality is to go toe to toe with the Vics, it’s probably only WA and SA able to. However, the AFL lost the focus when they pushed the silly ‘Allies’ concept (although at the time the thought of having Carey, Kelly, Hird, Richardson, Buckley etc on the same paddock was a very enticing one).
The 2nd tier of NSW/ACT, QLD/NT and Tassie in at least the latter 2 cases demand stand alone representation.
All of that can’t be achieved in the format that NSW vs QLD in RL SoO does.
It needs to be a ‘carnival’/tournament – - that’s why I’d love to see it every 4 years – return the pride of wearing the big V and reclaim the big V as a Victorian Football icon (Melb Victory have done their best to nick it!!).
Rubelli Face said | March 28th 2008 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Gee that’s a shock, reading an article on ‘The Roar’ where ‘Michael C’ contributes a umpteen-page thesis advocating the merits of Australian Rules whilst giving Rugby League a bagging. *Yawn* (And what’s even better is you don’t have to be reading an article that mentions Australian Rules to hear what Michael thinks about the state of the AFL – you can bet your bottom dollar if I were to read an opinion piece on the vagaries of table tennis Michael would be in the thick of the action deflecting debate towards Australia’s indigenous game).
Michael, give it a rest mate. You’re a one trick pony and your opinions are as predictable as the seasons.
Sawas, good on you for giving us your thoughts. It’s very interesting to read about the factors that make someone transfer their support from one sporting code to another, and I think you made some good points. But it’s important to remember that endorsing one code of football shouldn’t preclude you from enjoying all other sports. I could think of nothing worse then living the kind of tortured existence that must surely accompany a one-code zealot. Take a look at Michael C and ask yourself “Do I want to end up like that nuffy?” – meaning the kind of person who would begin viewing an NRL match by praying the rosary and pledging his first-born for sacrifice should the Gods grant him a paraplegic courtesy of a speak tackle. Sawas please don’t wind up as a similarly pathetic creature of hate and loathing.
Millster said | March 28th 2008 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Savvas – I found your article interesting. I was brought up in Perth and on a heavy dose of East Freo and West Coast. I moved to the East Coast in 1999 and have lived in Sydney and Canberra since then.
Though predominantly a soccer fan, these days faced with a choice of AFL or NRL on the TV I would do just like you and watch the NRL all other things being equal. The structure of the game, the fact that the skills are displayed in conditions of far more physical intensity/duress, and the fact that there is less scoring are simply far more appealing to me these days.
And to you Rubelli Face – classic work!
Michael C said | March 28th 2008 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
excuse me dear people –
but – it was a thesis put forward in the guise of an article.
I can understand people’s passions ebbing and flowing -
but – many of the apparent ‘criticisms’ smell of sour grapes most likely from someone who lost interest since Richmond ceased to be regularly in the finals or since Carlton got thwarted from ‘buying’ premierships.
Blatant Falsehood number 1 :
“AFL, by contrast, has been dominated recently by the Interstate teams and, prior to that period, by the top dogs in Victoria.”
the ‘top dogs in Victoria’……hmm…so, North Melbourne – the archetypal under dog appear NOT TO COUNT?? They won it twice, on a shoe string, on recycling Fremantle players and requiring base payments and pay cuts from players such as Carey and McKernan. The 90s in fact provided 4 wins to interstate clubs, and 6 to Victorian clubs. There were 7 different premiership winning clubs. 5 different Victorian teams won the GF in the 90s. 3 other clubs managed to make GFs and so had their chances – including StKilda and Geelong – 3 times!! Previous Victorian powerhouse clubs Carlton, Rich, Coll and Essendon were NO LONGER walk up starters to the Top 4. All praise the dawning of the new age.
[and, by the war, Bris defeated Ess and Coll twice to win - true, 3 'all interstate' GFs followed. ]
Blatant falsehood number 2:
“Geelong’s win last year ended the drought for one of the perennial losers (finally!!). ”
as above, 1999 saw perennial losers North Melb win 2nd in 4 years for 4 GFs EVER. 2004 saw Port Adelaide win their maiden GF. 2005 saw Sydney (South Melb Swans) win first flag for 70 odd years. 2001 saw Brisbane (Fitzroy Lions) win first flag for eons too) perennial losers – SHOW ME THE PERENNIAL winners that have been dominating?? – hmm, Geelong contest 4 GFs between 89 and 95. Is coming 2nd deemed being a loser? We love that Collingwood therefore are perennial losers.
Blatant Falsehood number 3:
“But even that only highlighted the comparison with the great Geelong teams of the Blight era from 1989-1995. Back then, playing offensive football, they lost 4 Grand Finals, 2 of them to the ultra defensive West Coast Eagles! Their modern equivalent did not display any of the flair evident back then.”
I believe I’ve covered this one reasonably – although – in fairness: Do tell:
who is more extravagant and ‘flairy’??
Bairstow, Couch, Riccardi and G.Hocking vs Chapman, Bartel, Corey and G.Ablett jnr
with forward structure is more flamboyant?
G.Ablett snr, Brownless vs Mooney, S.Johnson and Tomahawk Hawkins or N.Ablett.
with backline is the more flamboyant (or the less dour)?
Tim Darcy, Mark Yeates, Tim McGrath, S.Hocking vs Maxy Rooke, Scarlett, Harley and Enright.
maybe it’s in the ruck – I’ll grant that,
John Barnes when at GEelong had more personality than Brad Ottens.
- – - –
I can respect that Sawas has changed allegiences – but – please – don’t try to justify it with rubbish.
I can grant you lamenting for the old days if you like those old grounds – so, I expect that you adore the spartan facilities at Olympic Park on those icey July evenings as you rock up week in week out irrespective of results.
Savvas Tzionis said | March 28th 2008 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
OK…..time to respond (maninly to you Michael C). I will treat each point as it popped up throughout the thread.
In regards to Romance, maybe I should have used the word ‘egalitarin’ to describe the sharing of premierships amongst all clubs. This used to be a hallmark of the old VFL.
(By the way, I can’t see why you think the FA Cup is still romantic when the leading clubs treat it with such contempt that they field second string teams. Oh yeah, this years final will be ‘romantic’ because lowerlevel clubs will be represented. How hollow!)
Yes, Geelong have flair. If you compare them to the deplorable Swans of recent years. In fact, any team in the AFL would look good comapred to the wretched football the Swans played. I find it ironic that the first name you mentioned was Gary Ablett Jnr. Do you remember watching his father play? Its like comparing Pele to Beckham.
As for the Storm winning it in 1999, a year after they joined, well, how different is that to West Coast, Adelaide and Port Adelaide winning premierships within 5, 6, and 7 years of each team joining the competition. Granted, its not as bad as the Storm, but your point is not as valid as you make out.
As for the team I support. Well, to be honest, I really don’t anymore for a variety of reasons. I used to support Carlton but my egalitarianismt bent (you may want to call it Socialist) was so strong that I never felt any real attachment after the mid 80’s. Occasionally I would get excited like in the 1999 Preliminary Final but that was the last game i think I ever saw Carlton play. Now, before you get all excited about how it looks like I just jumped off the bandwagon, remember Carlton’s season the nest year was even better than 1999. And they still made the finals in 2001. No, the game was too far gone for Carlton;s form to have any efect on my passion.
As for League being a tv sport, I agree. But I do not go to watch the Storm (yes, I live in Melbourne) for reasons that I actually included in my original article, which did not make it on to the Roar website. It read as follows….
“Footnote: Ironically, I do not support the Melbourne Storm. They represent many of the aspects I am against in sport today. They are supported by a big Multi-National (News Ltd), they are a manufactured club, and they play a style of football that is defensive and not particularly attractive. Plus they play at a poor venue without a soul (Olympic Park).”
As for clogging up the play and March type weather. Well, this is another irony. And thanks for bringing it up. The grounds are in a much bestter state than in the old days where wet weather football was quite common. So, why has the scoring rate fallen so dramatically? It truly is a slight on the game that it has, expecially in light of this fact.
As for nominating players that show flair…the exceptions prove the rule!!!! Name some others!! In the old days, every team possessed numerous players of individual brillance. The ONLY thing that AFL football has progressed with over the last 15 years has been the increased presence of Aboriginal footballers.
As for the style of play, you have not really countered my argument. Read my point again.
I note that there are many aspects of the game you are unhappy with. So maybe you do not disagree with me as much as the tone of your response indicates. As for rule changes, I think there are some that can be considered but thats for another article. (But briefly, I think the key however is allowing the ball to be taken out of the centre at centre square ball ups after goals with more ease. I would reduce the amount of players from 18 to 17 and the one player dropped off would be the ruck-rover or centreman.)
Your criticisms of League have been well countered, in my opinion, by the other commentators here.
As far as State of Origin is concerned, Telstra Dome with many non-believers in attendance doesn’t really assist your argument. And it was only one game you saw. League has 2 highlights a year. The SoO and it’s Club Grand Final. Both are approached by the protagonists with total passion. Of course, one major reason for the SoO being such a great spectacle is that Interantional honours are also at stake. Not just state bragging rights.
As for the local grounds argument, I wasn’t trying to ask that we go back to the old days, but surely 1 or 2 grounds could have been kept. Especially Princes Park!! It had all the facilities of an MCG or Docklands Dome but retained its sense of an old style oval.
Now even the MCG has lost its aura now that the last remnant of the olds days has been demolished!!
Lastly, calling League commentators bogans comapred to AFL types is quite silly. Just look at te 2 Footy Shows and you can see that difference is that the League guys are not a bunch of egotistical fakes.
Newman is no fake, but his ego and his disdain for the everyday man is shocking. An intelligent man who’s warped views of the world have made him a fool. We all know the fakeness of McGuire. The ‘Broady’ boy!!! Ba-humbug.
The likes of Peter Sterling and the others to lesser extents are far more pleasing.
AFL players/commentators might dress nicely these days, but they are all robots who sing from the same tune (except maybe for Akermanis!!). Having seen them out on the town, they all still sound like bogans to me.
Now, I will state one reason I chose to write this piece. I am was sick and tired of everyone saying how great AFL is. It isn’t and it is time the Emperor was shown not to have those clothes on!!
To Rubelli Face: I watch much sport still but obviously most of it on tv. But I do not have Foxtel (Murdoh!!!). Soccer is probably what I watch most of all. And when I get home late on Friday or Saturday Nights I watch League.
But the complete commodification of sport means that perhaps only Internationals are the only time I will watch sport with any real interest. Players can’t be sold, fans cannot be won over (like Euro clubs do in Asia etc with theirmarketing).
sledgeross said | March 28th 2008 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
Why dont we all just agree that Rugby Union is the worst game of all three and be done with it lol
Im with everyone else here. AFL is a fantastic game to see live, when you can take in the whole panorama. I was never a real fan until I went to the SCG and saw the likes of Roos, Plugger, Dunkley, Schwass etc play. I was a fan ever since, and try to get out to at least one live game a year.
Sav, I loved your view on the Storm. They represent everything that is wrong with sport these days. Well done mate.
Savvas Tzionis said | March 28th 2008 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Ok….looks like I need to put forward some more counter-counter arguments since Michael C’s latest response coincided with my follow up.
Your argument about Egalitariansim does not wash. North maybe a lower level club, but they won 2 premierships as recently as the 1970’s. The likes of St Kilda Melbourne Footscray and Gelogn have waited over 40 years!! Finally, Geelong were able to break that drought. Poor old Fitzroy and South supporters have to be satisfied with a mutation of their club winning premierships. And using the argument that Geelong losing 4 grandfinals and winning NONE is a sign of success shows that you are warping this argument. And to even compare the current Geelong team with the Blight era only invokes ridicule. As a neutral in this argument (seeing that you are a North supporter), surely you are not that blind as to the merits of both teams from a purely entertainment poin of view? But it appears you are.
As for me talking rubbish, they are the words of a desperate debater.
Michael C said | March 28th 2008 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
Savvas -
the old VFL pre salary cap and draft was confined to Carl, Coll, Rich and Ess. If anything – the NORMAL criticism these days is about the socialist dictatorship running the game and making it too even. That’s why your comment surprised me.
FA Cup – the notion at least is romantic, the structure is romantic. And I can see the allure for soccer fans for Australia’s own version.
Swans – they offer the ‘variety’ of styles – and playing to their strengths. The finals win over Geelong a couple of years ago was a classic. Conflicting styles – who would win.
Gary Ablett snr – I had finals series tickets in ‘89, and attended all the Geel finals as a neutral and marvelled at G.Ablett Snr. It was great, but, to expect another G.Ablett snr to pop up regularly is a bit of a stretch. G.Ablett Jnr is a different player and marvellous to watch, exceptionally quick, composed, balanced and compact – his kicking technique at pace under pressure is almost text book. He’s a brilliant player to watch but quite distinct to his old man.
Storm – main issue is that it was a ‘created’ team in a non-RL state – actually, truth be known, most of us just loved the angst in the voices of the Sydney folk – as we knew that Storm was a post SL compromise at the expense of traditional Syd clubs – and people still now lament that Storm are Melbourne and not Gosford. To AFL eyes though, to through a team together in foreign territory like that and win 2-3 years in – amazing! The examples in the AFL were all established in strong AFL states and with that they had certain draft concessions around locals etc. And as you point out – a ‘created’ team – similar to the AFL farce with the BRisbane Bears – is a bit dodgey. The 2 new teams – should they happen – might be a tale of 2 methods.
Look – the AFL administration aren’t perfect, the league is not perfect, the game is not perfect etc.
Eddie McGuire at least got off his butt and had a go and turned around Collingwoods fortunes – as, James Brayshaw is attempting at North Melb – - I think it’s a bit disengenous to call them fakes. You don’t have to like them – but, it’s easy to just be a ‘commentator’ stand alone – and, like Denis Commetti, just practice the ad lib 1 liners in advance…..
For me though – too many rule tweaks (being re-active), has seemingly led to a domino theory in rule tweaks. The rules of the game committee should be shot.
I agree Princes Park should be retained as a boutique venue – I’ve stated that before on theRoar. The MCG – it is sad the old (3rd was it) members stand is no more – but, for the requirements of it – it was out dated – all the museum aspects were far too valuable to be retained in the dingy inner sanctums. The new development really is amazing. Although, the ‘void’ section is a bit too open – as seen with the poor british fellow who fell from the escalators. Take that up with the architects.
Style of play and flair players – I support North Melb – we haven’t been well endowed with flair players. At one point Blight and the 2 Krakouer boys – then, the doldrums in the late 80s – Matty Larkin did the odd nice bit of play – but flair – totally devoid. At any given time, there’s normally about 4 teams that I’d pay to go and watch as a neutral supporter. Mainly where they are playing each other. Style of play – changes within a match for a given team let alone across a season. My Rooboys last week were 27 pts up and had more handballs than kicks (were running in numbers and support) – suddenly, style of play changes – they end up with about a 3-2 kicks to handball ratio. Style of play is such a ‘fluid’ thing. I think the main thing though – the old days – and I still yearn for this – was more about the ‘fatigue/endurance’ element – of 2 centremen playing all day, those duels on the wing Greig vs Flower, Turner vs Hawkins. The 4 free interchange players still irks me and is in my mind the source of many of the ills – and you’re right – that is probably worth an article.
Savvas Tzionis said | March 28th 2008 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Michael C,
How can it be considered too even when one team wins 18 game in a season and another 3? Without the Salary Cap and the Draft there would be at least 4 teams that would have gone down the gurgler. Lets thank the then VFL for introducing those initiatives in the mid 80’s.
The Swans victory over Geelong in that semi-final in 2005 was one of the worst games of football (of any code!!) I have ever seen. It was only ’saved’ and made memorable because of the finish and the fact the Swans went on to win the flag. You are using very poor examples. Conflicting styles? They both played the same style…dull and defensive.
Lets face it, the game has gone backwards as a spectacle since the golden age of the late 60’s to the early 90’s. Many people know it (Parkin and Jezza amongst others have had the guts to state it), but are too scared to admit it because it would mean their involvement in the sport is hypocritical. ESPECIALLY commentators (who are always YELLING and SCREAMING. In the old days, they did not need to…the game provided the entertainment.) and people who make a living out of it in the media in general.
Michael C said | March 28th 2008 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Savvas -
North Melb were hardly a traditional powerhouse on the basis of the 70s. Ron Joseph and ALbert Mantello etc had to mortgage their homes to lure Ron Barassi to coach – North were the ultimate battler – even Footscray and Hawthorn had already won flags (of the 1925 joining clubs). StKilda had won and lost premierships in the previous few years. And so – the 90s, 20 years on – became the 2nd only era of success. The simple fact that North managed to present – year after year – to make the prelim finals from 1994 to 2000 – 3 GFs & 2 flags was suitable reward. In a 16 team competition – job number 1 is to make the top 4 – beyond that – it may just come down to luck regarding who has had the least injuries all year and is most able to field their best squad of 25 to pick from.
And regards to making the top 4 – well, everyone has had a crack at that in recent times – and St.Kilda can only blame themselves thus far – and alas the poor old Bulldogs circa 1997 – Adelaide should’ve never got there and it should have been StKilda vs Footscray for a classic underdog showdown………but…..when it does happen…….it’ll be worth it.
Mutation of a club – along with those RL supporters who suffered the Superleague era – when clubs get relocated and merged it forces you to define just WHAT IT IS YOU support. (a good idea for an article me thinks – anyway, we North Melb supporters faced that in ‘96 with a possible Fitzroy merger, and again last year with a possible Gold Coast move). Sometimes – the jumper is enough. ANd maybe the song too.
The Blight era – I followed very closely – given he was a former North champion – the shoot out games vs Essendon and Hawthorn were astounding – the demolitions of Richmond, I also made my way to a regular Carl vs Geel game at the ‘G as a neutral. It was a pretty good era – but, remove G.Ablett snr and much of the Geelong side was ‘workmanlike’. Couch and Bairstow were solid. Hinkley could do good things. Robert Scott – workmanlike, and later a North Melb premiership player. Actually Geelong also had a number of North MElb ‘discards’ in Leigh Tudor, Darren Steele and more importantly Tim McGrath and Liam Pickering. I followed them quite closely – they were a good team – but, so often – weren’t the best, and in ‘94 were very, very lucky to get there ahead of my Rooboys – and were never going to be a match for the EAgles.
It’s a bit harsh to call the Eagles dull and dour – via Karl Langdon and Chris Lewis, Peter Matera, Chris Mainwaring, even JOhn Worsfold as a love to hate player – - they had plenty going for them in the entertainment stakes. Dean Kemp too, a skinny winger a bit like a Robbie Flower. They were a damn fine football team.
Anyway – that’s all subjective argument – I do though believe, that take G.Ablett Snr out of that team and they were a good ordinary side. Insert G.Ablett Snr into any other side, and they suddenly became a great team to watch. Simple as that – like the old days when the fans would move from end to end depending on which way Essendon were kicking i.e. which end John Coleman was playing at.
Michael C said | March 28th 2008 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
I’ve got the VAFA members, pres’s and secretaries dinner in a couple of weeks, David Parkin will be speaking – I’ll let you know what he says.
The draft and salary cap and priority picks etc – it can be a mine field – aimed at protecting clubs from themselves – as in the mid 80s the whole lot were in debt and the competition about to fold. The solutions may not be perfect – but, without them, the game was gone.
At any given time there are teams at different phases of list development – just as in a horse race there may only be 4 real contenders, a couple just coming back from a spell, a couple about to be spelled and a couple about 2 weeks away from the glue factory. Same with any ‘league competition’ were teams need to develop ‘lists’ – develop playing talent.
However – WHAT I LAMENT THE MOST – no proper REserves – and thus a lack of senior match ready depth. Geelong – I reckon, was no accident last year that they have a distinct home ground advantage, a full reserves team and they won both VFL and AFL flags – - and look how quick Collingwood decided that’s the way to go.
Anyway – I’ve personally lamented not the lose of local grounds – but the lose of reserves and under 19s and THAT sense of ‘club’.
cheers, have a good weekend. Go Roos!!!
Millster said | March 28th 2008 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Dude…. the ‘Roos already played. On Wednesday.
Redb said | March 28th 2008 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
Troll article that should be in the rugby league section.. an opinion piece well maybe? Notice the ‘we’ in the Perntih 2003 comment – yeah Aussie Rules fan my aaaarse.
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don’t pretend your an Aussis Rules fan, as if youve been converted to the ‘modern’ rugby league. But let’s look at the facts. Let’s look at who has been converted from Aussie Rules to modern rugby league in say the heartland of AFL – Melbourne. They don’t have RL teams in Adelaide or Perth.
a few comments, just saying it is a troll article is not enough:
1. Melbourne Storm would represent modern rugby league. Yes or No? I’ll go with yes.
2. To make a real distinction between the appeal of the respective codes you need to judge the sport live at the ground. Because if its based on TV appeal you are heading into who has better TV coverage, more cameras, better angles,etc,etc. If you haven’t been to a AFL game in 8 years then i think you have no idea how the code has developed from your lounge chair.
3. You are not just referring to the Sydney Swans as representative of ‘modern’ AFL. They are not. It was Rodney Eade head coach of the Sydney Swans who is widely credited with introducing flooding and Paul Roos has taken it to another level by encouraging stop start cramp it up type play.
4. The Grand Final is not in isolation the only game in which to judge the appeal of th code. Whilst it should be the pinnacle of the sport, often it is the final series, in particular the preliminary finals that produce the best games of the year. If you look at the soccer model in England and other parts of Europe, the minor premier is judged as the best team because overall they have produced the best performances throughout the season by finishing on top of the ladder. Finals alone do not determine the appeal of a game, that’s a very narrow and naive view.
So in Melbourne the heartland of Aussie Rules we have had 10 years of the Melbourne Storm, they have won the premiership twice, a good ratio. RL fans will tell you that the Storm have some of the brightest stars in RL, yet only 10,700 went to their game in Melbourne last week! Over 230,000 went to AFL games in Melbourne last week. Such is the appeal of modern rugby league and the number of converts to this game. If the author is one of them good luck to you.
cheers
Redb
Michael C said | March 28th 2008 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
Hey Redb -
notice how – for a piece in the AFL section – how, apparently – I was out of place ‘defending’ the game or at least questioning some of the very loose statements made.
Given that we know the rugby and soccer folk dominate theRoar – - it’s amazing how defensive they can get.
Savvas – you said
“It was only ’saved’ and made memorable because of the finish and the fact the Swans went on to win the flag. You are using very poor examples. “
2006 FIFA world Cup – Australia vs Japan – about 80 mins of tedium, boredom, 0-0 – NOTHING of consequence has happened (because – the only consequence is a goal) – - and, oh, 3 late goals turns it into a ‘classic’ Socceroos win???
The SoO match I attended – packed TD – with a group of lads from Newcastle – a sea at least of maroon in the stadium – and boredom – sheer tedium as teams seemed NOT to want to win – and – at least the scores were relatively close and the last 5 mins seemed to justify the rest.
Well – duh!!!! That’s sport. That’s the fatigue element. Sadly, more and more with defensive mindsets – we have to put up with teams seemingly NOT trying to win – just trying NOT to lose. Thank god for the good games.
the golden era of the 60s – pre dates me. However, remember – even as I grew up the best we got was highlights on tele on the Winners and the Big League. Live footy was limited to the GF ‘77 onwards. To the odd exhibition match in Syd and Bris – until the Swans went north for the winter. With all games covered – it means that the potential ‘crap’ games each round get more coverage than they warrant. In the past – we wouldn’t have seen them, just the ‘big games’. The good old days at least provided more mud – and to me, I prefer mud/wet conditions to just wet/slippery conditions. Ah the mud……and the wet weather specialists – Leigh Carlson for Collingwood – like the Derek Underwood of footy…..
btw – interested to hear about the Power commenting that the cricket pitch had better not be too hard. A definite reminder that the MCG is no longer a cricket oval first – with the drop in pitches – it’s now a football oval at which cricket CAN be played. Or – at least – that’s how it occurred to me as I was listening.
Glen said | March 28th 2008 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
Hmm… if Aussie Rules is such a spectacular sport and more exciting than either of the rugby codes, why, after more than 120 years it is still relegated to the virtual sporting international backwater that is Australia. Rugby is played on every continent on the planet. AFL is played on, lets count them…..1
Any truly great game will import: cricket, swimming, tennis, golf, even mind-numbingly boring soccer, are played around the globe. It’s not like AFL is a developing sport, it’s been around for more than a century.
Re-count
Rugby…every continent
AFL….1
It’s just an odd little provincial game that perpetuates it’s own importance only by proclaiming it’s own importance and nothing else. And then usually by ex-players desperate to hang onto their only chance of “stardom”. Let’s face it some-one like Dipper is HUGE in Scandinavia and Los Angeles aren’t they????.
Let’s do a re-count shall we?
Rugby…every continent
AFL… 1
Just something about that count makes me question the attractiveness of AFL.
Hmmmmm
The Link said | March 28th 2008 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Egads Glen, old son, you have really asked for it here. Que the 1000 line dissertation on AFL in PNG and Canada to disprove your premise. However perhaps relating your comments back to the topic may render it more plausible, i.e. the article is about AFL and Rugby League, not Union. For the record I enjoy AFL live at the ground, a very unique game, with plenty going for it. However, League is bigger internationally than AFL so that may be the point you are trying to prove, despite what you may read on this site.
BTW I actually think we should concentrate on what we agree on here at the Roar, rather than bicker around the edges. Here’s my take;
Ranking of Popularity in Winter Sports Australia
1. AFL
2. Rugby League
3. Football / Rugby Union (can’t spilt them)
Internationally (the 4 above ranked only)
1. Football
2. Rugby Union
3. Rugby League
4. Daylight
5. AFL
Now, that wasn’t too hard was it??!! Lets get on with it and enjoy what the relative codes have to offer.
Dave said | March 28th 2008 @ 11:43pm | Report comment
Glenn
I’m certainly no MC apologist but cant let you get away with some of your comments. Firstly l thought this thread was about Rugby League, you refer to Union? Rugby League has a very limited profile around the world, slightly ahead of AFL.
Secondly the comment “any truly great game will import: cricket, swimming, tennis, golf, even mind numingly boring soccer…”?? The mind numbingly boring soccer is played by 270 million people world wide (not including spectators) and is easily the most poular code of football on the planet. I don’t need to denigrate your code of union to make a point other than to say it is only seriously played in 3-4 relatively small regions of the world; UK (way behind mind numbing boring soccer)and France (probably 50-50 with mind numbingly boring soccer), White Sth Afica (the game played by the majority of Sth Africans is…yep mind numbingly boring soccer), parts of Oceania (not Vic, Sth Aus or Tas) and is so far behind MNBS in Argentina almost not worth mentioning.
IMO opinion AFL is a better spectacle than either of the rugbys. Hey that what the Roar is for to express opinions
Glen said | March 28th 2008 @ 11:43pm | Report comment
The Link..
I replied only because of this comment.
sledgeross said | Today
Why dont we all just agree that Rugby Union is the worst game of all three and be done with it lol
I didn’t introduce rugby to the argument… but since it was introduced I feel duty bound to state the facts. And I do stand by them. Apart from my Import/Export faux pas.
Further.. PNG and Canada…PLEASE!!!! Neither country can actually field a regular competition because they have no refs!! Nobody outside Oz understands the rules.
Mate,don’t you get it??? Tthe whole point of this site is to bicker around the edges… no-one can ever win.
Midfielder said | March 29th 2008 @ 12:04am | Report comment
Slightly off topic but tomorrow I am going to play my first game of AFL at 55 years of age mind you never to late to learn.
Well sort of…………….a trial football we had planned has been cancelled as the other team had doubled booked……….we need a run. By chance ran into some rugby old boys mates also looking for a run.
A match was agreed but what, one half football other rugby, touch………..well we decided to play AFL ………….local rules but.
The match will be played on a football field using a rugby ball with 15 players a side. No fist passing, no knock ons, no offsides, to score the ball has to go into the soccer net, with 1 goal awarded. The team having the goal scored against them will get to kick off.
We are having an arguement about how many steps you can take before you have to bounce the ball some say 6 others 10 what is the answer.
The looser must shout the first two rounds of drinks……………we are feeling pumped and will run the rugger boys off there feet. We have also agreed no tackeling, from the rugger boys and we have agreed no diving,
There will be no ref the honour system will apply to our rules.
As to the topic of the thread…………………….. I have no idea……………and don’t care
Michael C said | March 29th 2008 @ 12:37am | Report comment
Midfielder -
sounds like you effectively need to play International Rules hybrid – or close to.
or, even more gaelic than anything,
I do recommend the neutral restart in the middle of the ground – it allows people a chance for a breather and to clear the congestion after the balls been contested for a ‘goal’. For AFL sentiment – the goal must have to be kicked – but, for gaelic/int rules – scored will do.
How many steps – 15 little ones!!, 6 big ones.
Simplest rules are the basics. No pushing in the back, nothing above the shoulders and nothing below the knees.
and at 55, learn to control the centre!!!! The ball either will come thru there, or, if not, then you’re defending a crucial area.
cheers.
westy said | March 29th 2008 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Michael C…Redb…..these threads are okay to read and respond to once . But that is the point their aim is to provoke endless responses. To be fair the first reactionary and mindless attempt at this was by Clubman and ” Rugby League I do not Get It” .You did join in a little to enthusiastically on there although not viciously. These other articles are just a response . This thread at least came with some understanding of both games and some valid points for discussion. Best Clubman’s was pure ridicule. One point of difference was Sawas did not have a go at the people who support each game.
Savvas Jonis said | March 29th 2008 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Michael C,
You are again making nonsenical points. “Remove Gary Ablett snr from the Blight era team and it ws workmanlike”. It was their approach to the game that was so fantstic to witness. All out offense. This is the point I am making. The totality of what was being offered. You can have all the flair in the world but if you are instructed to kick sideways your natural abilities will never be realised.
And if you think the Aust v Japan game was dull, then you show (again) that you are looking at things through rose (or should I say AFL) coloured glasses. That was a classic game where Australia dominated play and finally received their reward (although the Japanese should haev received a penalty in that frenetic fincish).
RedB…don’t you dare assume you think you know who I am.
Let me perhaps finish off by stating that if you want to see how the 2 sports have changed over the years I ask you to hire the respective 2 Drawn Grand Finals from 1977 (Collingwood v North Melbourne & St George v Parramatta?) nad the replays.
Compare them and tell me which of the two codes has gone forward’s insofar as entertainment value is concerned.
Michael C said | March 29th 2008 @ 11:54am | Report comment
agreed – best clubmans post that time was a bit trite – - and note at the time I provided the alternate on ‘other sports’ about what people don’t get about other sports (or even their own)…..funny how it was the best clubmans silly thread that grew legs – - although, in fairness -some of the discussion WAS able to effectively ignore the initial sentiments of the article!!
Redb said | March 29th 2008 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Sav said:
“don’t you dare assume you think you know who I am” You leave me with no alternative than to judge you on your comments thus far. Perhaps if the argument content improves I’ll have another go.
Westy, your right these posts can go in endless loops, I did only reply once, Oh damn It.
look i’m just a bit nervous, the Bombers take on Geelong tommorow – gimme a break.
cheers
Redb
Michael C said | March 29th 2008 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Savvas -
obviously if you judge soccer games as ‘classic’ you ought have no problem with sides ways kicking to ‘open up’ space. VFL was doing it for years – called the ’switch’ to the ‘fat side’. At it’s most simple AFL is glorified circle work, it’s ALL ABOUT switching to the least congested area. The main variables being the weather, wind and rain and ability in the past to actually attempt to switch across the muddy centre wicket area.
Being a North fan, I have the 77 GF’s (both tied and replay) – and, when I compared to my Rooboys of circa ‘96 – ‘99 – the modern version won out. The likes of Carey, McKernan, Abraham, Pickett, Bell etc.
The thing that stands out in the modern era is just how good the players are at a far more frenetic pace at hitting targets by foot – but, most of that is ‘lost’ by the lack of ’stoppages’ which provides replay ops and commentator gushing time.
In all sport – I have a problem with ‘dominating’ play and yet not having the score to show for it. The Aust vs Japan game, 0-0 up until the last few minutes – was a frustrating waste of possession. And, only arrogant people believe that because you dominated the last 10 mins therefore you will dominate the next 10 minutes. And so, the end, 3 goals to nil – justified the previous 80 odd minutes. That game should have been done and dusted half way through the 2nd half, not leave it ’til the last 5 mins when anything, such as an Italy style penalty can sink all the good work (with or against the trend of play).
so – give me reward for effort anyday – - – I learned that after my first season of cricket when batting Chris Tavare style meant that I really needn’t bother counting runs – more balls faced. The next year I learned the art of not just defense – but, the allied and far harded skill of picking the right ball and putting it away…..not contenting myself solely with neat defense, well picked leaves and perfect combination of ducking and weaving the short balls…..no, I learned that a little bit of risk taking was required and suddenly, the score board ticks over………although I did still bore some folk prior to tea and unleash after tea…….
…re Geelong – well, Sammy Newman had urged them for 10 years via the footy show to just get on with it – and, last year they did, he was pleased…they won the flag via outright attack ….. as a North supporter I suffered their demolition of North in round 19 or 20, and then in week one of the finals they did an even better job – - don’t tell me that wasn’t outright attack. You obviously haven’t been taking very close notice.
There’s only ever 1 or 2 teams in a generation able to have the right mix across the field to sustain outright attack…..and to take it all the way – - what Geelong did last year, and Essendon in 2000 – - were special – - – alas, it appears you were turning your attention away in a deliberate attempt to justify your moving to the dark side.
John Ryan said | March 30th 2008 @ 1:55am | Report comment
Christ Michael C you and little Sir Echo must spend your entire week scanning this place for articles that say anything about AFL that might dissent from you and your mates view of AFL as the greatest game on the planet,which I,m afraid I have to inform you aint true,this may come as a dreadfull supprise to you and the back up singer but there are other games and they in my humble opinoin are better than AFL, Aussie Rules reminds my of 40 odd people looking for something to do.
You were on about the FOOTball in AFL, the local AFL sycophants radio station were on about how hand ball has equaled kicks in some games,and may pass it.I have no idea who wrote the article but for the back up singer to come along and accuse him of not being truthful about what he thinks of AFL Vs NRL is going overboard.
I posted at an AFL Article, and you came along and said I was not welcome and bugger off,funny how this only applied to others aint it son,Michael C posted 10 replys to this, your Echo 2 most of them you repeated yourself endlessly and came to the same point from 27 different angles,your Echo just spouts his usual rubbish,maybe the AFL pay you by the line Michael C.
Maybe you should sent Sir Echo back to Big Footy from wence I think both of you came,and he can resume being the gullible fool that about 90% on Big Footy are,
Greg said | March 30th 2008 @ 6:33am | Report comment
One of the issues that AFL faces is that, due to it’s unique, non predictive pattern of play, it requires a bit of innovation in the TV directorship department. The cameras, just as with cricket, are static. The large size of field, compared to most other games, provides an opportunity to increase the dynamism of the cameras by sweeping them over the play. Although TV provides a representation of 3D environments, it is what I’d call ‘weak 3D’. That is, TV flattens the playing arena. One of the brilliant aspects of watching AFL live at a game is the scope of play. TV should ‘hyper-real’ this element via floating/moving cameras. I’m positive it would bring about further interest in the game. For reference, who can forget the excitement of watching State of Origin from the view of a camera speeding down the sideline on rails – it gives a real sense of the sheer speed and physicality of the game.
Overall, innovation in television coverage remains pretty poor…for instance, my friends and I have often discussed the lack of different angles in cricket. As a result of the typical viewpoint, you can’t tell the speed of the ball.
Greg.
Redb said | March 30th 2008 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Greg,
I agree TV coverage of AFL could be consideraly better and realisitic. A few years back Ch 9 trialled an overhead camera used in the NFL. It did add to some views, but generally it just could’t keep up with the speed of ball movement and it was still basicially just following the ball trail rather than detecting what is often happening down field with players leading,etc.
I went to the Ess V Nth melb game last week and reflected on the visual epxerience provided by the game, it was difficult at times to watch everything that’s going on live at the ground, so what hope has TV got. That was at Telstra Dome, the MCG is even more larger than life. I’d like to see the footy televised in wide vision or in panorama. as the ground is so big it is impossible for the camera to take it all in. It’s a little like taking a photo of a landscape, only get the box like field of view 4:3 ratio.
The boundary cams used in the rugby codes and athletics do provide excellent coverage of those sports. In AFL this would help, but the ball is often in the middle of the ground, so they would need a super zoom feature that retains the wide field of view. A greater use of super slow motion replays of marks would also enhance the experience.
cheers
Redb
The Boar said | March 30th 2008 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
A good opinion article that ought to have generated a lively debate. Instead we find (again) Redb and Michael C going on ad nauseum about the merits of AFL over the other football codes. I wonder what I’ll find in the comments section under the next Roar article I read. Do I dare to guess?
Redb said | March 30th 2008 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
Boar,
Where are ‘your’ points in dispute? As usual you’ve said nothing constructive apart from you think it is a good article. Some RL bores are just hypocritical.
Don’t agree with the article – got a problem? go to a rugby league ”only’ website where your senses wont get offended by alternative views and you can agree all day long. Bye.
Redb
John Ryan said | March 30th 2008 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
Well Well Sir echo your rather thin AFL skin is showing,you and your mate can bag hell out of everyone else but let anyone say anything about you a off you go in a hissy fit,I now await the 30 page reasons why AFL people are such tolerant chaps,as for your remark about people leaving and going to Rugby League Sites one could make the same suggestion about your goodself.
Try Big Footy I think they know you there
Redb said | March 30th 2008 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
John Ryan.
Big Footy?
C’mon there there its Ok, just google ‘rugby league only’ and find a site where they only allow rugby league folks inhabit – that way you won’t get upsetwhen a different view comes your way.
Again, where are your points? – you give us nothing – pointless myopic drivel.
Your not David Gallop by any chance?
John Ryan said | March 30th 2008 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
Good lord Sir Echo your trying hard to be sarcastic,don,t your hopeless,
Michael C said | March 30th 2008 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
Dear dear,
’tis traditional on a weekend to be watching your own codes of primary interest. What the ‘f…’ are you blokes doing going on here!?!?!?!
Now – for our potentially fake or feeble converted former AFL author of this article – - – did you watch Geelong demolish Essendon today?? Do you care to call the ‘exhibition of attacking and flair put on by Geelong today as anything other than comparable to the Geelong of the Blight era…….and, as a perfect lead in, the ‘footy flashback’ showed the corky (although sad memory for me) of the ‘94 prelim final, Geel vs North…..and, that game reminded me…..off the 2007 Geel vs Coll prelim final……..because, y’know what – - – the good games are still good, the great games are still great.
Greg –
fully agreed – the directorship is often left lacking – and way, way too much focus on close ups that we don’t want or need. And they take too long to get the replays on – and, sometimes a full screen replay and PIP ‘live action’ might work. The digitial game via Foxtel – (the main reason I would consider getting Foxtel) is brilliant.
John Ryan -
Dopey comment of the week award goes to John Ryan :
“must spend your entire week scanning this place for articles that say anything about AFL that might dissent from you and your mates view ”
Well – - – THIS IS THE AFL TAB!!!!!
and, Mr.Ryan – if someone states absolutely falsehoods or even opinions that really are either not supported or pretty, pretty feeble subjective judgements – - – then, off course I’ll take that person to task.
Mr. Ryan – all you seem to do is put forward negative rhetoric,
and, I’ve certainly learned that the gulf between Rugby League and Union is a chasm best left as a no mans land for the Rugby zealots to hurl barbed retorts at each other……..
Boar -
in case you didn’t notice – the author and I had a little measured debate of counter and counter-counter – - – better than much of what has been put forward. Certainly I agree in part with some points, but, find other points a bit weak.
Let me stress – during the ’90s as a rabid North supporter – I loved that we ’stuck it up ‘em’ at AFL HQ – - back then, I only cared that the AFL hierarchy was the ‘enemy’. I lamented Mike Sheehan as an apparent AFL apologist. I still get annoyed as heck by bad umpiring from seeminly poorly ‘instructed’ umpires, I get sick of club self interest, I get sick of certain rule amendments made by the laws of the game committee, I get sick of crap directorship of televised footy, I love a choice of commentary styles though – - – and remember the old days of tuning in on crackly radio (especially towards the end of the match), from East Gippsland tuning into 3KZ, 3DB, 3GL, 3LO and worst of all 3UZ with all the ruddy nags running in Morphetville or correct weight from Rosehill…..
Things are in so many ways better today – but, somethings aren’t. Simple as that.
back to the ‘lively debate’ from the original article :
‘Duration’
funny thing I used to find, travelling 3-4 hours on the train from Stratford to flinders st, then metro train out to North Melbourne, seeing most of the reserves – - and, somehow, by the time the seniors started – it was over in the blink of an eye – - 2 hours of play had just vanished as the greater intensity and action and the like…….
I’d like to compare that a soccer match plus extra time equates to 120 mins of ‘game time’, but, play time wise from the FIFA WC 2006 website at the time showed that ‘actual play time’ was around the 75mins mark. An AFL game provides 80 mins of actual play time in 2 hours. Now…….if we were to work out which was the greater drag, level of tedium, boring defense and apparent lack of desire to go forward and score……….but, if it’s your team – it doesn’t seem to matter so much. Winning ‘ugly’ only matters to the neutrals.
Perhaps the main point that should be made, is, should the AFL follow the NRL a little in having greater intra season flex on the scheduling of the Friday night ‘prime time slot’.
W Warambeal said | March 30th 2008 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
Dave
RU in France is nowhere Soccer in popularity in that country. Union is mainly confined to the southern regions with one team in Paris.
Union’s first division gets (through the gate) less than 2 million spectators. It is a minor sport there.
In fact union is a minor sport in every country it is played except for a handful of Pacific Island nations.
Dave said | March 30th 2008 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
W Warambeal
Thanks for the correction
It seems the only comeback some supporters of the other codes have is ‘boring soccer’…ain’t as boring as listening to some of the drivel they come out with to promote their code.
Savvas Tzionis said | March 31st 2008 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Michael C,
I asked you to compare the 2 Grand Finals (and replays) from 1977. You decide to compare the 1977 VFL Grand Final with…the 1990’s North team!!! Huh? In any case, the North team of the 1990’s was one of the few shining lights of football during the downward spiral of a once great game. The great games of that era involved North. Especially the 2 Essendon games from 2000 & 2001. But you are not dealing with the issue.
Let me add my observations of the Rugby League Grand Final from that year…
- The commentator claimed that a certain ruling by the referee, whilst correct, would not be known by most players!!
- The football was very slow but bloodthirsty. I thought someone had brought out the razor blades like in the Wrestling and cut the forehead!
- At one stage the coach of the eventual winners flashed a pack of cigarettes at the tv camera!!!!
- The linesman was knocked out by an object thrown by the spectators! The commentator said “Thrown by some buffoon, a criminal!!!”…hilarious
- The replacement linesman did not have a uniform…he was wearing a cardigan!!
- Some players did not have numbers on their back
- One player threw the ball at an opposition players head!!
It truly was ‘Amateur hour’ and I could see why the NRL were so strenuous in changing the culture of the sport. The VFL was miles ahead of the NRL as a product.
As for criticising Soccer. Guess what, I agree with you!! It is often a dull game. But to single out the Japan game as a ‘boring’ game shows you badly.
treizistes said | March 31st 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Actually the Top 14 union in France has most of the top teams averaging under 10,000, some as low as 4,500, you do get a team like Toulouse averaging 20,000, but that is rare.
The Paris team averages between 8,000 and 9,000 every match, but twice or maybe 3 times a year, they give away a shed load of tixs to different minority groups to get a big crowd at the big Paris stadium, last year or the year before was the gay community they tackled when wearing a pink outfit, this boosts their average overall, but when they don’t have these special games, the team makes Penriths latest crowds look good.
13 home games for the Paris team, 10 home games average under 9,000, the other three average around 80,000 thus giving them a distorted average of over 20,000 a season.
I asked a union fan before where the other 72,000 people are during the year, he made some BS excuse.
Just to show you, I’ll put in all of the Paris Union teams home crowds.
8,150, 8,935, 8,455, 8,485, 8,549, 79,619, 8356, 6,698, 8,263, 79,741, 8,960, 8,999, 69,805.
As you can see, their lowest crowd was 6,698, but their highest was 79,741, big difference isn’t it, take out the 3 give aways, and not one game got over 9,000.
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Savvas -
firstly – the Japan game was singled out as theoretically a ‘boring game’ via the fact that no scores were achieved in the preceding 80 odd mins before the final 3 goal onslaught rescued the game from a 0-0 fate – - I DO recognise that many soccer folk can love a 0-0 result (and certainly, there are tense AND exciting 0-0 games, and tense and tedious 0-0 games).
True – North were a shining light of the ’90s. A low possession high efficiency game, Pagan’s paddock with Carey isolated and runners like Allison hurtling past at full-tilt. And, I felt sorry for guys I played footy with who just didn’t watch or attend North matches to see how easy the game could be. They instead saw Knights and Campbell over use, turn circles, go short and sideways – - and just never just pump it down to Richo. However, not everyone had a Carey and McKernan for that matter.
I believe you re. the NSWRL GF in 1977 – though I have never seen it. I don’t deny or debate that the NRL product has jumped light years ahead of where it was.
I acknowledge the NRL is a pretty good TV package product. Especially as Greg mentioned with the sideline camera that trundles along. That’s clearly the greatest advantage for a square sided field and an off-side backward passing game.
However – VFL circa 1977-84. Still pretty slow, other than the odd burst of pace from Xavier Tanner. Often the umpires were very over officious – in fact I think the ‘77 GF is a good example. The standard of ball delivery via hand and foot was across the field not that flash. Snake Baker was good to watch, more so in the ‘78 GF – but we lost that one. It was the first ‘live’ Grand Final – Ron Casey had ensured that – the spectacle as a whole as a tv presentation was perhaps less confusing than today as the silly ruddy directors keep flashing all these different angles which just gets annoying.
And back then, we were to witness Phil Carman headbutt umpire Carbury, John Burke kick an umpire in the reserves one Sunday at Albert Park, was it Gary Sidebottom who got struck by something from the crowd etc etc. Even until Leigh Matthews – the venerated great of the game – until he clocked Neville Bruns and got caught on tele and we got trial by video introduced – it was still a game with the odd thug –
and, as per the Rugby lament – were there more characters when you had the likes of Robbie Muir, Carl Ditterich, Ronnie Andrews, Mark ‘Jacko’ Jackson, David Rhys-Jones, Brent Crosswell and ‘Crackers’ Keenan who might just as well let a left hook go as take a speckie.
As for the lament for (earlier) torpedo punts – - that’s one reason especially I’d love to see the ’supergoals’ from pre-season introduced in the H&A rounds.
Savvas Tzionis said | March 31st 2008 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Why are we talking about Union?
In any case, Union’s problem with attracting supporters from other codes is that compared to League, the rules are greyer and more complicated. I have little idea what is going on.
treizistes said | March 31st 2008 @ 11:40am | Report comment
A few people mentioned it, I thought I’d put in some facts, is that OK with you?
Savvas Tzionis said | March 31st 2008 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Michael C,
You have the score (and therefore a large point of your argument!!) wrong. Japan was leading 1-0 with ten minutes to go. Australia equalised, them Japan had a penalty turned down, and then Australia kicked 2 more to win it. Amazing stuff.
Don’t get me started on tv coverage of AFL either. They are determind to show close ups of individual players!!!
But as much as I lament the decline of Aussie Rules, there is NO way I would want the introduction of ‘Super Goals’. Why complicate things? Do you realise what this does to the integrity of the game? Your wish to change such a fundamental factor shows that you also believe that game has declined as a spectacle. I am not against change, but it has to be the right change.
Treizistes
But it didn’t have much to do with my article.
Millster said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Well I can report that, prompted in part by these types of discussions, I made the mistake of going to the Swans Vs Port game on the weekend. Can someone give me an address to which I can send an invoice to the AFL for the time that I WASTED in doing so. The only enjoyment that I could possibly have gained from the game was to sit behind the Sydney goal and hope that one of the bazillion goals that they kicked hit me on the head and knocked me out to put me out of my misery.
Coincidentally I also watched a fair portion of the Eels Vs Knights on Friday prior to going to a party. I note that I am ambivalent to both AFL and League as I am a football follower. But I can tell you right now to which of those two codes I’ll be going to next…
Oh and as for the Socceroos game against Japan, the minute that the Japanese scored the lofted goal in the first half where Schwartzer was impeded, the game became anything but dull. Anyone with even the slightest regard for the importance of the match in Australia football history descended into that zone of hope/despair/emotional upheaval that simply cannot be matched in any other circumstance. And the second Cahill goal should be the one that resonates in every Australian’s mind – far more than the Aloisi penalty the November before that all the plebs seem to latch onto for football cred. Overall that game was a “you remember where you were when…” moment. (I was at the Hard Rock Cafe in Kuala Lumpur surrounded by about 200 fortunately very friendly and hard-drinking Japanese, and about 2 other Aussies!) How many such moments has AFL ever delivered to the nation?
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
re union – its a far better game than dumb and dumber rugby league. Rugby union is more complicated than RL but it also keeps the ball alive in the contest, something it has in common with AFL and soccer.
Interestingly, three codes of AFL, rugby and soccer rules were all codified around the same time circa 1860s (AFL 1859). The bastard creation of rugby league was for the simpletons.
Redb
treizistes said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Savvas Tzionis
Fair enough, I seen something and couldn’t resist.
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Savvas –
granted the Japan game (twas certainly 0-1 at half time). Either way, 1 or zero goals in an 80 minute period – is underwhelming.
Actually – the analogy I though of on the weekend.
Sehwag – 319 off 304 balls faced.
Dravid – 111 off 291 balls faced.
208 runs difference for 13 balls more faced for Sehwag.
It was like one was playing footy and the other soccer – - both were very, very good. Just different.
(tv coverage – way too many close ups – seems to be trying to make up for something – - that’s why on my limited exposure to the Fox digital ‘feature’ game – I loved it, I could just choose my view and stick with it. Directors should be ’shot’.)
Supergoals as a notion reward the long shot, the kick that might drop short into the goal square, the torpedo etc. The NAB cup shows only 1 or 2 a game in general in a comp where teams don’t always have the same heavy focus on winning.
I don’t think it’d be that fundamental a change. Not nearly as much as the pitched outside leg stump interpretation in cricket, or the reducing a RL field goal to one point. Scoring wise – the AFL/VFL has been absolutely static since 1897. Unlike the Rugby codes that have fiddled incessantly with the relative values of various goals and trys.
I like the 3 pointers in basketball. It encourages shots that otherwise might not occur – effectively, it can help to ‘break’ the zone – because it can draw a defender out who otherwise might just sit back.
And, over the previous few years when we had Sav Rocca – oh I wished some of his long bombs could’ve been worth 9 pts!!!!!!
Does it mean I believe it’s declined as a spectacle and you CAN NOT interpret my comments thus. No. I believe it’s an innovation with merit, where as the play on from the rebound off the post and the 3 pts for a rushed – from the NAB cup – I’m not so sure about. Well – very anti the rebound off the post play on.
As a spectacle – I love wet weather footy – Friday nights game from the wet Gabba was great to watch. I love muddy jumpers, and in the wet, golly gee – umpires tend to let the game flow a bit better.
I do believe the TV coverage can be better – it’s better than it was in many respects compared to ‘77. The Bruce and Denis show on Friday nights is wonderful, understated, not intrusive.
treizistes said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Redb
You wouldn’t happen to be related to professorknowall at Big footy would you?
It’ll click with me very shortly as to which AFL zealot you are, just keep posting, I get closer and closer with each hate filled spew against the NON Australian games you spew forth.
I know I have read your stuff a thousand times before but for some reason it just doesn’t click, maybe it’s because most Fumbleballers talk the same trash all the time and I’m finding it hard to differentiate between them.
And this thread, well for my part, AFL has never had anything on RL, so for me, seeing AFL fans convert to RL is nothing new.
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Millster -
re Japan game – I was asleep – we had a new born and 2 3yr old little tackers – the entirety of the 2006 FIFA WC was effectively lost on me due to time zones.
Millster – did you go intending to barrack for the Swans? Or, intending to be bored.
Is it too complicated for you that the Swans – tipped to decline this year were playing the team (Port) that contested last years GF. This, the Swans first home game of the year – a huge, hugely important game for them to make a statement for the season.
Barry Hall – the doubters were lining up to kick him, he had a poor GF in the 2006 loss, his entire 2007 was somewhat forgettable, and his preseason and round 1 form was average at best. And, suddenly he’s back in town with 5 goals.
The 3rd quarter demolition to extend a far from definitive 22 point half time margin to an unassailable 10 goal lead at the last break.
The performance of youngsters Jarred Moore, Craig Bird, Ed Barlow, Heath Grundy and Kieren Jack – who give Swans fans the hope that there is a new generation coming through – - included in those 2 key players, Bird and Jack – both local products.
For Swans fans – it was a glorious day – in which they could just sit back and enjoy ‘party time’ in the last quarter, drawing away to win and boost percentage.
In context – a fine, fine afternoon for Swans fans.
(as a soccer person, you must surely understand the importance of goal difference – well, translate that to ‘percentage (boosters)’ – - and, if you win, you want to win by as much as possible).
Now – did you ever feel trapped in your seat? Because, you should have enjoyed the freedom of 3 intervals in which to head to the loo or to head to the bar.
Anyway – if you prefer to go and watch potentially only one or two goals for 80 minutes – that’s you’re choice.
btw – are we comparing live event vs tv event. I’d only advise a neutral to attend a game with a radio to listen to the commentary – I oft thought there should be some form of ‘internal commentary’ – although, how to do that I’m not sure. Oh yeah – if a little short sighted – bring your specs or even the binos.
Millster said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
MC – I try to be balanced in what I write, generally speaking, but you CANNOT be serious. Comparing a game of football with a test match innings… words almost fail me completely (something that you would not be familiar with).
And RedB’s last post – “for the simpletons” – just exemplifies all that is wrong with some attitudes on this site. Dude, the game may have originated differently to your preferred code but that doesn’t make it worse. Remember that your own code was a kind of frivolity invented to keep cricketers fit in winter – that is, those that weren’t deemed tough enough to play Rugby. And on this weekend’s sample from both codes, sorry but across the set of fixtures played, it was AFL that came off a dismal second best in terms of game quality and excitement. Again I should stress that I am NOT a ‘Leaguie’ and rather am a fervent football man.
Millster said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
MC – had radio and binoculars. Loosely follow St Kilda so it was a ‘neutral’ game for me. Oh and I prefer a game that does trap me in my seat. If my aim for the afternoon was to oscillate between the beer-tap and the loo I’d have saved myself the admission and just gone to the local pub.
I spent my time thinking about how to make the game better. Perhaps the best thing I came up with was that marks should not be ‘given’ except in the goal square (maybe a slightly expanded goal square if that rule were introduced). The advantage of plucking the ball out of the air ready to run with should be enough, and the rule on most of the field should be play-on with anyone free to tackle the marker. I mean imagine in football if play stopped for an offensive free kick every time a 10m pass was successfully made… its a bit stupid really.
There should be post-match review for diving. I saw MUCH more diving in that game than I ever see in football. On the odd occasion that I got up in arms, the word ‘blouse’ was probably the most common to come out of my mouth.
sledgeross said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Redb
“re union – its a far better game than dumb and dumber rugby league. Rugby union is more complicated than RL but it also keeps the ball alive in the contest, something it has in common with AFL and soccer.
Interestingly, three codes of AFL, rugby and soccer rules were all codified around the same time circa 1860s (AFL 1859). The bastard creation of rugby league was for the simpletons.”
Rugby Union is more complicated than Rugby League, hence its failure to capture the imagination of the masses. Professionalism has rendered Union a poor shadow of League. Gone are the days of the freakish skills of the Ella’s, Campese, Lynagh, Horan etc. Today most professional Union teams have defensive coaches with, wait for it, rugby league backgrounds. As for keeping the ball alive in contests, Im not sure you have watched a game of rugby lately. Penalties are the norm, and players will kick for touch to force line-outs. Maybe watch a few games of Super 14 this weekend mate.
As for your infantile, churlish and elitest assertion that Rugby League is for “simpletons”, well, all you are doing is showing what a childish and petulent brat you are. League was an offshoot of Union. Union was an offshoot of Association Football. Likewise, baseball is an offshoot of cricket. AFL is an adaption of Gaelic football with an antipodean flavour. By your standards, Union and Aussie Rules are also “bastard” codes as well? Yes, Rugby League is a game for the working classes, I truly pity your disdain of the working classes if you equate”simpletons” with those from a lower socio-ecomonic demographic than yours. So much for the egalitarianism of the average Aussie bloke.
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Guys -
the facts have gone right out the door – I’ll stick with what I know:
Sledgeross -
Rugby Union WAS NOT an offshoot of Association Football. Rugby Union is an offshoot of the game played at the school or Rugby – first published rules 1845 with about 37 rules written down – and deemed to be a game played by Aust Footy co-founder Thomas Wills whilst at school in Rugby.
Association Football was supposed to provide a set of common rules via the series of meetings circa 1862-63 – however, the eminent representative from Blackheath could not be satisfied – the desired result of a single set of rules fell flat – and so, the London Association kicked off, in about 1871 the rules of the Rugby Football Union were codifed. And by the late 1870s the London Association merged with the Sheffield Association by which time the Londoners had adopted the use of a cross bar.
Gaelic football WAS NOT codified until the mid 1880s. The Melb game was far more the result of a successful bid to provide a single set of rules by which all could play – - (more noble than the Londoners? perhaps, or – perhaps just less scope for vested interest due to a smaller population base and that the various rules WERE NOT seen as some how indentifialbe with proudly independant educational institutions). At any rate – the rules that were written in 1859 – you can see potentially where a given rule was similar to something in the Harrow rules (esp no x-bar for goals – but, then London 1863 rules had no x-bar too, thus being perhaps Harrow derived commonality). There are similarities within the Cambridge rules circa 1848-54. Some similaritieis to individual aspects of the Rugby rules….however, remember – at the time – few of these were published in wide global circulation handbook format let alone be able to be googled at a moments notice or to ring up Aunt Dolly in downtown Sussex to ask what the rules were.
The influence of the Irish is seen as minimal early days re. Melb rules. In fact – the absence of the colours orange and green from all but the recently included Fremantle club colours – indicates a decided lack of influence at the ‘higher – influential’ level. At any rate – the Irish were more likely the ‘labourers’, the gold fossickers – and, early days, the people who played cricket and who could afford the time to play football come the weekend were more the well to-do folk – and that, despite perhaps a 20% Irish overall demographic – that well heeled demographic was decidedly un-Irish.
So – - please – before making silly nonsense comments – do a little research.
btw – on this one – I speak not for Redb re ’simpletons’ etc.
Anyway – in essence – Association Football is a bastard code – a mix of existing ‘local’ and school rules from the time. The Melb game is a more complete mix – - perhaps – - therefore a bigger/better bastard???? Rugby rules are perhaps the ones with the best direct line back to point of origin via the school of rugby.
Millster –
a certain rule tweak that does not allow for ‘incidental contact’ is the worst thing ever – that hands in the back interpretation – generally a good idea – but, requires ‘incidental contact’ allowance. It just encourages playing for the free.
Marks – yes and no. They do provide a stacato element to the flow of play. Geelong are a fine example of playing on at almost every opportunity. However – the notion of a fair mark and therefore a free kick should you choose it is essential to the deemed value of a marking contest. THe extension from 10m to 15m I presume was aimed at removing a lot of frivolous short kicks. In the VFL they apply the no marks for kicking backwards in the back half – - that may come into the game one day.
Players are certainly given far less ‘time’ to erode before the umpire calls play on.
btw – did you take your thermos with a couple of hot dogs in it??? Or other appropriate measures to avoid paying the venue prices for foodstuffs.
Joe FC said | March 31st 2008 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
sledgeross
baseball evolved from the English game of rounders not cricket.
Koala Bear said | March 31st 2008 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Against doctors orders; I just could not resist this debate on Harrow football…
Harrow Football.
Yes this form of football is the greatest game of them all. First played in the 14th century and is still currently played today and ready to make its presence known on the world stage… With its expansion plans already on the drawing board ready to conquer the world…. Check out the video link below..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4I3-w9589E
The game
Whereas soccer is a kicking and passing game and rugby a handling and ball-carrying game, Harrow Football is essentially a dribbling game. An important feature is the offside rule whereby a player must be behind the ball before he can play it. Handling is allowed from a kick on the volley: the ball may be caught and a call of “yards” allows the catcher a space of three running yards unmolested and a free kick out of the hands.
The purpose of the game is to score a ‘base’, which is achieved by kicking the ball between two vertical posts, a pair of which is at each end of the ground, similar to rugby posts but without a cross-bar. This may be done either from open play or from ‘yards’ and the kick may be of any height.
The teams are eleven a side, comprising four centres, two wings on each side of the field and three backs.
In a typical phase of play, the ball will be dribbled down the field quite slowly by the centres. They may be tackled soccer style, or knocked off the ball by their opponents (all shoulder charging is allowed, except in the back) but if they manage to work the ball down to within kicking range of their opponents’ base, one of them will turn and ‘give yards’ to a team mate. On ‘taking yards,’ the catcher then has the opportunity of kicking the ball between the posts and scoring a base.
In the course of the dribble the ball may fly out to, or be passed to, the wings. Progress is usually faster on the drier fringes of the ground and wings tend to be smaller, nippier footballers. If they manage to take the ball up to the base line, they will either centre it or ‘give yards’, which can then be transferred to a team mate nearer the middle of the field.
If the ball crosses the side line, there is no restriction on how the ball may be thrown in. It is therefore usually bowled in by one of the backs, a method which will often send it as far as a kick. As the offside rule does not apply from throws, it will be seen that a throw near the opponents’ end of the field is an attacking opportunity. On the other hand, if the ball crosses the base line from a defender, the ball must be thrown in perpendicularly from the crossing place, a rather less threatening situation unless it happens to be very near the base.
The ball
The Harrow ball is constructed from three pieces of leather, two circular and one rectangular. The circumferences of the circles are stitched to the longer sides of the rectangle, and the two ends of the rectangle are also joined. A rubber bladder is inserted into the leather case through this short join and the opening is closed with a lace. The inflated ball thus becomes an approximately spherical shape. It is larger than a soccer ball, its circular section having a diameter about 27.5cm at its largest. Dry weight is about 820 grams.
In 1999 a football was found in the rafters of Stirling Castle, supposedly above Mary Queen of Scots’ bedroom. It was formally identified by the National Museum in Edinburgh as being 430 years old and therefore the oldest surviving football.
Interestingly, its construction is exactly the same as a Harrow football: two circular pieces of leather stitched to a central rectangular piece curved to form a cylinder. This is a neat way of forming a near cylindrical shape with just three components. However the Harrow ball is considerably larger than the Stirling ball, being nearly a foot across in its widest part.
This size of ball, particularly when soaked in water and caked in mud, is only headed by the more foolhardy player – and then only once. A better, safer and more effective way of meeting the aerial ball is with the shoulder, known as ‘fouling’. The ball may be ‘fouled’ whenever it may not be caught, that is from a throw or a base kick. (hands stil need plenty of rest; but still reading).
~~~~~~
KB
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
ah KB – so, channelling the living Roy Masters gives you unknown reserves of energy and vigour….
Harrow – -
yes – one can see how some elements may be deemed in part similar….like……the ‘catch’…
towit, they cry ‘yards’?!?!??! Me thinx the fair catch and ‘marking’ of the ‘mark’ via Rugby school applies – not harrow.
And bases vs goals?!??!!?
Absence of forwards and the obvious totality of off-side
ball shaped like a fat pancake
yep – - that’s Melbourne Rules circa 1859 in 1 KB!!!! (NOT).
Roy Masters is dreaming if he thinks Aust footy owes anything in particular to Harrow – - however, if his comment was simply that he could illustrate that some schools had head masters who had instilled ‘Harrow’ rules within their school – and that therefore was the first football played in Australia – fine. If Mr Masters could detail the relevance at all to any football played presently in Australia that is worthy of celebration. Then fine.
As it is – it seems fair to assume that Aust Footy via Melb Rules was self initializing, self establishing, and self determining whilst Rugby and Soccer were imported whole. Otherwise, we’d have seen – in all likelihood, some other forms of Australian interpretations of rules providing further ‘unique’ games…Australian Rules Soccer = = you’d love that??
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Millster -
“MC – I try to be balanced in what I write, generally speaking, but you CANNOT be serious. Comparing a game of football with a test match innings… words almost fail me completely (something that you would not be familiar with).”
Ah, but, the difference in the 2. One, you could not expect a 5 minute period to come along without a score of some form, the other, 10 mins or more at a time might pass without the hint of a score.
One innings played as an attacking seek to dominate the opposition innings in which to apply pressure via the scoreboard rather than just consumption of time.
the other innings more an innings of ‘occupation’, runs NOT the primary focus – rather, NOT GETTING OUT (similar to NOT conceding a goal – the soccer adage of a clean sheet for the opposition means you didn’t lose).
Walking out of the ground will there be some cricket purists lamenting the slowness of Dravid, or lamenting the one day style innovative stroke play of Sehwag – how many people just enjoyed each innings on it’s merits.
—
I bet you still resist my feeble attempt to link to that amazingly flat track in Chennai…..might be a good footy oval!!!
sledgeross said | March 31st 2008 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
To the more pedantic among you who may have missed my point:
Michael C.
To put it simply, the “rugby rules” provided the capacity for a player to pick up the ball and run with it. You seem well learned regarding the various meetings. Pehaps my wording Association Football was wrong (as you pointed out) but it doesnt change the fact that the schism which formalised the different sets of rules came as a result of the alleged decision of Webb Ellis to pick up the ball, and the ensuing popularity of that code. Football/Soccer was the root of Rugby Union.
http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/originsofrugby.htm
Insofar as making “silly nonsense comments” please note I said “adaption” with “antipodean flavour” regards the origins of Aussie Rules. Im sure you know as well as I do that historians argue over the actual developmental roots of Australian Rules Football. I merely point to similarities between the two games compared to others, which would seemingly be logical?
Lets call every football code a “bastard code”. It all depends on your point of view, but to speak negatively of any one without constructive points is stupid. We are blessed to have the climate and skills to be so damned good at many sports. I could watch any Aussie sport truth be told.
Joe FC: These quotes are from Wikipedia, but illustrate my point if you bear with me;
“origins of baseball”
The earliest game that is acknowledged as a root of baseball is a game called “stoolball”. Stoolball comprised of the following “In stoolball, a batter stood before a target, perhaps an upturned stool, while another player pitched a ball to the batter. If the batter hit the ball (with a bat or his/her hand) and it was caught by a fielder, the batter was out. If the pitched ball hit a stool leg, the batter was out”
“Origins of Stoolball:
In stoolball, which developed by the 11th century, one player throws the ball at a target while another player defends the target. Stob-ball and stow-ball were regional games similar to stoolball. In stob ball and stow ball the target was probably a tree stump, since both “stob” and “stow” mean stump in some dialects. ( “Stow” could also refer to a type of frame used in mining). What the target originally was in stoolball is not certain. It could have been a stump, since “stool” in old Sussex dialect means stump.
According to one legend, milkmaids played stoolball while waiting for their husbands to return from the fields. Another theory is that stoolball developed as a game played after attending church services, in which case the target was probably a church stool.
Originally, the stool was defended with a bare hand. Later, a bat of some kind was used (in modern stoolball, a bat like a very heavy ping-pong paddle is used).”
Cricket as a game is first referenced by its modern name in the mid 1500’s. It is kind of chicken before the egg though isnt it? These “bat and ball” games are all similar, and I was merely pointing out that cricket is the eldest historically refernced and formalised bat and ball game. To be fair, not even baseball can actually nail down its direct source, rather it was a conglomeration of these ancient games.
http://www.historyofbaseball.us/
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Sledgeross,
The tone of my comments are entirely within the spirit and usefulness of this thread.
May it be confined to dustbin.
Redb
Koala Bear said | March 31st 2008 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Michael C,
no, no, no, YES..! ’tis half right.. Roy Masters said last Sunday it was of the Rugby persuasion that 4 English schoolmasters standing on the sidelines observing the 1858 game resembling that of Rugby. So the Harrow Football as I now concede to you as the forerunner of the World game of FIFIA football and so the name of football is a foreign name and not an indigenous name; will you now concede and revert to your roots by calling your code its correct name “Aussie Rules” ?? So we can all get on with life as it was meant to be… (bandages came off today but still too sore to comment any further)..
PS.. Wayne Carey’s life story with Andrew Denton is grabbing the attention of the electronic media up on the Gold Coast… I never heard of him… ha ha.. I am looking forward to Caroline Wilson’s take next Sunday… That should be good…!!!
~~~~~~
KB
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
MC,
The problem for some fo the posters here is they cannot seem to accept that Australian Football was the first code of football in the world to have a set of codified rules. That in itself is not a big deal, but the issue to the detractors like Masters, Fagan et al, is that it had rules drawn up before rugby and soccer and well before rugby league.
Rugby and soccer are deriatives of differing games played by differing schools in England. Of course some aspects of these loosely constructed games of football were brought to Melbourne. The Melbourne Football Club Rules laid down in 1859 were a mixture of rugby and soccer, but with their own identity in several facets of the game disliked by either the Eton or Rugby schools followers, and thus compromises were reached. These compromises or differing rules were and still are unique to Australian Football.
Research via Wikipedia is embarassing.
Anyway let them bang on about it.
Redb
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
sledgeross -
apology accepted!!!
I do wonder as to the over valuation of the myth of Mr WEbb Ellis – I don’t think in the vast context of playing with a ball of type that he was the first or only person ever (or allegedly ever) to think that picking up the ball and using hands in some manner was perhaps a good idea. ANd, perhaps the Marn Grook element might be that young Thomas Wills was quite used to the concept of ball in hand and kicking it to be thus caught……maybe not………where the Irish catching and variously running with ball in hand prior to WEbb Ellis – how many forms of local village (highway type) ‘football’ involved just moving the ‘ball’ forward by whatever means.
Webb Ellis seems a cute and necessary myth……a bit like ‘God’……….(may or may not be – how do you prove it this far out?).
KB -
oh KB, you have claimed previously to follow Carlton – to some degree – and, have somehow managed to miss Mr.Carey (granted a North Melb player – but, would be akin to someone claiming to follow Storm and NOT be aware of Andrew Johns – - that’s a good effort of self-blinkering……..oh well, your loss – - – do yourself a favour, look him up on youtube and watch a few of the highlights)
So – are you claiming that just what game deserves ‘football’ – Harrow? Because it was dribbling……however – they dribbled and caught a pancake….niether an ellipsoid or that special case the spheroid?!?!!??
Redb -
it’s one of those things – I think a lot of (rugby/soccer)people gladly accepted it when we described our game as a bit like a cross between soccer and rugby – - and, in truth, I think a lot of AFL supporters ignorant of the time lines just assumed that the great global games of soccer and rugby MUST have pre-dated our local offering. Well, reality is that our game is just as much a hybrid as the other games – in essence – Rugby Union perhaps the least so – although the rule changes around scoring and the like has rather greatly changed that game too from the school game origins.
sledgeross said | March 31st 2008 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
I bow to your humilty and knowledge on the topic then Michael
You make a good point about Webb Ellis, but I guess thats something for another day!
Redb: If you were referring to my wikipedia research being embarrassing, please note I did say to bear with me while I iused it to illustrate a point. I dint say it was a primary source, and didnt even bother proving a link because I know how the credibility (or lack thereof) Wiki can provide. In my defence I did provide links with other points that may be construed as more reputable somewhat, and Im also at work and cant trawl through websites to cite what was merely meant to be an illustrative point.
I must say though, as a New South Welshman, I am proud of the fact that Aussie Rules is the oldest codified football code in the world.
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
MC,
The timing of codification of the various types of ‘football’ games being played by Eton, Harrow, Rugby schools and a number of other English schools was thwarted by their own belief that their game was better. This irony with regards to the constant “my code is better than yours” arguments that persist on the Roar is that Australian football was codified before them.
Redb
The Boar said | March 31st 2008 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
So, summing up the AFL position.
Positives:
1. The first codified rules of football.
2. The Australian game.
3. The best football code.
Negatives:
1. None.
2. See 1. above.
Now we are all agreed, can we please move on.
Michael C said | March 31st 2008 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Baor –
fabulous, proof that if you beat a dull object with a blunt instrument long enough, some of the blunt instrument is sure to penetrate the dull object.
……or, did this just help pass the time of day away in lieu of working really, really hard……
funny how the legitimate and intelligent articles inspire a little discussion – - but, it’s these silly ones that in the main those of us partaking in it don’t even approve of – that seem to get the big numbers………
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Sledgeross,
re wikipedia, look there is some information that is useful as a guide, but when you realise it is reader based commentary, then the credibility of those comments is questionable at best.
There has been a lot of froth and bubble spewing forth from several high profile rugby league journalists and historians concerning the origins of Australia football. it’s annoying when you know their account of the game is coloured by their own prejudice. Now you may or not be interested to know as a New South Welshman, but that there has not been one single story in the Melbourne press that has called into question any aspect of rugby leagues and its origins in Australia, not one.
It is entirely churlish of Masters, Fagan to suggest the whole motivation around the AFL’s celebration of the first game of our unique type of footy in 1858 had anything to do with spoiling the RL 100 year party. As should be obvious here , there is very little cross over between supporters of the two codes, so why would it make any difference.
cheers
Redb
Millster said | March 31st 2008 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
That’s right Redb. If you can’t win over us ‘opponents’ through balanced debate you just go ahead and start flicking remarks at MC who you already know shares your bias (though, fortunately for the rest of us, argues somewhat more intelligently and thoughtfully).
This debate about “which came first” or “which was written down first” is a joke. Things evolve in different ways… thats culture. In music is the saxophone less of an instrument because it was invented in the 20th century? And by extension is the jazz of Ornette Coleman or Charlie Parker less ‘musical’ because it was played on a sax, compared to that of Stephan Grapelli who played his on the violin – invented centuries before (albeit modified over and over it its history)?
I don’t think that any code is intrinsically better than any other. I happen to enjoy good games of each of the four football codes. I like the strategy, skills and gameplay of football better but that’s just my personal preference. The only team sport that I detest is cricket but I’ll even respect those that don’t share my view.
What I object to is when obscure history, carefully chosen statistics, or local circumstances are used to justify the insecurities of the supporters of each of the codes. We’ve all got strengths, we’ve all got weaknesses. One code is global (and awakening but yet to reach potential in Oz), a couple are played meaningfully between a limited group of countries but not truly global, and one is purely domestic (albeit very successful in its 2-3 core state markets). Why can’t we celebrate all that – its a great mix to have.
Oh, by the way the rules to this Harrow Ball sound awesome! Would be great fun to set up a little league just for shits and giggles…
The Boar said | March 31st 2008 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
I’m still a little confused. If the rules of rugby were written down in 1845, then how come they were not the first football code?
This AFL site says the rugby was codified first, Australian rules second http://www.worldfootynews.com/staticpages/index.php/20041128232119339:
1845 Rugby rules officially codified at Rugby School England.
1859 First clubs formed in Victoria – including Melbourne and Geelong. First known written version of the rules, drafted by officials of the Melbourne Football Club on May 17 – some interpret this event as making Australian Rules the second oldest football code behind Rugby.
The Boar said | March 31st 2008 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
Hey! I just noticed! It also says Melbourne Football Club was formed in 1859. I thought it was 150 years this season? Must be a typo.
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
Millster,
There is nothing to win over. Most of you are so blindly anti-Australian football it wouldn’t make any difference. At least I know MC understands the history of the game. So is it now illegal for AFL fans to talk to each other on the Roar?
you said:
“I don’t think that any code is intrinsically better than any other.”
Really?
how about your comments here:
“it was AFL that came off a dismal second best in terms of game quality and excitement. Again I should stress that I am NOT a ‘Leaguie’”
or
“Agree that for a neutral, AFL is not the ideal TV game. Where I digress is that for a neutral I don’t think its a great live game either.”
You don’t think it is a great live game after one game of watching the Swans belt Port Adelaide. That’s your opinion (s), not I don’t think any code is intrinsincially better than the other. If you want a true game of Australian football to watch, wait for Collingwood, West Coast, GEELONG or Essendon games at ANZ stadium this year.
Redb
Millster said | March 31st 2008 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
Redb – I should clarify. I came to Australia (Melbourne) from France when I was 5 and my 2 years living in Mt Waverley made my AFL team St Kilda. In those 2 years as a youngster I didn’t go to games but traded footy cards and did all the footy-related stuff that kids do. Then my family moved to Perth. For some reason I stayed with the Saints – even when the WCE came along and were thoroughly RAMMED down the throat of every Perthite. In my 18 years in Perth I would have watched maybe 200 games of AFL on TV and 40-odd live (not fun being in Saints colours at Subi I might add). Remember that until the Glory came along to save us, there was nothing else to do. Then, in the decade I’ve been in Sydney/Canberra, I would probably have seen another 40 televised and 5 live games of AFL.
So please don’t get the picture that my opinions are not considered, nor based on a lack of understanding or knowledge about the sport. Rather, it was a REVELATION to me that there were other codes than AFL. I knew very little of either Rugby codes when I moved East, but I found them strategically interesting, structured and much more consistent than AFL. I had long played football (soccer to you) and was around in Perth for the ‘early days’ of the Glory but again it was only on moving to Sydney that I found a critical mass of people not brainwashed into AFL. Of course around that time SBS started exposing Australians to the beauty of the world game at its highest levels, which was a very important step.
I am not blindly anti-AFL. A couple of the recent Swans-Eagles finals have been classics. A couple of grinding Saints victories some years before at Subi are my better spectating moments (gloating when you’re in the minority is fantastic isn’t it!). AFL can throw up a brilliant contest at times.
But I’m simply arguing that so can each of the other codes. Likewise all codes can throw up a dud – hence my comment about the dismal Swans-Port game versus the close and tense Eels-Knights encounter. Thats not a general bias mate, that’s the reality of comparing those 2 particular games.
And finally you have to be realistic about your sport, and about the way it is seen by objective people who view a balance of sport. It is the least structured and most chaotic of the four codes – I don’t agree with the harshness of the “seagulls chasing a chip” analogy but it is true that any player, and the ball, can go anywhere anytime. To a neutral it is also the code where it is hardest to find consistent application of a set of rules by the umpires. It purports to be ‘full contact’ but increasingly soft decisions are made on body contact – not helped by HEAPS of players diving in recent times. And as a spectacle it is difficult to watch either on TV or live due to the play one second being expansive (passing, or ‘long-bomb’ kicks) and the next being a dour cynical ground level struggle that goes nowhere. Finally, the enormously high/easy scoring nature of the game means that it is possible for the contest to be well over long before the final siren. This occurs sometimes, but less often, in the rugby codes, and rarely in football.
Anyway back to my original response. Do not assume that I am some west-Sydney bogan who is a soccer/league head through and through. My whole upbringing was AFL. But thankfully at some point my eyes opened up and I saw that there were very attractive alternatives and that the AFL world was in fact quite a small one.
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Millster,
We’ve all had our journeys.
I’ve always followed Essendon and always will, red and black forever! However, I was also a fan of Balmain in the early to mid 1990s and followed the Wallabies fortunes when rugby league and rugby union were little known in Melbourne. In the 1970s as a kid I had a vague connection to Man United that still carries thru to today.
Big fan in particular of Paul Sironen, went to the Great Britain lions rugby league test in 1992 in Melbourne (Princes Park) and heaps of union games since including World Cup 2003.. Been to socceroo and Victory games. Take away the patriotic angle of these sports and watch them at domestic level and I find the exact opposite of what you say for many games. For me modern rugby league is an over hyped TV sport compared to its glory days pre super league, I dislike Melbourne Storm in particular for the contrived club that it is and have more respect for teams such as the Sharks (happen to know ET), Roosters, West tigers (even though its merged). I also have respect for the Brisbane Broncos – a great sporting team that does Brisbane proud.
Give me 90,000 at a packed MCG Essendon v Collingwood any day – it really is awesome. Of course not every footy game is a classic, but played at speed with relentless attack it has few peers as a spectacle live at the ground.
cheers
Redb
John Ryan said | March 31st 2008 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Gawd you are a total dope Sir Echo,i believe it was you and verbose mate who started threating people who dared post something that your and verbose mate don,t like,talk about pots calling kettles black.
You think people on here are blindly Anti AFL given the amount of rubbish you and your friend heap on other football codes Rugby League in particular,you then burst into tears when you get it back,as I have said before you have a very thin skin, you can dish it out but don,t like it coming the other way.
Did it ever enter you brain that people might get tired of you and your friend posting loads of waffle, as for your take on AFL history, your a bona fide historian are you or just another clod on the AFL handout line.
I also said you both should decamp back to Big Footy where you can again bask in the unadulterated approval of like minds,to other posters on here, I have had it with this clod and his mate I don,t mind debate not even rough and tumble but threats no,you seem to have the Idea your own this place and all should dance to your tune, your just a pale imitation of the AFL, bully boys who try to impose there views on all regardless of what anyone thinks, your right everyone else is is wrong
black is white,last bloke to try that did not end up to well.
I shall await the usual abusive response
The Boar said | March 31st 2008 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
John Ryan – well said!
And to add to the info above setting out that Australian rules was not the first codified football, here are some more AFL sources proving it is wrong to say 1858.
“No recorded Australian football club existed before the first association football club (Sheffield FC). There were six Geelong-area clubs, but if you call what they played “Australian rules”, then Calcio Fiorentino teams can be called football (soccer) clubs.” http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=414954
“May 8, 1866, football saw the first codification of it’s rules by Harrison, Wills, Hammersley and Thompson at the Freemason’s Hotel in Swanston Street, Melbourne. The rules have been changed, adapted and interpreted constantly from this point on.” http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/41738/20040505-0000/www.statelibrary.vic.gov.au/slv/exhibitions/football/index.html
So, on one hand the Melbourne FC setting out its rules is appaarently enough for a code to be born. Yet, the same thing happens before in other clubs and schools, no football code is born with any of them.
More twisted tales from the annals of the Australian rules mistruths and dribble dossier. AFL: The Dribbling Code.
Redb said | March 31st 2008 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
john ryan, your attempted tirade is expected. Perhaps you should review your own posts of detritus..errr.crap.
The Boar, your link to the state library confirms 1858 as first game, 1859 as codification of the rules. Dont listen to me follow your own link. ROLMAO
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 6:27am | Report comment
Firstly – John Ryan – THIS IS ON THE AFL TAB – so DO NOT denegrate AFL folk discussing AFL on the AFL tab – - – the fact that it should be the ‘Australian Football’ tab is another issue entirely as we are most certainly talking broader than the AFL itself.
Boar – the 150 years celebration is of the match (over 3 weekends) between Scotch College and Melb Grammar – - this year those fine institutions will celebrate the 150 th anniversary – - and, all associated with the VAFA (do you know what the VAFA is?) are joining with our ‘colleagues’ to celebrate with them the game the more than any other represented the apparetnly key moment that directly led to the writing of the first Melb Rules fully independant of any single set of rules existing in England at the time. No one has said that it’s the Melb 1859 rules being celebrated – that’s just your take.
Sheffiled FC WAS NOT the first London FA club – it was the First Sheffield football association club using it’s own rules for about 20 years before joining the London FA. Sheffield FC is of course NOT to be confused with Sheffield United or Sheffield Wednesday. Given that Sheffield FC was off amongst itself – it would be like the Rugby codes claiming Melbourne FC were they to have joined up with the Rugby folk when the RFU were formed.
Sheffield FC played by distinctly different rules – perhaps as different as those of Carlton FC when they toured Sydney and played local clubs first at Rugby and then the next week at Victorian Rules.
Boar – you left out the following :
“Melbourne Football Club rules were set down at the Parade Hotel in Wellington Parade, East Melbourne on Tuesday, 17 May 1859. They were developed from the first season of football and the knowledge of T.H. Wills, W.J.Hammersley, H.C.A.Harrison and J. B.Thompson – all founding fathers of the game. Thompson then moved to the Bendigo goldfields, where he became secretary and captain of its first football club – Sandhurst, formed in 1861. Ballarat had a senior football club by 1 862. Tom Wills family’s estate was near Geelong, he played a major role in the establishment of the Geelong Football Club in 1859. While these teams rules were similar it soon became clear that when the different areas played each other common rules we re necessary.9
May 8, 1866, football saw the first codification of it’s rules by Harrison, Wills, Hammersley and Thompson at the Freemason’s Hotel in Swanston Street, Melbourne. The rules have been changed, adapted and interpreted constantly from this point on. ”
The Melbourne Rules of 1859 are as solid as those of Sheffield FC circa 1857 or there there abouts. Now – really, I don’t care who was technically first or not – as, the obvious point is that what a bunch of cricketers in Sheffiled came up with in 1857 probably had little impact on what a bunch of cricketers in Melb came up with within 2 years on the other side of the planet – - – or did it? (and this is something seemingly never investigated – although the Sheffield boys had ‘kick through’ players permitted ahead of the ball – - maybe, just maybe their non-rigid off-side had an influence – or, maybe it exhibited that folk seeking to play for fitness sake might not deem off-side conducive to a decent run in the park.
So – I’ll grant that Sheffield FC seems to have beaten Melb FC. But – I’d debate the claim that “No recorded Australian football club existed before the first association football club (Sheffield FC).” becuase Sheffiled FC was in a pool of it’s own. And, perhaps the FA rules ought not be regarded as being established circa 1863 – perhaps we should wait until the merge with Sheffield in the late 1870s……
It’s all a bit academic.
The reality is that the Melb Rules spawned the others, Geel and Ballarat and then they fell in line in 1866 – given that it was the authors of the Melb Rules who ‘revised’ them to incorporate the outlying districts.
The reason Rugby School rules ARE NOT ‘counted’ is the same reason that school ‘clubs’ aren’t ‘counted’ – - i.e. there seems that there is this ‘watershed’ of moving beyond the realms of kids at school into the arena of adults playing organised sport on weekends and that as leading inexorably towards the professional sports of today.
You might note I’ve refered quite often to the 1845 Rugby school rules. I realise this is all muddy territory and being rooted in history – it’s dangerous to make too many absolute ‘claims’. and the reality – does it change anything today?
sledgeross said | April 1st 2008 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Redb
lets be friends and never argue again. I go for the Sharks!!!
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 9:08am | Report comment
None of which answers my question.
I never said 1858 wasn’t the first Australian football match. I have no beef with that.
All I’ve asked is how the written rules of the Melbourne club = “the first football rules to be codified in the world”, while the written rules of rugby (1845 at Rugby School) don’t make it the “first game to be codified”.
In 20 words or less, PLEASE give me an explanation.
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Boar -
(20 words or less)
Apparently schools don’t count. Don’t ask me? That’s not my rule!!!
___________________________________________________________________________
otherwise,
the Cambridge rules of 1848 (although no copy apparently exists – but, the 1854 version is well documented)
even the Eton, Harrow, Shrewsbury rules etc.
That also leads to the argument about the first club – i.e. are we tallking about school/university clubs – do they have to be continuous to this day (to be the oldest existing club vs the first ever quote club unquote etc etc.
WIth respect to escaping the boundaries of a school – the Melb Rules if agreed as the foundation of the Laws of Australian Football are the oldest continuous direct link to a non-school origin – given that the Melb FC still competes. I guess that’s one interpretation.
I think, like most history in this respect – it, ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Isn’t Blackheath rugby club older than Melbourne FC? Blackheath is still going, and wasn’t a school club.
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Boar -
yep.
It was a school ‘old boys’ club.
And on the lists, it comes in ahead of Melb FC.
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
So…. a school “old boys” club doesn’t count either?
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Boar -
I didn’t say that.
I haven’t said anything about first this or first that other than I’ll say this now – it’s a muddy area that is continuously misrepresented by each of the codes to serve their own promotional needs.
The only thing that appears the case is that the Melb FC wrote & published their own rules that ‘grew’. Where as Blackheath were playing the Rugby school type rules…and, no one refers to the Blackheart Rules of Football (or do they?).
The irony is that Blackheath are listed as a founder of the FA. And that’s probably the main aspect – they were a club prior to the ‘codification’ of the rules…….
……so, just what is ‘codification’?
Do you wanna do the honours and google that word???
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Michael C – I didn’t say that you said it – I just posed the question.
It just seems to me that many AFL sites and fans (ok, not you) say that Australian football was the first codified football game. But, as we have pointed out here, there are so many holes in that claim that it simply doesn’t stack up, or at the very least can’t be challenged.
Or put it this way, the claim is not beyond questioning. Yet, when it is questioned, most in the Australian rules fraternity will say it is a domstrated fact that it is the oldest football code.
Made worse by texts such as Brittanica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011334/Australian-rules-football which plainly state “a football sport distinctive to Australia that predates other modern football games as the first to create an official code of play.”
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 11:19am | Report comment
okay – quick one
codification
noun
1. the act of codifying; arranging in a systematic order
2. a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones)
so – in the essence of that – the Melbourne Rules of 1859 fit – as being codified. Written down and published. And, in that respect – 1859 pre-dates 1863 (London FA rules) and 1871 (RFU). Sheffield appear as Oct 21, 1858 – - so, ideally Sheffield ‘beat’ Melbourne – - however, the technical argument about first vs continuous usage probably kicks in……similar to the Sheffield claim as the first club (continuous?) as distinct to the Barnes club (doubtful continuity).
I prefer to work on the theory that in Melbourne they were intelligent enough to realise that Melbourne was where they were – they weren’t waiting to get back to England – they were instead forging a local path for themselves – and, that included writing their own rules and setting about creating their own ‘cultural’ history. And, that is probably reflective of a city that WAS not a penal colony and that was being built upon the riches and optimism of the gold rush era.
Whereas Sydney seemed still to be taking ( & seeking) far greater guidance from the Britain. And so, just what exactly was happening in England give or take 6 months of not is barely relevant.
Note this quote from wikipedia somehow implying a Sheffield-Melb Rules ‘link’ (more tenuous this one than Marn Grook)!!
“There is circumstantial evidence that the rules also influenced Australian rules football conceived a couple of years later.[65] The two codes shared the unique feature of lacking the offside rule. There are also similarities in the laws for kicking off, kick outs, throw-ins and the fair catch. Henry Creswick (possibly a relative of Nathaniel Creswick) was born in Sheffield but emigrated to Australia with his brother in 1840 (the town of Creswick is named after them). He moved to Melbourne in 1854 and became involved in the local cricket scene. He played first class cricket for Victoria during the 57–58 season alongside three of the founders of Melbourne Football Club including Tom Wills, the man credited with creating the original rules.”
So – he came to Melbourne in 1854 – - how then are establishment in 1857 of a club and the 1858 rules at all relevant unless they came demonstrate a line of communication from the old dart to the good Mr.Creswick.
It seems what ever position is adopted is attempted to be shouted down from those outside of the Aust footy fraternity.
The claims of Masters and Fagan respectively that Harrow or Rugby rules effectively gave birth to Australian Football are childish and actually contradictory to each other but in fact together supportive that the Melb game was a ‘hybrid’…….as was the London 1863 rules which became more of a hybrid by the 1877 alignment with Sheffield. [really, the modern game of soccer was established in 1877 - - not in 1863].
The quote you forwarded –
“a football sport distinctive to Australia that predates other modern football games as the first to create an official code of play.”
– I guess – technically – it refers to ‘other modern football games’, so, technically, the Sheffield rules of 1858 DID NOT evolve directly to the modern game. Therefore, of the ‘modern games’, the Melb Rules that DID evolve directly to the modern game ARE the oldest. However, back to codification……there still appears this whole distinction between school level game codification and external ‘public’ adults club codification.
I’ve often wondered about that – and figured it’s the soccer conspiracy to down play the significance of the 1845 set of 37 rules written down re Rugby school – - -or, is it deemed that they were ‘unofficial’ rules anyway, as, written by schoolboys rather than the ’school masters’ they may not therefore be regarded as the definitive RULING rules – - so to speak?????
I dunno!!!!!
Koala Bear said | April 1st 2008 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Michael C wrote: So – are you claiming that just what game deserves ‘football’ – Harrow? Because it was dribbling……however – they dribbled and caught a pancake….neither an ellipsoid or that special case the spheroid?!?!!??
Michael C, not at all, however, I do point out it was Harrow who invented the name of Football in the 14th century.. not Aussie Rules, as there’s undeniable proof given by the curators of the British Museum; of a Harrow Football found in Scotland dating back to the 14th century… The Harrow football was round and definitely not a frisbee or pancake; take a look at that video again it was rolling along the ground not thrown like a frisbee or lying flat like a pancake on the turf..
Michael C, no I do not follow the Melbourne Storm, my rugby League team was once the Newtown Jets (Blue Bags) RL until they withdrew from the NRL, and I now align myself to the Sydney Rabbitohs as the closest club in the adjoining district..
As for your comment on Andrew Johns; I did not bring up his name as we were comparing Messiahs, yours being of Wayne Carey of The Nth Melbourne Aussie Rules club, and mine of the late Johnny Warren OAM, OBE, and FIFA medalist ex captain of the Australian National Football Team and junior club friend of the Earlwood Wanders juniors Football Club… and given a state funeral by the then premier of New South Wales Bob Carr.. I think we can both agree who is or was the better role model of the young footballers today of any code.. Even if you never heard of the late Johnny Warren.
I also was an interested supporter of the Randwick Rugby Union club and followed their fortunes in the press and going to one of their grand final victories.. As for the Carlton Aussie Rules Club I did follow their fortunes thru their seasons and watch so many Aussie Rules matches live when they played the Swans at the SCG and on TV but not as a paid up member, but an arms length supporter until they finally turned me off for their constant cheating activities.. and crooked chairman with price fixing stunts that sent my Amcor shares to dive with no recovery in site… (Thank you for the Sydney Newtown Bloods history I shall, however, block-out in my mind that they were once Sth Melbourne).
Although, I now live on the Gold Coast, as I have posted many times that my true passion is Football (soccer to you) and have align my loyalties to Sydney FC, and watch on Fox, when I can at the local RSL, when it is convenient to do so..
So the point of this post is to illustrate your annoying accusations, that New South Welshmen are myopic and insular soccer folk in regard to other codes, and nothing can be further from the truth, as you have displayed and exercised just that, with a cult like obsession, of one and only interest in Aussie Rules, apart from your other love of women’s netball, which does not count; not that there is anything wrong with that..
Roy Masters argument, is the establishment of the VFL in 1877 as being the true commencement of Aussie Rules, as it is for the Rugby league the true commencement in 1908, as the first official Associations of both codes, not some school game, which were played in 1858 with no established uniform rules, mainly from the rugby schools, and later changed to an indigenous code of rules.. I have to agree with his arguments..
PS just on the “tell all interviews” with Andrew Johns (suit and tie) and Wayne Carey (jeans and white shoes).. I don’t know about you but I think that Andrew Johns was dressed more appropriately than master Wayne Carey.. And much more likeable lad to boot..
~~~~~~
KB
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 11:38am | Report comment
KB -
ah, so, Harrow historically had a football and may claim a historic ownership at one point – however, can they document proof of a continuing ‘ownership’ of said ball – especially given the modern incarnations of the Harrow game using a fat pancake ‘ball’ that they roll along etc……
….as tenuous a link as marn grook to Aust Footy…….
Wayne Carey – I’ve never said anyone should like him!
Andrew Johns – okay, put on a suit and tie……the old joke about what do you call a Rugby League player in a suit and tie?
The defendant.
re. Roy Masters – the 1877 formation of the VFA (the VFL was the 1897 ‘breakaway’ from the VFA which survived and today has been morphed – so ironically – into what is known as the VFL).
The school game of 1858 vs the Melb FC establishment and subsequent set of rules in 1859 – - – in the general context the 1859 date of codification is probably more significant. However, as a member of the VAFA – we happily joined with our member clubs Old Scotch and (Melb) Old Grammarians to celebrate with them 150 years. We’d be remiss not to. Then next year we ALL can celebrate 150th anniversary of the Melb rules – although, this is the 150th ’season’ in a loose sence of the Melb FC – so, on that basis that can be celebrated this year – - -and in 2016 we might celebrate the 1866 revision of the rules……….leading up to 2027…….and just wait for the ‘themed’ rounds in heritage jumpers…….
Redb said | April 1st 2008 @ 11:55am | Report comment
KB,
“Roy Masters argument, is the establishment of the VFL in 1877 as being the true commencement of Aussie Rules, as it is for the Rugby league the true commencement in 1908, as the first official Associations of both codes, not some school game, which were played in 1858 with no established uniform rules, mainly from the rugby schools, and later changed to an indigenous code of rules”
Sorry, but that’s completely false. Your also confusing the VFL (1897) with the VFA 1877, these are competitions that played Australian football in Victoria. It is quite clear that rules for the game were drawn up in 1859 by the Melbourne Football Club and it it these rules that grew into an array of competitions playing Melbourne Rules in Melbourne, Geelong,etc The VFA 1877 become the premier competition and was later usurped by the VFL in 1897. The VFA survived until about tens years ago with Coburg, Port Melbourne, Sandringham, Williamstown until it was morphed into the VFL to include Bendigo, Ballarat and reserve grade clubs for AFL clubs like Geelong.
Competitions are not codes. Its like suggesting that the creation of the VPL is when soccer began in Victoria. There were soccer competitions that predated the VPL.
Redb
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
So to sum up. A school counts if it is in Melbourne. Rugby School games of 1845 can be ignored, but an 1858 game at Scotch College and Melbourne Grammar must be recognised as the beginning. For some reason Blackheath must be ignored because it seemingly played using a school’s rules, notwithstanding that it presumably adopted rugby in toto and called it something like the “Rules of the Blackheath Football Club”. Melbourne’s rules are “real” rules because men outside of the school system made them up. Man, the logic of all of this is rather weird to me.
Codification within one club isn’t the same as a the birth of a “football code”. The latter case is the coming together of a collective group of clubs to agree to play by. That is when a football code is born.
Australian rules points to the RFU of 1871 and the FA of 1863 as events after the birth/codification of Australian rules in 1858/59.
Yet, as Masters is seemingly clumsily trying to point out, the first coming together of Victorian football clubs into one agreed rules body is with the VFA formation of 1877.
You see, and this is where you AFL lot can’t see the difference, you are taking the birth of one club as the beginning of a code, but not allowing rugby to do the same. When the reverse applies, and Masters points out the VFA formation of 1877 was after the RFU of 1871 and even soccer of 1863, you won’t accept that comparison either.
It is not a matter that everyone north of the Murray is 100% correct. But what is clear is that everyone south of the Murray can’t accept that there are people on this planet who hold contrary views to how the birth of codes ought to be compared.
Seemingly on every count, Australian rules version of history is always right.
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Redb ___ “competitions are not codes”. That may be well be so. But, equally, the adoption by one club of a set of inhouse rules does not make for the birth of a “football code”.
Koala Bear said | April 1st 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
MC and Redb,
yes you are both correct I just revisited my hand written notes, it was indeed 1897 worse than I originally thought…
It does not change the basis of Roy Master’s original argument of basing celebrations on actual official organised competitions starting date; being state or national…competitions.. When is your first child’s birthday ?? is it during a 9 month pregnancy or actual birthday.. ?? Sorry to disagree with you it is the Competition not the game that is in question…
Harrow Football, has a set of rules and a competition small as it may be, that apparently has not differed since the 14th century and still is played to that code of the Harrow football rules, its definitely there as you posted them up for me not so long ago.. remember…!!! and the name Football was invented overseas not in Australia, and a foreign name not an indigenous name, that you guys keep telling us that is unique.. and so valued in Australia.. So then, stay with it “Aussie Rules”. and leave Football to the foriegners as you refer to the other codes…
On your request I can locate Harrow Football rules for you as I made a PDF file of them for myself.. thanx…
I think the suit and tie is an NZ gag…Ha Ha, it is very funny.. I agree… A bit like the Gold Coast entrepreneurs (Skase) with Wayne wearing white shoes… lol….
~~~~~
KB
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Lets not debate this one anymore. Even I think I’m becoming boring! Time to move on.
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Boar -
not at all.
After all, Rugby Union points to william webb ellis – a student at Rugby school – and so, the level of gravity that the code of Rugby Union wishes – or otherwise – to attach to the rules circa 1823, the rules between then and those ‘unofficially codified’ for games within the school in 1845 and the clubs and competitions henceforth – - I have no idea.
Why people make this distinction between ‘external clubs’ and school clubs I reckon is a FA conspiracy to give it greater claims over the Rugby code that otherwise at very least would date themselves to the 1845 rules. I don’t know that this level of this debate really cares much for what was happening in Australia and Melbourne.
The ‘birth of a code’ – and the coming together of clubs. Initially it was Melbourne and Geelong that were established in 1858/59 timeframe with THomas Wills involved in both. So -were 2 clubs playing the game enough in such a (relative to London) small and new city as Melbourne. It’s certainly as good a claim as the London rules of 1863. Simply that London was bigger. The fact that by 1866 the rules were further revised to incorporate more widely – that pehaps is comparable to the 1877 alignment of rules to fully incorporate the Sheffield rules clubs with the London FA.
The Blackheath lads certainly adapted their versions of the Rugby school rules – - and Blackheart were very important in the birth of the RFU. 23 years hence. For the first few years they just played amongst themselves.
Look – I don’t see why you put this back on the AFL folk – - this is a soccer vs rugby debate based in England – - – the AFL folk I think might lay claim to the oldest continuous link relative to modern professional clubs – based around Melbourne and Geelong – - even though they weren’t ‘professional’ officially until at the earliest 1911 when the rules allowed for it and even subsequent that Melbourne ceased to described itself as ‘amateur’.
you said
“Seemingly on every count, Australian rules version of history is always right.”
I wouldn’t say that, more that, on every count, Australian rules version of history is NOT necessarily wrong. There are, I’m sure you’re aware, versions and degrees of the truth.
btw – if we accept that Aust Football is in so many ways originated from the school rules of England at the time, then, is Melbourne/Australian Rules allowed to claim a direct link back to the Rugby Rules of 1845 – - I don’t know who defines the quality of link required, but, Sean Fagan effectively argues this by his assertions (however well documented or otherwise subjective and filled with assumption and selective presentation – - – but, as defensible as most ‘positions’, because, when joining the historical dots(documented and accepted primary evidence), that can be done in several ways.)
I don’t think you can get a resolution here — other than I point out to this misleading (or is it – if the professional line is followed perhaps???) quote from the GeelongFC official history link on their webstie:
“The co-founder of Australia football, Thomas Wentworth Wills, recommended the formation of the Geelong Football Club in July 1859 making it the second oldest club of any code in the world, the Melbourne Football Club credited as the oldest, formed earlier the same year. Wills was also involved in the formation of that club.”
http://www.afl.com.au/TheClub/History/GFCHistory/tabid/4015/Default.aspx
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
sheesh, sorry, I’d just posted when I saw that one – Boar.
just in response to KB – I think he’s hit on the key aspect here -
“Sorry to disagree with you it is the Competition not the game that is in question… ”
The reality is that from the perspective of Australian Football it is the exact opposite. It is the game and NOT the competition. And that’s because the competition is a part ‘owner’ of the game – - that is because this country is the owner of the game. THat’s a level of ownership that none of the other codes have (anymore). Therefore, as with Gaelic football – - it is the ‘game’ itself that is of value and to be celebrated.
A more ‘global’ game in a sense is assured – by it’s nature – and, therefore, the competition is an effective ‘international franchise’ of that game.
That’s NOT the case with Australian Football. If Roy Masters can’t understand that – then, all his professed understanding of Melbournians and Australian Footy is only superficial in the extreme.
btw – we all know the Melbourne Rules of Football are the local adaption of recognised and recalled rules of football from whatever source (school or village) that the fellows of Melb circa 1858-59 could bring to the table (or field). There’s never a claim the Melb/Aust rules of football are the ONLY or TRUE code of football – - infact, we always claim that they are but a member of the broader football community. Now – should we decide that football is inappropriate for all comers other than those from Harrow – - then, let’s start with FIFA who might become FISA and the FFA the SFA……..kinda appropriate really, don’t ya think!!!!;-)
cheers
(back to proper work)
Redb said | April 1st 2008 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
The Boar said | Today
Redb ___ “competitions are not codes”. That may be well be so. But, equally, the adoption by one club of a set of inhouse rules does not make for the birth of a “football code”
your just being pedantic. Australian football is celebrating the birth of the code. It is not saying rugby and soccer in their earliest forms did not exist first. The codification thing is an historical curiosity, it happened more formally before rugby and soccer, but the early origins of soccer and rugby are up to those codes to celebrate or not. Rugby League can celebrate anything it wants, if it’s the birth of a competition in this country that’s fine, but it does not set the rules for other codes to follow as far what they can and cannot celebrate.
It is unique and enough people that love the game think it matters, nuff said.
cheers
Redb
The Boar said | April 1st 2008 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
“The co-founder of Australia football, Thomas Wentworth Wills, recommended the formation of the Geelong Football Club in July 1859 making it the second oldest club of any code in the world, the Melbourne Football Club credited as the oldest, formed earlier the same year.” http://www.afl.com.au/TheClub/History/GFCHistory/tabid/4015/Default.aspx
At the risk of Redb calling me “pedantic” for asking a question, can we agree that Sheffield and Blackheath (maybe others?) are older than these 2 Victorian clubs and that the above statement on the official AFL website is wrong?
Redb said | April 1st 2008 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Blackneath rugby club website:
In 1858 the Blackheath Football Club was founded by some of the old boys of the school as an open club, and so was born the first rugby club in the world without restricted membership.
Although there has been controversy over the actual year of foundation, the only real doubt that emerges from the confusing records of those early years is that, if Blackheath FC was not founded in 1858, it was born even earlier and the club is even older – to paraphrase the late A.C. Shanahan, one time rugby correspondent
Blackheath decided to pioneer its own code of rules during a period when almost every variation of rules were followed. Printed in 1862, these included the famous Rule 10 which said that, “Though it is lawful to hold any player in a scrimmage, this does not include attempts to throttle or strangle, which are totally opposed to the principles of the game”.
Sheffield website:
Claims to oldest football club in the world. Interestingly celebrated the 150 years as a club in 2007, as is its right for those who beleive this important.
——————–
To each their own, are they right to claim this?
what is probably more interesting is:
1. The right to celebrate their sporting traditions, just as Australian Football, rugby league,etc.
2. The late 1850s period is amazing that three football codes evolved.
3. The flux of differing rules in the Blackneath rugby club that required codification in 1862. Very similiar to early days of Aust Footy requiring codification in 1859.
All of these factors put this period as significant in the evolution of thesel football odes. Our game, Australian football, was happening right at the same time, not bad for a town barely 25 years old. There is plenty to proud of out this era in Australia’s history and the evolution of football (s).
An intruiging question for me, what is it about all football codes over other forms of sport that creates such intense interest and spectator enjoyment.
cheers
Redb
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Boar -
From a pure simplistic perspective I’d agree with you. To me I see that statement and it looks plain wrong, or, at best mischievioustly misleading – -
I can see though that some folk will go to town on whether or not Blackheath was really able to claim that it was a club of a ‘modern code’ at the time – let alone the specific ‘founder/originator’ of that code.
That’s probably the MelbFC claim on this – as the founder and first club of a ‘modern code’, and immediately the parallel creation of an allied club in Geelong. How often they played in regular competition – at that time – is another question.
Michael C said | April 1st 2008 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
For interest – around the TV vs attendance – re the upcoming Port vs Adelaide ’showdown’:
lifted from the fairfax ‘realfooty’ site
The difficulties currently being faced by the SA market were shown last week when only 38,162 people attended Adelaide’s home victory over West Coast, as against a ground capacity of around 51,000.
The match was shown live against the gate into Adelaide on Foxtel, something that will happen more and more under the AFL’s lucrative current television rights deal.
Trigg said television was a factor in keeping some supporters from making the often arduous drive to West Lakes, and confirmed to both clubs they needed to think further outside the square about matchdays.
“We need to make sure when people come to the game that this is the best experience they could possibly have,” he said.
“They have to come to the game because there’s something different and better than sitting on their backside watching on TV.”
Joe O'Sullivan said | April 1st 2008 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
Redb
Yes a very good question re what is it that the variety of football codes seem to have over other sports. I remember some years ago reading a journos’ ( English I think – fading memory=scratchy details ) take on why cricket as fine a game as it is ( his description ) could never match the passion & intensity of football codes. One factor was duration of match but he also identified an intangible visceral emotion that seemed unique to football codes. He may also have mentioned other elements but I can’t recall. Could be the theme of a very engaging Roar thread.
Westy said | April 1st 2008 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
Michael C…and the previous week only 29000 at last years grand final replay between Port and Geelong at AIMEE. There were also more free tickets issued than was the norm. As you know League or union would still die for these numbers regularly to their club games but they are genuinely disappointing. i have always felt that despite blinkered protests to the contrary the AFL spectacle is best at the game. It because of its inherent nature does not translate as well to television or the computer.I will keep a watch on crowds in Adelaide the other is any Melbourne Demons game.How many draft picks is this crowd going to need.? Are you sure of the depth of playing talent?League and Football translate well to television the atmosphere of an AFL crowd is integral to its spectacle as is the off the ball action.Queensland is now the League powerhouse not NSW. Any clash of scheduling with a Queensland League derby in Brisbane will cost the AFL with its moveable fixture mentality. The 50000 at Broncos v Cowboys game in Brisbane with live television coverage in Brisbane hurt the true potential of the Collingwood v Lions game at the Gabba and crucified the live television audience. If this game had been played on another weekend or in Melbourne AT the MCG it would have been a success but it got butchered by inept planning.
Redb said | April 1st 2008 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Westy,
The Port V Geelong crowd was a bit down, but generally Port get max about 33-35K. Also i think 2007 GF result hardly inspired a potential close re-match – although that’s what we got. How Port could play so badly the following week is a mystery.
I wasn’t surprised the Broncos game out rated the Lions match. Brisbane is still predominantly a league town, Broncos are travelling well, 100 year celebrations for QLD, derby withthe Cowboys,etc. TV ratings I think were 327,000 for NRL live and 96,000 for AFL (on delay). So AFL has got approx 25% market share. I don’t know if that’s doomsday for AFL. I said in an earlier post I rate the Brisbane Broncos very highly as a sporting team that does Brisbane proud I don’t blame the locals one bit for tuning on en masse. The Lions have a good niche, that’s OK. Message to AFL, don’t try a head to head for awhile.
Melbourne demons are stuffed. they play Geelong this week and its kinda scary to think what Geelong will do to them – a mercy rule won’t apply. My tip, all in brawl in the first quarter, Melbourne will have to go the biff
Redb
Michael C said | April 8th 2008 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Savvas -
I’ll report in as I indicated I would.
Last night, the VAFA season launch. We had Sheedy and Parkin both speaking.
Parkin DID mention that he’s lost a bit of passion for the modern game – due to ‘predictability’. (not however that he’s lost passion for the game itself – as, just ask him about his involvement at Uni Blacks where he’s assisted his son who has coached them in recent years – - Parkin certainly is NOT about to converted away from the game).
Now – the point about predictability is an interesting one – fair enough, he disclosed that the recent Geel vs Ess game he sneaked out of before 3/4 time – - as I did in Rnd 1 (for a host of reasons including knackered kids after a 3 hour drive from the bush to actually get to the game and a car still packed post easter needing to get home and feed the cat etc etc – - so, for me too, if I’ve got other important things to do – and a game reaches a certain point – then, no point hanging around.)
However – predictability –
this article today infers the extra bench ’strength’ and rotations helps avoid predictability -
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dont-bench-the-unscripted-drama-of-footy/2008/04/07/1207420303982.html
And, certainly, as a North supporter having seen my team twice give up 4 goal 2nd qtr leads to lose, including on the weekend when they’d conceded that lead for a minute, then reclaimed, seemingly steadied and had the opposition at their apparent mercy with Hawthorn down at least 2 if not 3 players – thus, only one on the bench – effectively – - – and, yet, we got rolled. It was certainly NOT predictable.
Back to the Geel vs Ess game – - well, as with any game of any code – you can reach a point where the margin is too great and you REALLY DO KNOW on the day that one team is in complete control and the other team has no answers – on the day. That’s always been the case since Moses played back pocket for the Jerusalem Under 9s.
Redb said | April 9th 2008 @ 7:12am | Report comment
MC,
The Essendon v Carlton game was a ripper, fast, full on action. The game is lifting to a new level of speed.
Redb
westy said | April 9th 2008 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Redb I watch the game not the score. The defence was truly terrible in this game. It was more like a basketball fixture than a contact game. There was no contest at the mark. This is where I have a problem with AFL buzz and hype . This was not a great game.
Redb said | April 9th 2008 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Westy,
I just watched the replay again – no contest at the ball eh? I guess high scoring games are not something your used to. Basketball (which i like) is nothing like Aussie Rules in terms of player contact and the contest. In basketball you can hold the ball and not get tackled for one.
i think this is the difference between Aussie Rules and the other codes – AFL is about forward attack, the others defence, throw the ball backwards,etc,etc.
Redb
Redb said | April 9th 2008 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
Westy,
one more thing, you need to take off the rugby glasses and realise your watching a different game that does not have to be a dour stuggle. Yes the defence could have been better, but your not understanding Fevola was on song and Essendon had Lovett and lloyd to an extend on fire. Did you watch Lovett’s sprint through the middle from half back and goal from outside 50? It was so quick the defence wasn’t able to get back in time.
this is why the crowds love the game.
Redb
Michael C said | April 9th 2008 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Westy -
?!?!?!?!?!??
’twas not a game of soccer you watched.
I think some people lose sight of this element of footy – there are times that, as with an unplayable delivery in cricket – that a goal will be scored that was effectively indefensible. You accept that. And, as a result, you are more willing to take risks, to take chances that you DON’T see in other games. Because, just grinding out defensively is not always an option – and while St.Kilda, at their nadir – managed to grind out a low scoring draw vs the Swans – - it only worked for one week and was completely counter productive to the development of the players. They need to learn how to win. And, the irony there is that at present Carlton have forgotten how to win. And, my Rooboys – in a winning position then start going too defensive, becoming too static, chipping around the boundary…..and, what’s it do, opens the door and Hawthorn grab the opportunity and barge through like a steam train…….
(reality is, you have to be a pretty damn good team across the paddock to pull off the dour stuff week in week out – and, invariably you still need the extra strings to the bow anyway. Not many teams are equiped for that.)
Have you ever played the board game RISK. I love it, it requires strategy – - but, be careful about A. thinking too far ahead, B. counting you territories before you trade in for a card and C. don’t lose sight of the object of the game (i.e. your mission card). It’s a game that can annoy those more attuned to Chess – because, it can happen all a bit too quick…….me, I don’t mind Chess – however, it can more all a bit too slow if you play against people who do their darndest to not take a risk.
Certainly, Redb, Lovett was scintilating. Both his goals were absolute classics – - alas, Savvas might decry that it wasn’t a patch on Ray Gabbo or Phil Manassa….
Dave said | April 9th 2008 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
Michael C
Not sure what you mean by; “’twas not a game of soccer you watched.” Is that having a go at football (World variety)?
By the way this week watched 3 of the games of the season; 2 on Fox and 1 live which would put any game from any other code into the shade…Middles vs Man Utd 2-2, Liverpool vs Arsenal 4-2 and tonight Melb Victory vs Gamba Osaka 3-4!
This is difficult to understand for you blokes constantly having a dig at football but they were 3 different competitions from teams on 3 different continents on this planet! The speed, skills, scoring, technique, atmoshere etc were all outstanding. The players on show came from every continent on this planet and is why football is, IMO, the greatest game. Sorry to break the Rugby vs Aussie Rules dialogue but you brought up football…
dan said | April 10th 2008 @ 12:37am | Report comment
i am the opposite to you i was born and bred rugby league then moved to afl territory an rapidly converted to afl, i dont understand where you are coming from …free kicks ..the umpires are scared to award them ..well thats just nonsense they pay them now more than ever, and disorganised whatever you said, geez these men are battling for the ball n tryin to stay in the rules of the game, i think you labelled it boring lmao, screamers, goals of the year, big hits, the celebrations of goals scored its fantastic entertainment compared to the 1 or 2 big hits in rugby…dont get me wrong i watch as many games of rugby as i can i love it but if the afl is on at same time i only catch the rugby in the ads… go the demons
Redb said | April 10th 2008 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Dave,
I watched some of the MV v Gamba game last night and I admit I found it boring, so i turned off even after the first goal my Allsop. Instead I watched the replay of Ess V Carlton – each to their own I guess. Everyone is different, if your a purist and love soccer from the bottom up I can respect your point of view, but not everyone is a purist, in fact most in Australia aren’t. For entertainment value as Dan said you just can’t beat the footy.
I’m not being churlish, but a crowd comparison for a local footy game Ess v Carlton – 64,000 (add another 150,000 to that number for other AFL crowds in the week). Melbourne versus the best of Japan – 24,000 and the only game of soccer played in Melbourne this week. The Gamba game is international and there is an element of parochialism for Melbourne to win, but bums on seats compared to footy?
Midweek is irrelevant, if the interest is there, Socceroos or Wallabies for example they will get 70,000+ for international games mid week in Melbourne, albeit there is a much stronger patriotic fervour to these games and a huge influx of tourists into Melbourne, which you won’t get for Melbourne Victory.
Your perfectly entitiled as purist or soccer tragic to hold your view of the world game’s appeal, but don’t suggest it is difficult for fans of other football codes to understand that soccer games are being played all over the world and as such by that virtue it is more entertaining.
Redb
dan said | April 10th 2008 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Redb i agree with what you say when u say afl is much more entertaining as i have already said but the victory have been struggling for form in A league an we know that supporters shy away from there teams when not playing well but you would expect a decent crowd, i like to watch soccer even the scoreless goal games can be entertaining, but nothing beats afl for entertainment an can i just add, go the dees… for our first win lol
Michael C said | April 10th 2008 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Dave -
’twas not an attack on soccer – don’t be too defensive – lord knows I don’t think you should be feeling at all ‘insecure’ in your love of that game.
My point was that if you’re watching a game of AFL – then, don’t go whinging that there are too many goals – - becuase, that only indicates a ‘negative geared’ sports outlook that might more commonly be associated with a follower of one of the ‘off-side code’ – and most likely soccer.
Just as if I watch a game of soccer – my first desire is NOT for a 4-3 outcome, but, that there might be 12 vs 10 realistic shots on goal. The outcome of those shots is often in the hands of the gods. A 4-3 outcome may just as easily be the result of crap defence, a couple of dodgey penalties and a badly timed red-card……I know of enough soccer fundamentalists who seem determined to revel in a 0-0 more than a 4-3 simply because their measure is based purely around the defensive structures (which to mie I find bewildering as the game is structured defensively to being with?!?!??!?!).
Redb -
bums on seats for a Wed soccer game starting 7.30 at TD, on a pleasant evening with nothing else on – publicised and covered on radio SEN – - and, unlike AFL, being finished by before 9.30 so people can get home. 24K is probably at the bottom end of their expectations. It’s probably in the area of a bad good crowd or a good bad crowd. Going less than that would certainly have been a let down.
Now – the main point though is – - where are the 10-15,000 rabid Osaka fans that are going to make this ‘Asian’ adventure worth something……or do we need to get to the last 4 for that to come into play?
Redb said | April 10th 2008 @ 9:10am | Report comment
dan,
For a Dees fan you should be applauded for maitaining your passion, all the best for this week.
Redb
dan said | April 10th 2008 @ 9:56am | Report comment
thanks redb but in all seriousness i think we have a good shot at the kangas we showed competive attitude last week an our record is good against them, i dont mind the fact we lose it will make it even greater when we have a much better list an are winning games, thx for ya msg mate.
Michael C said | April 10th 2008 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Melb vs Rooboys,
even during the Roos ‘golden era’ of the ’90s, when Melb were up 1 year and down the next – - on the down years, the Dees always gave us either a real good scare or rolled us. I very vividly remember the premiership flag unfurling in ‘97, rain soaked MCG at night, vs Melb, Carey does his collarbone after landing elbow first into the ground from a marking duel. Melb get a 2 goal play via Brett Lovett. And we go down.
Melb had a great ability back then to shepherd, and they always seemed to be in space and un catcheable – and even now, my ROoboys, seem to handball and watch rather than handball and move into a position to shepherd and support and follow up.
(the Dees were sorta my second team back in the early 80s, after Barassi moved back there and effectively with him went Bill Nettlefold, Xavier Tanner, a fellow called Wright, Stephen Icke – I couldn’t help but have an interest in how there were going, alas, the 5 year plan never really worked – as, the cattle just couldn’t be got – although they got Templeton and Moore. If only Barassi had been around long enough to see Wight and Stynes become top notch players.)
dan said | April 10th 2008 @ 10:18am | Report comment
when i first moved here in 97 i only caught the last part of season but i like the doggies, grant, southern an their ability to chase down big deficits at 3 qtr time an then i watch the pre season cup of 98 an the demons just caught my eye, i am a footy convertee from rugby. Melbourne footy club has bad if not worse membership numbers an were strugglin an were goin to almagamate with the hawks then we played in grand final when no one was goin to beat bombers of 2000, i think the demons are most peoples second team for they are not all stars they just have a go…and this weekend we will see them have a red hot go.
Michael C said | April 10th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
They were given no favours in the 2000 GF – they needed all the luck, and, alas, Long took out Simmonds which was just NOT ON (Redb, I still hold this against Michael Long, just as I hold against L.Matthews his clocking of Neville Bruns).
Hird also got a good call when he had the ball out of bounds, and a goal resulted – there were a couple of other 50/50s as well – everything continued to go Essendons way – - and, as good as they were that season – they were also the luckiest club – - – how much was good management?
But – most teams that win the whole box and dice – need a fair share of luck along the way.
I just hope the Dees – as the oldest club and effectively the founding club of not just the league but the game itself – I just hope that they will always remain – and, hopefully when their new headquarters are up and running (and ‘TeamMelbourne’!!) – that they will become a little more settled. True though, Collingwood really stole the rug out from under them by getting in at the Lexus centre – that precinct should have been wrapped up by the Dees and showed a bit of the lack of pro-activeness that seems to have seen the Dees adopt more a victim mentality.
Redb said | April 10th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
MC,
Essendon had no peer in 2000. Just as Geelong in 2007. Any other analysis is false, it was a star studded team with good depth that was determined to avenge the prelim loss by one point against Carlton in 1999. I think we won the GF by about 60 points.
Now we’ll have to disagree also re Michael Long, there is no comparsion between Long’s head high knock on Simmons to Matthews deliberate and brutal biff on Bruns, that incident almost got Matthews charged for assault. Long has little history of foul play, Matthews invented the concept.
dan,
North melb will be tough this week, but you guys played well against the Cats when you could have got smashed. It seems to me the Dees need to put in a four quarter effort to win a game. a little hint, the kangas fade in the last quarter.
cheers
Redb
Michael C said | April 10th 2008 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Ah yeah, but Long went a fellow with head over the ball. That is the one move that is feared and despised by most – as that is the wheelchair move – - and he did it. It was a poor act. Yes, out of the blue, but, just as ZZ is remembered for his 2006 FIFA WC final ‘brain explosion’, a single out of character act can not just be ‘written off’.
However – of course, players who deliberately duck their heads and effectively spear themselves towards the opposition in the search for a free kick – - they are just plain stupid.
btw – back in the ’90s I was very much anti AFL HQ. In 99 I was kinda happy that we’d helped deny the AFL the GF they really wanted (well, reality, most supporters wanted to see Ess vs Bris that year). As it turned out, we got that match up in 2001. And, Brisbane continued for another couple of years – and Martin Pyke proved as wise his various movements from previous clubs……
Redb said | April 10th 2008 @ 11:45am | Report comment
MC
Agree re long ’s hit to the head, no one wants to see that in the game. Luckily its rare these days, i think AFl has done a good job at stamping it out.
Cheers
Redb
Dave said | April 10th 2008 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
Michael C
Sorry this response is a little late but just saw the earlier posts.
Not being defensive MC just highlighting the positives of my code (as it was mentioned in dispatches). It wont change anyones mind about their preference but the beauty of World Football should be highlighted to all on a regular basis, as we have AFL highlighted long and often in the media here in Melbourne.
”
Now – the main point though is – - where are the 10-15,000 rabid Osaka fans that are going to make this ‘Asian’ adventure worth something……or do we need to get to the last 4 for that to come into play?”
So MC you are seriously suggesting that 10-15,000 Japanese supporters would come to Melbourne for a midweek group game? They were like the millions watching on TV throughout Asia! No doubt later in the tournament more supporters would travel and it would depend upon how big the club is…Gamba is middle of the road in terms of support in the JLeague but Uruwa Reds ave over 50,000 at home and do have a bigger away following.
Redb
If you turned off the Victory game last night because it was boring then l’m afraid thats your loss. It was the best game of club football l have seen in Australia. Read the articles of Baum and Wilson in the papers today (for once positive about football) and it may help to enlighten you. I admire your love of AFL and that is our difference. Your point (again) about AFL crowds is valid. However l can assure you that many millions more people throughout Asia watched and read about the Victory game than would have for the entire AFL last round. That is part of my point. HAL and ACL are in their infancy and growing rapidly. The AFL have had 150 years to generate their followings, Victory 3 years! The crowd of 24,000 last night (with about 100 Japanese supporters) is a crowd Melbourne, North Melbourne, Footscray, St Kilda, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn would generate against Fremantle/Port Adelaide/West Coast/Adelaide on a Wednesday night at TD, maybe not that many.
dan said | April 10th 2008 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
fair points dave we could sit an argue all week about our chosen favourite codes lol, i love soccer and although im not a big follower of the a league i love the english premier an related cups.
EVERYBODY i started 2 blogs about AFL and NRL they are in the sports blog sections, somewhere where we can chat about the weekends games or any issues about footy, hope to hear from you guys there.
Cheers and go the Dees an Raiders
W Warambeal said | April 10th 2008 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
Dave
Have you any proof of your statement about the ‘many millions more people through Asia watched & read about the MV than the entire round of the AFL?’
One company that tracks the TV audience for international sporting events (Initiative P/L) has come to a vastly different conclusion to yours about the popularity of Soccer in the Asian region. In fact, they are finding no growth for Soccer in the region either.
Savvas Jonis said | April 10th 2008 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Since I am the author of the article, let me add some points before summarising what I have read from others here.
First, I watched last nights game between Osaka and Victory. It was a great game to watch. It ‘tired’ me out from watching it…and I am not even a supporter of the Victory.
Secondly, I witnessed some AFL from the weekend and there was some great football played…FINALLY!!!
But what I have gleaned from everyone here is that your biases are so apparent.
This is certainly not University Class where peoples opinions are considered and given without favour.
It is a slightly better version of Talkback radio. Ironically, you are all aware of your biases but cannot bring yourselves to actually confront them.
I am sorry, but I expected better from such an exciting concept as this website is.
I will be stay around but not sure what my input will be.
Savvas
John Ryan said | April 10th 2008 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
Nice one Sawas, good lead article as well,its nice to see the AFL conga line all happily agreeing with one another still,its a bit like the 150th and Melbourne media the song remains the same.
By the way Sir Echo did you think that crack about me up all all by yourself or did you have a team meeting about it,as I said don,t try to be sarcastic old son its not your strong point
Redb said | April 10th 2008 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Dave,
Just being honest, i had every intention of watching the MV Gamba game, but couldnt get in to it. Interesting that you classify the game was one of the best when it was so high scoring, perhaps its just your footy slant.
cheers
Redb
dan said | April 10th 2008 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
thats what this is for savvas, isnt this why you wrote in the first place, of course people are going to have their beliefs and in fact it is pretty narrow minded that you should think your point is the right one, rugby league is not more exciting than afl an there is no bias in that look at statistics, crowds, if there was a survey im sure afl would win in landslide.
It seems we should all agree with you mate an say rugby league is more entertainin than footy…
Dave said | April 10th 2008 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
W Warambeal
Thanks for keeping me honest
Dont think the popularity of football is on the wane in Asia or anywhere else for that matter. Check out the following snippets – plenty more where they came from.
Think you’ll have to supply info re your claim from Initiative P/L?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HF13Df04.html from South Asia Times ( Article on Indian Football Popularity)
JFA-registered Soccer Players in Japan
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Categoty I 74,931 94,209 113,785 190,874 180,094 181,620
Category II 90,241 118,365 139,818 173,557 153,840 154,845
Category III 50,739 117,305 146,701 198,112 204,223 219,343
Category IV 91,530 231,036 247,674 298,378 233,043 283,995
Senior – – – – 4,669 12,166
Woman 2,290 5,630 11,992 23,448 19,147 24,773
Total 309,731 566,545 659,971 884,369 795,016 876,702
[Source: Japan Football Association]
AFC President Bin Hamman speaking to ESPN 22/4/07
The 57-year-old Qatari, who last month won a second term as AFC president, said boosting revenue would be key to the long-term success of the Asian game.
He said the AFC would use commercial revenue to bring organised soccer to tens of millions of rural people and develop players and coaches in some of the world’s poorest countries.
‘We have to change the mentality and accept that professional football has to be organised like a business,’ Hammam said. ‘It is an entertainment industry. Revenue is necessary, it is our top priority.
‘Here we have to replace amateurs with professionals. All of the people dealing with football must be this way.’
Hammam cited record attendances this year at the Asian Champions League and an unprecedented demand for tickets for July’s Asian Cup as a sign that Asia’s love of soccer goes beyond the European game.
‘How do we know if it’s improving? Just see how many people are watching us. More and more sponsors and telecasts mean we’re going in the right direction.
‘The money is here. The talent of our players exists. We are not missing any element of this success,’ added Hammam, who was president of top Qatari side Al Rayyan at just 20 years old.
SMH 7/7/07 “Step into Asia has Paid Off”
The groundwork done, the Australian game is poised to reap the benefits. No one is keener to do so than new FFA chief Ben Buckley. While the Asian Cup offers no prizemoney and, including a 10-day preparation camp in Singapore, is costing FFA about $2 million, Buckley believes it is money well spent.
“I think it’s very significant for the development of the game. It’s the single biggest sporting event in Asia this year and the sort of audiences it will reach can only be beneficial for the commercial aspects of the game in this country,” he said.
“In 2004, the competition in China recorded 2.15 billion cumulative viewers for the tournament. In Japan (the eventual winner), the audience share for the final was 32 per cent, the biggest for any television show in that year, and around 450 million people watched the final in more than 120 countries.
“The staple for much of Asia is football” Rik Dovey ESPN Star Sports MD talking in 2004 about TV Sports broadcasts in Asia on his network.
“Asian Cup final TV ratings break China record”
Posted: Wednesday August 11, 2004 12:59AM; Updated: Wednesday August 11, 2004 12:59AM from Sports Illustrated – 350 million watched
“Billions Across Asia to watch World Cup” – 2006 Yahoo Asia News- http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060601/5/sports211211.html
Finally check out FIFA.com “Big Count” = 270 million players for the World Game around the globe!!
No l don’t think football popularity is on the wane.
Dave said | April 10th 2008 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
Redb
Could well be, although probably the most gripping, exciting game l have seen was 1-0 Aust vs Uruguay 2006. As said on other posts the level of emotional attachment speaks volumes. Also one of the most exciting games of any code was Ess v Coll in 1972 at Windy Hill. Ess had to win to get into finals and did so by 6 points.
W Warambeal
I had just spent some time putting together stats, links etc to refute your suggestion of Asian football being on the wane. However when l presed add comment it disappeared?? Very frustrating! Will do it again but not tonight. You deserve some back up to my claims!
Redb said | April 11th 2008 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Dave,
The penalty goal by Alosi will go down in Oz sporting history for sure – its not everyday you get in to a World Cup with a single kick. That game against Uruguay carried enormous weight for Australian soccer, the pressure on Alosi after Viduka’s clumsy miss must have been incredible.
Geez you’ve got a good memory, 1972 at Windy Hill, all I remember from those days as a ten year old, was a bespeckled Geoff Blethem at Full Foward and Kenny Fletcher on the wing.
cheers
Redb
Michael C said | April 11th 2008 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Dave -
main thing is that we’ve been told ‘just wait until we get into Asia’….
…well, so far, we’ve had an uninspired and somewhat fragmented Socceroos debacle in the Asian Cup, and in the ACL we’ve seen games played to average or below average crowds (on the basis of comparison to the HAL season crowds).
I just look at the impact of Asia, for example India on cricket. It’s not about pumping money directly into Australia. There’s minimal evident benefit irrespective of the number of people in India tuning in – - and we know that cricket in India is a national obsession. It’s only now that the IPL is setting up that we see the real impact – - that our best players potentially get lured away.
Do the Indians care about the Australian domestic teams. Hardly.
HOw much do the Osaka fans care about some club team from Australia? And more so in the ‘world game’, that there are so many more countries and therefore so many more club teams to come up against. It just makes MVFC all the more insignificant.
I’m still waiting to see this big Asian boon.
I’ve heard stories of the travelling supporters etc – but, that was before the event – thus far, not much to show for it. Because, reality is, Australia is just another country but ruddy hard to get to.
And how much do the good folk of Asia care about Australian soccer – - well, we saw the dismal crowds in the Asian Cup – the Socceroos playing to but a handful of spectators on several occassions against the ‘lesser’ countries. In fact, the best crowds were in Jakarta for the Indonesia home matches – - which they promptly lost most of.
There’s a lot of hot air. Not much balloon.
When people attack the AFL marketing etc…….I just get sick of all the ‘world game’ rhetoric that claims something for Australian soccer that it hasn’t earned or exhibited yet.
And reality – the bigger the J-League gets = the more sponsorship for their clubs – and the less notice anyone in Japan would take of a club in Australia. I can see why people would like to jump on other peoples coat tails for now and hope to get dragged along for the ride……..it’s not very dignified.
W Warambeal said | April 11th 2008 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Dave
Thanks for that.
First of all i wish people would go to interdependent sources for their information. Michael c is probably the worst offender quoting AFL sourced “facts.’ In your case you have quoted ‘the billion world-wide audience TV audience’ for a single game.This is a myth that is repeated over & over that some now accept as fact. The last Soccer WC final got an audience of about 270 million according to Initiative P/L.
Here’s a copy of a recent article that I based my assertion -take note of the last paragraph.
http://goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=396132
“CLAIRE KENNY TIPTON, THE AFC’S DIRECTOR of Marketing and Media and Communications pointed out that 61% of all football revenues in Asia goes to the English Premier League and, in South East Asia in particularly, the English Premiership is the most supported football product. She argued, however, against the proposition that the overwhelming broadcasting of European football somehow got fans involved in local football.
“One of the problems in these countries, Indonesia excepted, is that fans don’t go to stadiums. A generation of latent fans has been created. They’ve never been to a live football game. They don’t play football. They don’t have a passion for the game. They watch it on TV.
They get together with their mates next door or in a coffee shop. They say they support Man United or Liverpool or Real Madrid but they’ll buy the shirt and that’s it. That’s where it begins and where it ends, “ she said.
The Asian Cup was brought to South East Asia “at great expense” so the Asian Football Confederation could say: “Malaysia, you can one day be as good as Japan if you put Malaysian football first; if you create a platform for domestic football. Same in Thailand and in Vietnam,” she said. It was easiest to attract spectators in Indonesia and Vietnam and difficult “as expected” in Malaysia and Thailand.
But what was astonishing is that while the opening games of the group stages in Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok were very poorly attended, the domestic TV ratings – with RTM in Malaysia and Channel 7 in Thailand, were huge. “The Thai matches on 7 were bigger than the World Cup ratings or the European Champions League ratings or the FA Cup final ratings,” she said.
This indicates “a culture of people who demonstrate their passion for the sport by watching it on TV,” she warned.
“In South East Asia the numbers attending club matches has not increased, it has decreased. The number of children playing football has not increased. If anything in certain countries it has got worse. The commercial revenue has decreased and the television coverage has virtually disappeared.” So rather than inspiring local football, the foreign broadcasting “presses it down,” she said. .
Geoffrey Gold ”
Have you any references about how the recent MV game was received in Asia?
Michael C said | April 11th 2008 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
W Warambeal
excuse me – BUT,
I”ve quoted figures from the ABS, from websites of RL and FIFA World Cup etc, I’ve quoted figures from individual nation ‘code-specific’ websites. I’ve quoted and listed the links to a random sample of newspaper websites from around the English speaking world.
So – please, don’t go bemoaning that I might now and then quote the odd reference to AFL sourced information. Not all the ‘independant’ sources are A. truely independant and B. absolutely reliable and C. not based upon superficial assumptions and extrapolation. Now, apparently I was ’shot down’ because I refered to the WIkipedia reference to 5 RL teams in Jamaica……oh, but, apparently it’s now 6 (as if that makes all the difference in the point being made – we’re still talking only in the low 100s of participants) – which makes wikipedia apparently so out of date as to be worthless……..
(so, we’re agreed then, we only believe propaganda and company approved info when relating to soccer and the rugby codes – or so it seems.)
Now – compared to the often baseless or unsupported ‘anti’ opinions that are presented as ‘fact’ by various ’scribes’ (I use the term most loosely) –
Actually – I should point out that much of my common references are via WorldFootyNews.com which is absolutely independant. However, people have chosen TO NOT believe that the AFL has not set out with an agenda of world expansion. That the AFL has been pushed, prodded and co-erced into putting ‘world growth support’ on the agenda. This is a specific example of people with their minds made up beforehand from outside the ‘AFL’ world who determinedly refuse to buckle.
W Warambeal said | April 11th 2008 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
It seems that soccer in Asia is moving to a Pay TV only format.
EPL Broadcasting Changes Offer Opportunities For Competitors In Asia -again not ethe last paragraph:
http://goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=396132
“THE SPORTS MEDIA LANDSCAPE IN ASIA changed dramatically on the weekend of 11-12 August as the English Premier League dropped from the schedules of many of its last remaining major free-to-air terrestrial television broadcasters. Promoters, who’d paid the EPL most of the record £625 million it received from foreign rights for 2007-2010, began to recoup their investment. In some markets, even Pay-TV stations were churned in the search for higher returns. In others, licensees are using the EPL as Rupert Murdoch’s proverbial “battering ram” to lead fans to support new Pay TV operations.
In China, the change to Pay-TV had been well announced. “It’s time to say goodbye to those TV channels that provided Premier League games free of charge,” said WinTV Chief Executive Song Zheng in February after successfully bidding a reported US$50 million for PRC market. Song, whose station had just 40,000 subscribers, said he was confident of winning over viewers. “I know that most Chinese people have been getting used to viewing soccer matches on free channels. It will be difficult to change this habit in the beginning, but I believe that more and more people will choose pay-TV in the future.” And yet, at kick-off for the new EPL season, subsidiary contracts with regional cable TV operators in major regions, including the largest city Shanghai, had yet to be concluded. A boon to a few companies offering live games via the internet, it was a scenario feared by some of England’s biggest clubs who were reportedly “furious” that “limited Pay-TV audience may restrict the dynamic growth of English football in the world’s most populous country…”
W Warambeal said | April 11th 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
OK Michael I’m sorry I doubted your veracity.
Now Dave its your turn to prove your point about MV.
What a lot of Australian can’t comprehend is that in foreign lands most non-mainstream TV sports programs are confined to Pay TV audiences. There’s no SBS to take up the slack.
For instance the 2003 TV audience for the union WC in Argentine was just 19,000 (unconfirmed 38,000 in 2007) & this is from a country that is now rated 3rd in the union world.
BTW 40,000 amongst over a billion Chinese doesn’t seem like a lot.
Michael C said | April 11th 2008 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
W Warambeal
no worries – the doubt. And forgiveness provide re. the public lambasting.
btw – pay tv is the domain of soccer in so many markets. And is in no small part due to the fact that soccer is crap for allowing ads.
Sports will gravitate towards their best fit medium.
Cricket allows ads at the end of each over – i.e. roughly every 4 – 5 mins. As well as the longer drinks breaks and the lunch and tea breaks.
AFL allows the longer 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 time breaks, as well as anywhere from 10 to 40 goals after which there is the opportunity to slot in a quick ad.
These work for FTA.
Soccer provides 90 mins with only 1 known break and no certainty of any goals for any given half or even whole of a game.
No surprise then that soccer finds it’s best fit on pay tv.
Doesn’t really matter in established soccer markets. The supporting media ensures via FTA news, and newspapers etc that the soccer stories are highly prominant.
In developing markets – that’s another story. And, Australia is a nice example where by it’s a ‘developing’ market for soccer – and soccer is on pay TV – but, relative to the ‘prevailing’ domestic football codes – it is by comparison ‘buried’. I don’t presume that we can necessarily apply the same logic of been buried in other countries that don’t have pre-existing multiple football codes dominating FTA. What is the competition for sports section column space in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam etc?
Adrian Stoop said | April 11th 2008 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Michael C said “AFL allows the longer 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 time breaks, as well as anywhere from 10 to 40 goals after which there is the opportunity to slot in a quick ad.”
I think Michael C has uncovered the secret as to why AFL gets so much more money from free to air TV than the NRL.
It has nothing to do with the actual merits of the different codes, but the structural advantage AFL has from the plethora of goal scoring and from playing in quarters.
All these “natural” breaks in the game give the TV channels the ability to sell and play advertisements in game time.
Rugby league doesn’t have enough tries for this to happen, plus there is a goal kick attempt after every try, plus a need for a replay to explain to the audience how the try was in fact scored. Nor does it play in quarters.
Rugby union and soccer don’t play in quarters, the former doesn’t have enough tries, while the latter doesn’t have enough goals.
American football is the extreme example of structuring a game for TV breaks and revenue.
Q.E.D. – AFL gets more money because it has so many in-game punctuation marks. It all makes sense now! Thanks Michael C.
Tura said | April 11th 2008 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
Ask any Victorian and they will delight in telling you how internationally famous the AFL is, and I agree. It just proves to the rest of the world that Australia isnt perfect, after all. When great football events come to mind, Brazil V Japan, SOO, and the RWC, it hardly seems a fair stage for the other code, what, with Nathan Buckley’s latest hamstring saga, and all……
Dave said | April 11th 2008 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
W Warambeal
Don’t you think Asia Times, Yahoo Asia, Sports Illustrated, ESPN Star Sports MD are independent??? Never said the WC Final has 1 billion viewers although l believe it is around that (Asia News – Yahoo quoted that billions across Asia would watch the WC – cumulative audience!) -the place you quote from doesn’t take into account public venues, bars etc. The so called realistic figure l saw from an American source (can’t remember name) estimated from its stats/info about 750 million for WCF but also Superbowl at less than 200 million (half of those domestic viewers). The figure of 350 million Chinese watching 2005 ACF vs Japan was from the Chinese news agency – independent? Highest ever tv audience in that country and not even World Cup!
Still have some info to source and get back to you about MV but l stand by my comments and recent research has only strengthened my view.
By the way you/article is right about the influence of EPL in Asia, will be interesting to see how/if this changes with pay tv. Remember most of the EPL is on paytv in England anyway.
cheers
Redb
Can’t believe you don’t recall Tuddenham, Cassin, Nifty Neville Fields etc. It was a truly great occassion at Windy Hill with 35,000 inside. BTW KF was my PE teacher.
Michael C
The changes are occurring. I personally never believed things would change overnight. The ACL itself is being totally reinvented for next season. It will take 5-10 years for many of the flow on effects to occur. It is part of the evolution of the game in Australia. I will be enjoying the ride and firmly believe Aust move to Asia has been fantastic for the code here. The ACL will be bigger and better, don’t worry about that! The balloon is inflating slower than you must have believed but it is inflating!!!
BTW l was in the 100,000plus at the MCG who watched North win their first flag in 1975 – still remember Slamin Sam Kekovich!!
dan said | April 11th 2008 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
hey guys come an chat at afl lovers/ nrl lovers blogs in the sports section, talk about this weeks games or any issues in footy but please no baggers of either code just good clean discussions hey. Compare tips, talk about the week in either codes. hope to catch up with some of you ther.
Cheers
Dan
Joe FC said | April 11th 2008 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
I’m with you dan, but don’t limit the goodwill to just NRL & AFL – it should apply to all topics.
dan said | April 11th 2008 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
yeah fair enough mate i am up for any sports convo just i am a little more passionate in these areas, hopefully chat to u soon
Redb said | April 11th 2008 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
Dave,
I do remember Nifty no.1 on his back. Also tuddenham, stained with black and white I’m afraid
cheers
Redb
Michael C said | April 11th 2008 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
Adrian Stoop -
it’s how the AFL has the best of both worlds – as a TV product, the game isn’t ideal in that most people agree it’s better live than on tele, unlike RL which is 10 times better on tele than live.
Now – if it were all by design, the AFL could claim credit – however, ’tis the game that the AFL has ‘inherited’. When Roy Masters bleats about hard done by NRL – he forgets elements of the wider picture…
Crosscoder said | April 12th 2008 @ 10:15am | Report comment
MichaelC
The rugby league is better suited to TV than AFL no arguement there.RL live can be an even more exciting game than it is on TV.I have been to SOO,Tests,local NRL(ST George v Cronulla) matches and Challenge Cup Matches and Tests at Wembley,it would IMO more than match AFL for an atmosphere and a spectacle . That is not to say there have been some boring matches with little atmosphere,it happens in all codes.
Crowds you can argue that one,still with a decent stadium (which is not the case now)at each home ground,rather than having beiing thrust at Homebush with no atmosphere doesn’t help,and not having a planned season where every fans knows at the beginning of the season where their home team will be playing and at what day and time.
Remember Sydney is not Melbourne and Sydney is not Brisbane as to spectators.
Anycase the biggest selling aid in the modern era is mass communication ie TV,so to be great on TV such as rl is,is a tremendous selling tool.As has been shown on Sky in the UK,NZ,the PI and France.
As far as Roy Masters is concerned (and I am not his apologist)I would place liitle more credo to his comments on the rl being hard done by.He has been involved with the game as a former schoolteacher,club coach and journalist for decades,he is married to a Melburnian AFL tragic.He knows the media scene in Sydney and Melbourne as well as most.I don’t necessarily agree with some of his views.He knows as do most of us what the NRL is getting in terms of income particularly from ch9 and Fox,and in terms of ratings compared to AFL ,the game has undersold itself.He and any rl supporter who knows the TV ratings,merchandise sales,ratings when regionals are thrown in ,added to tests and SOO,have cause to whinge if you like.
We are fully aware as he (Masters is) of the wider picture.If more people watch an NRL 2007 G/F in Melbourne(involving the Storm),than Sydney watching an AFL G/F the previous day,it says at the very least Television is a tremendous tool for the mass market,and rl can be a driver for that medium.
The spectator factor of which AFL is well ahead can claim that aspect of the sporting cake and it has teams in SA and WA.Masters has never disputed that point.
Redb said | April 12th 2008 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
Crosscoder,
Roy Masters may travel between Sydney and Melbourne on a regular basis but he never takes his NRL blinkers off. I had the pleasure of meeting his wife Elaine Canty (former AFL tribunal member) and even asked her about the bias – its blatant, its real, he is a big supporter of the Melb Storm knows them quite well. His only positive comment about the AFL was that they are good athletes.
Masters is diehard rugby league- each article should carry a disclaimer. Nothing wrong with that, but he is hardly an objective oracle.
Redb
p.s. Don’t get carried away with the NRL GF figures, it was prime time, Melb playing, AFl was sat arvo, no Sydney team and it still only just pipped due to larger NSW and QLD regional base.
John Ryan said | April 13th 2008 @ 12:37am | Report comment
Jeeze got to love ya Little Sir Echo,fancy you talking about bias via Roy Masters,what a bloody laugh,I,m not sure which of you two is sillier in some of the statements you make.
The difference between you and your conductor on here is he takes about 33,333 paragraphs to say not a lot.
You take about 8 lines,I love you talking about bias you are the most evenhanded person I know on here when talking about other codes, turn it up, get the beam out of your own eye before you start criticising the mote in others
Dave said | April 13th 2008