The AFL International Cup
Roar Guru By Michael C, 21 Jun 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Bangladesh, Canada, China, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand Warriors, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Warriors, Zimbabwe
In the lead up to the 2008 (3rd) Australian Football International Cup, to be held in Melbourne and Warrnambool this August, I want to dispel some misconceptions around the event.
Firstly, it is full ground, full numbers Australian Football and it is not International Rules.
That is a very distinct hybrid game that facilitates national competition for the Gaelic (GAA) competition in Ireland and the AFL competition in Australia where, otherwise, the players would otherwise not have the opportunity.
But back to the International Cup.
It is not inclusive of ex-pat Australians.
This is a very important distinction. For example, the recent Asian Championships was effectively all ex-pat Aussies, such that the China team at that event is completely unrelated to the Chinese International Cup team that it is hoped will attend this August.
Another important factor is that the eligibility criteria is such that parentage does not apply.
Unlike some international tournaments, whereby players with parents or even grandparents from a particular nation might be able to seek to play for that nation.
This gets to the crux of the competition.
It is a development tournament.
It is aimed at being a reward of sorts for those who are new to the game and have learned it outside of Australia. Initially, suggestions for such an event from outside of the AFL were for a ‘World Cup’.
The AFL came on board, but insisted that it be titled an ‘International Cup’.
This makes the tournament more comparable for example to the ICC Trophy tournament (although, without a World Cup place at stake).
By this comparison, I mean that it is a tournament aimed at the affiliate nation members of a sport, primarily to encourage development.
The ICC trophy over the years has produced graduates to the ‘open pool’, such as Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.
Other nations to have made the final over the years include Canada, Netherlands, Scotland, Kenya, UAE, Ireland and Namibia.
Only so many of those could seriously have a crack at the higher levels.
So, a level of competition for the Affiliate nations is entirely appropriate.
The fact that Australian football only has one country at the ‘top tier’ should not at all be relevant when reviewing the role of the International Cup as this second tier has an absolute right to recognition and competition.
THE FIRST IC (2002)
Competing nations
Ireland (Warriors) – first
Papua New Guinea (Mosquitos) – 2nd
New Zealand (Falcons) – 3rd
Denmark (Vikings) – 4th
USA (Revolution) – 5th
Great Britain (Bulldogs) – 6th
Samoa (Bulldogs) – 7th
Nauru (Chiefs) – 8th
Canada (Northwind) – 9th
Japan (Samurais) – 10th
South Africa (Buffalos) – 11th
THE SECOND IC 2005
Competing nations
New Zealand – first
PNG – 2nd
USA – 3rd
Ireland – 4th
Samoa – 5th
Great Britain – 6th
Canada – 7th
South Africa – 8th
Japan – 9th
Spain (Bulls) – 10th
Denmark and Nauru were late withdrawals for the 2005 IC. Spain was the only debutant.
It must be noted that the competing teams carry a huge financial burden.
The event has been underfunded and undersponsored, and thus the late withdrawals in 2005, where finances couldn’t be arranged.
This obviously means that in some cases selection is less of an issue as compared to those able to afford both the time and the money to come down. It’s a big task.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- Bangladesh, Canada, China, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand Warriors, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Warriors, Zimbabwe
June 21st 2008 @ 2:10pm
sheek said | June 21st 2008 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Michael C,
Good luck! Australian football, like the American, Canadian & Gaelic variations, is a distinctly national, as opposed to international, sport.
Apart from the novelty factor, it is only ever likely to be played by true patriots. I take my hat off to the AFL for trying to internationalize the game, but somehow, while overseas people might admire the athleticism of Australian football, they’re not going to flock to it in droves.
I guess there’s good & bad in that. At least the AFL clubs never have to worry themselves about losing key players to interstate/international representative duty.
June 21st 2008 @ 8:18pm
Joe FC said | June 21st 2008 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
sheek
The observation of athleticism in any code of football ( or almost any sport ) involves a high degree of subjectivity. Claiming a particular code/sport possess any amount of athleticism wont necessarily convince anyone. Undoubtedly Aust football contains athleticism but is it to a greater or lessor extent than American, Gaelic, association & rugby ( both ) football. I think that fans of the various codes are less interested in athleticism & much more drawn by the skills, craft & techniques that they wish to see performed. Football is for footballers, track meets are for athletes.
June 22nd 2008 @ 8:12am
Redb said | June 22nd 2008 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Joe FC,
i agree with your overall premise. But in terms athleticism in Australian football it is perhaps the aerial part of the game that highlights this aspect.
Redb
June 22nd 2008 @ 11:47am
Joe FC said | June 22nd 2008 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Redb
Certainly the aerial skills of Aust football are much to be admired & clearly to demonstrate these techniques an individual must have athletic ability. But I believe we go to watch the footballer ( in all codes ) demonstrate his/her skill rather than the athelete flex some muscle – a subtle but important difference.
June 22nd 2008 @ 1:55pm
zach said | June 22nd 2008 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
The International Cup was not an AFL initiative, but was conceived by some dedicated volunteers from the overseas leagues. The AFL got on board later and provide some help but most of the cost is borne by the players and their leagues. The most important thing about the cup is that all players must be nationals of the country they represent. I remember when the Rugby World Cup was staged here a few years ago, half the teams had Australians or New Zealanders playing for them. If you’d ever flown over a country in a plane you were eligible to play for it. So in reality the Rugby World Cup was not a World Cup at all. As for the Rugby League World Cup, with only three real competitors it is only one country more that the International Rules series.
June 22nd 2008 @ 6:50pm
Norm said | June 22nd 2008 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
stick to what you know zach you’re out of your depth when talking about the rugby codes.
June 22nd 2008 @ 7:42pm
Redb said | June 22nd 2008 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
The AFL International Cup is not a World Cup. It is an amatuer competition for nationals involved in Australian football comps around the world started by expat Aussies. Nothing more nothing less. I think it is amazing that the game in its basic grass roots form (often started as a wish by some expats to kick a footy) has grown enough that people from 10-12 countries will play Australian football in a competition in Australia. It is 6 years old in concept.
Redb
June 22nd 2008 @ 8:58pm
sheek said | June 22nd 2008 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
JOE FC,
Perhaps you’re reading too much into my comment. I appreciate athleticism is viewed differently from sport to sport. Also the skill level is relevant.
However, I was thinking back to articles I read many years ago where American sports fans appreciated the athleticism of Australian football players to cover so much ground during a game, their energetic leaping & accurate kicking.
Didn’t convert them though, did it. No was I suggesting otherwise. Skill is obviously important, but so would be familiarity, social conditioning, tradition, etc.
Let’s say American sports fans decided without favour or bias, Australian football was a better sport. So what, they would continue to stick with what they know & what they grew up with.
June 23rd 2008 @ 9:17am
Joe FC said | June 23rd 2008 @ 9:17am | Report comment
agree with you sheek that “familiarity, social conditioning, tradition, etc” all play a part in determining the sports we follow.
June 23rd 2008 @ 11:09am
Michael C said | June 23rd 2008 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Zach -
I did allude to this point via
“The AFL came on board, but insisted that it be titled an ‘International Cup’. ”
NOrm and Zach – - –
part of the reason I focus on this topic – and will continue to do so – - is for perspective.
The RLWC is an interesting thing to view, from an AFL perspective. Everyone knows that Internationally RU is bigger than RL – - well, at least at the pointy end. The RU WC has more top end countries, but, then, again, make up the numbers with absolute minnows like Namibia (seems a couple of families make up both their RU and Cricket teams!!! – all respect to them).
The reality for AFL fans – - is, to not be embarrassed, as, the RL WC has a ‘big 4′ – if including France, and ’5′ if including PNG. And, then, rapidly falls away.
The comparison of the level of RL played even in some of the qualifying top 10 ‘nations’ isn’t all that far advanced on the level of Aust Footy in some countries (not necessarily a direct comparison within particular countries).
So – a nice curiousity, but, one thing recognised in the international AFL community is that the standard again will be greater this time around than in 2005 – - and, a lot of that is due to growth and development over the last 3 years. The fact that the initial batch of a dozen nations might be increased upon by 5 or 6 – - means that we really are looking now at a Div 1 and Div 2 – - and, that creates added interest. We’ll look into this in coming weeks.
cheers.