By Jason Cave
December 2nd 2009 @ 4:24am
Loading ...Related coverage
State of Origin was initially AFL’s idea
Seeing rugby league has had a stranglehold on the State of Origin concept since 1980 by turning it into a major national sports event, it’s easy to forget that it was Australian Rules that started it all.
In 1977, a WAFL board member named Leon Larkin came up with the idea of a match between WA and Victoria at Subiaco. The difference was that it the WA team would feature home-grown players such as Cable, Moss, Max Richardson (who in previous years would’ve played for Victoria), who had played in the WAFL before moving to Victoria to start their VFL careers to finally represent WA.
The Victorian side had players such as Greig, Doull, Flower, Ian Nankervis and Bartlett.
The timing for the game wasn’t ideal as far as Victorian coach Ron Barassi was concerned. Several players hadn’t played a match for a month due to their clubs missing out on the finals.
While the North Melbourne and Collingwood players in the Victoria lineup had just been through a physical and mentally draining grand final replay.
From the start, WA had the jump on the Victorians, and thereafter was never headed, winning by 100 points. Barry Cable was awarded the Simpson Medal as the best player.
An exciting new concept in Australian sport was underway.
An interested observer, however, was watching all this unfold in Brisbane. That observer was none other than the Queensland Rugby League chairman, the late Senator Ron McAulliffe, who was later to be the man in 1980 who would persuade ARL chairman Kevin Humphries into giving State of Origin a go.
The rest is history.
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...
(85)
Freud of Football said | December 2nd 2009 @ 4:54am | Report comment
Aussie Rules SOO goes back a lot longer than this but honestly who cares when it all began, Rugby thrives on it and apparently the AFL can’t handle it which is utter rubbish, we want it back!
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Jason’s historical pieces are usually quite good reads, as is this one, and so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that this wasn’t written to inflame the 743rd edition of Code Wars.
I don’t think there was ever any doubt Australian Football played the first SOO, but really, why does it even matter??
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
“State of Origin was initially AFL’s idea”. I don’t think that the AFL was in existence in 1977.
Freud of Football said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
It wasn’t the AFL but by AFL, many people are referring to the sport of Australian Rules Football which was in existance and being played at an interstate level decade before 1977.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
State of Origin will be back, I have no doubt.
These bloody croweaters are getting too cocky about their players, time to set the record straight.
Vics
Garry Ablett
Jonathon Brown
Chris Judd
Brendan Fevola
Jimmy Bartel
Jobe Watson
Joel Selwood
Nick Del Santo
Brent Harvey
the list goes on its a dream team.
Redb
Freud of Football said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Oh Redb, thankyou for the good laugh, I always appreciate it when a Vic gets full of himself because they inevitably talk snot.
Jobe Watson?
Please, my grandma would be more useful with her plastic hip.
Gibbs (#1 draft pick)
Cooney (#1 draft pick – brownlow medallist)
Goodes (Premiership winner, Dual Brownlow medallist)
Griffen
McLeod (freak)
Pavlich (also a freak)
Fisher
Goodwin
Didak
Get down off your high horse, you’re gonna hurt yourself.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Freudy,
back up that truck your out of control.
You must have missed Jobe Watson’s season this year – outstanding – one of the best inside midfielders going around, with Hille back from injury with Ryder he will come into Brownlow contention in 2010.
Newsflash: the 2008 Victoria v Dreamteam which included most of the players above and was won by the Vics.
Time to get off the hubris train it stopped 3 stations back.
Redb
ren said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
surely it would be far more motivational to play for your state for example WA rather than with any south australians. having said that victoria should win, they have more players, more teams and a bigger population., But they wouldn’t, why- WA would win. easily. Especialy as our recent draftees get more experience, our U18’s have won 2 of the last 3 champs, and were 2nd in the third (i believe), on top of this we recently won the ammatuer rep match and WAFL v VFL matches this year, clearly number 1.
out of interest who would ruck for everyone- by my reckoning WA has all the best ruckmen.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
David Hille for starters.
Granted Ryder and Natinui are two of the most exciting ruckmen in the game.
Comparing WAFL with VFL makes no sense. VFL is a reserve grade comp.
Redb
ren said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
redb- all in jest of course the WAFL vs VFL match has no bearing on the AFL (the WAFL can also be regarded as a reserves comp to the two AFL teams so your point is somewhat moot- prehaps we have better reserves), and the ammateur game carries little to no weight either other than to prehaps suggest that grassroots footy in WA is a bit stronger.
I’d also add Sandilands, Cox, Seaby (I actually rate him, but woosha isnt the best of coaches and failed him a bit), leunberger, and mitch clark off the top of my head.
WA would struggle big time in the key foward stocks IMO-
Really looking foward to the net couple of yrs as our U18 champions develop into AFL stars, especially Morabito, Hill and Palmer when they pick up a flag for freo. (let me dream)
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Daniel Rich was the recruit of 2009, no problems with that.
The Bombers have taken 3 of 4 local boys incl Jake Melksham – there is nothing like local knowlesdge.
As Essendon will be in the Grand Final from 2012 to about 2020 – we might meet Freo sometime
cheers
Redb
Freud of Football said | December 2nd 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Redb, you crack me up. I envisage you as one of those true blue Melbournian’s, the type who owns those $5 sunnies with the Bombers Logo hologramed in them and can’t stop ranting about footy. Street-Talk material.
I admit, I didn’t watch a great deal of AFL this last year, most I managed was a game a week, mostly getting up early on a Saturday morning but I did manage to catch 2 Bombers games this year, two weeks in a row in fact against Geelong and the mighty Crows.
And your claims that he is “one of the best inside midfielders going around” and that “he will come into Brownlow contention in 2010.” are simply ridiculous and have totally discredited you.
He might have improved but he was totally lost against the Cats, got a bit of the ball against the Crows but did nothing with it but I guess that is an improvement on a few years ago when he was complete and utter rubbish, I remember laughing as he was meant to be the next big thing and he was way out of his depth.
As for being in Brownlow contention in 2010. Again, thankyou for the laughs. He didn’t even poll a vote in 2009 but he’ll be in contention in 2010…Sure Redb, sure…
Stop dreaming, you’re a big-headed Vic with Bomber goggles on, he’s the son of a former great, doesn’t make him a great player.
Freud of Football said | December 2nd 2009 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
“Comparing WAFL with VFL makes no sense. VFL is a reserve grade comp.” – So is the WAFL and the SANFL, these are part-time footballers mixed with the lesser-lights from the 2 AFL Clubs in each city, they aren’t “premier competitions” anymore but they are still miles ahead of the VFL.
Vic might have won a match against the “Dream Team” but the Vic’s were playing for “The Big V”, The dream team were playing for who exactly? How many of them gave a rats about the game? It would have been a different story if the players had of pulled on their state jumpers, that’s the same reason that the “All-Stars” were always rubbish.
You just don’t get it really, you’ve got all these clubs in Victoria and all these draft picks come from Victoria yet the SA and WA standards are every bit as high.
Sure SA and WA mightn’t be in their glory days right now (but neither are the Vics) but the Vic’s are too dumb to recognise that the game exists outside their state.
That’s why Collingwood picked Fraser with the #1 pick in 99, Richmond went in for Fiora at #3 and let Pavlich – who was miles ahead of them all – slip to #4. They obviously hadn’t seen enough SA footy, anyone who had knew how good Pavlich was but not the Vic’s, no, Fraser was seen as the best of the bunch because he was a Vic.
Perfect example of the attitude of the Vic clubs. You hold no regard for SA or WA and yet in SOO the battles were generally pretty even, even without the SANFL or the WAFL having the money that the VFL had.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Righto Freud.
You watched two games with the Bombers both of which were one sided big losses! Wow your really up to speed.
eg: If your saw the St Kilda game which Essendon won, you would have seen Ryder and Watson magic.
Maybe you should watch more than a couple of AFL games before you comment.
And please a South Australian calling a Melbournian anything but Sir is a joke
I’ve been to your pisssssant town many times, it is a backwater, deal with it.
Redb
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Freud does though touch on – even if accidentally – that many of the best rookies/dark horses have come from the SANFL/WAFL – and have tended to be a key to the SA & WA sides ’success’ or sustained performances.
The Vic recruiters seem often too focussed on the TAC Cup itself, but, are finally now starting to look outside the circle a fraction. (esp re int & NSW rookies etc).
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
MC,
I wasnt evaluating the draft choices, I’ve long suggested that Western Australian recruits have punched above their weight.
South Australians though are proof Tasmanians can swim. Having put up with 50,000 rabid Crows fans at AAMI last September I can testify they they collectively are indeed candidates for Street Talk.
Redb
AndyRoo said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
If the forum tension is anything to go by it should be a good game
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Big deal. Are you suggesting somehow that the NRL should send an annual cheque to the AFL in thanks?
Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football#State_of_Origin there were only two years of Origin before the NRL started it in 1980 and the VFL’s format was completely different.
The “exciting new concept in Australian sport was underway” is bollox. Where was it in 1978 and 1979 and 1980? In 1979 it was a tournament of 6 teams and most VFL players kept out of it.
Long before Origin in Australian rules, national football (soccer) teams were calling up players to their World Cup teams from leagues across Europe. The Four Nations teams in rugby were doing it longer than that. They didn’t use the word “Origin” but the idea that Aussie rules gave Australia a radical sporting concept is ridiculous.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
They have been paying – what do you think the Foxtel money is about.
I dont actually care and agree big deal, but it was a state concept not a nation concept as per your examples.
Redb
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
“state” or “nation” doesn’t change the fact that the principle (the “idea”) already existed in the rest of the world outside of the Australian rules states.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Has the author claimed it was a world first? Must have missed that bit.
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
“it was Australian Rules that started it all” – You can only deduce from that the author thinks RL was completely oblivious to the rest of the world.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
keh?
What happened tripped over the cat whilst getting out of bed
Michael C said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
’state’ or ‘nation’……and the degree of flex around such interpretations.
i.e. World Cup eligibility criteria such as playing for the nation of your parents (or even grandparents) birth can seem a bit of a stretch – - – could you imagine a kid playing for NSW because one of his parents was born there?? Or the residential criteria – - all of which apply in the ‘national team’ scenarios – - – not a true ‘origin’ concept.
It probably depends on the perspective of the individual. But, in the ‘origin’ concept – it can (usually seems to) be used to promote the ‘origins’ vis-a-vis regional/state based ‘development pathways rather than places of birth or residence.
So – I’m not sure that what you refer to re national teams in soccer/rugby (let alone cricket) is the strict ’state of origin’ criteria in this case…….because State of Origin should exclude those ‘elective’ types.
However – we DID see Jason Dunstall (QLD) playing for Victoria because there was no QLD SoO side in the VFL/AFL SoO contests at the time.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
MC
your last point is another good reason for why SOO in aussie rules has progressively withered on the vine.
Having three major powers is hard enough, but on top of that, you have a national league where about 15% of all players will come from outside of the three major states, and that will include some champions:
James Hird
Nathan Buckley
Wayne Carey
Paul Kelly
Brett Kirk
Tadhg Kennelly
a stack of Lions triple premiership winners
stacks of Tasmanians, etc.
And yes – we tried the Allies idea to get around it – but it didn’t take off – let’s just forget about it.
AndyRoo said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
could you imagine a kid playing for NSW because one of his parents was born there??
If there names are Greg Inglis and Israel Folau I could imagine it.
Ken said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
I don’t think either of their parents were born in QLD. Folau is a technicality, his parents moving the family to QLD when he was a teenager just in time for him to play his first senior football (O/16) in QLD. Inglis is just a plain steal, he was born and rasied in far north NSW and then played his first senior football in Newcastle. Both sides have since admitted he really should be playing for NSW but it’s done and dusted now and he seems happy enough
Pippinu: I expect you’re right that the fact the major AFL states are split in 3 would be one of he big reasons that the AFL SOO didn’t really garner the same passion. The major RL states are split in 2 (1 big brother, 1 little brother) and it’s just a better fit.
I disagree though that the 15% of players in AFL who didn’t fit easily in the 3 states should be a major factor, with the NRL having many international players plenty of high profile players like Benji Marshall aren’t eligible to play Origin but this doesn’t seem to affect the series
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
I agree witih Brett – it doesn’t matter in the least – it’s all ancient history – SA, WA and Tassie aussie rules fans have shown a bit more interest than Victorian fans – but at the end of the day, the interest has been insufficient, the coaches hate it, the clubs hate it, the AFLPA isn’t to rapt at playing extra games – and that’s that.
RL has made it all their own – and that’s great.
Barkers
The key to the history of this – and really all RL fans should be aware of this history – is that rep games between NSW and Qld once were identical to rep games between Vict and SA or WA.
By that I mean the NSWRL and VFL had the better players, and would use players from QLD/SA/WA, and then beat up on the QRL, WAFL and SANFL.
Once the original SOO idea started in 1977, it was only a matter of time before the idea would cross to RL, and it’s not surprising that Queenslander latched on to it – because they would have been every bit as embittered as the WA/SA people.
They were identical scenarios in both codes.
But as I said – it’s ancient history – it’s nothing for aussie rules fans to gloat about, and it’s nothing for League fans to know that history a bit better – it’s just an interesting quirk of history and nothing more.
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
What? The “idea” of a representative body calling back non residents from elsewhere was an “idea” unknown to rugby league until Australian rules demonstrated the “idea” in 1977? Good one.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Prior to the inception of SOO – when NSW played Queensland – NSW had players in their squad from Queensland.
That’s what the idea of SOO is all about – redressing that situation – which naturally the Queenslanders viewed as unfair.
Surely you understand that much???
The common denominator in all this is that the minor states of Qld/wA/SA were keen on the SOO idea because they were all sick of losing their best players to the NSWRL/VFL and then on top of that, having these same players play against them in rep games.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
You’ve expressed your opinion. Now come on big man move on.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
AS well – the term State of Origin was first coined in 1977 to describe that first game between WA and Vict.
That’s the history – it’s hardly controversial in any way.
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
No problem admitting that VFL invented the term State of Origin. They didn’t invent the idea of players being called back.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
But the point is, in both major football codes in Australia – prior to SOO, Queenslanders played for NSW and SA/WAians played for Victoria.
It really is that straight forward.
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Not arguing about. The same economic forces were in play in Melbourne and Sydney football. Surprise, surprise, they both developed the same solution to resolve it.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Yes – and one followed the other by three years, and used the same title.
But apart from that – I’m sure it was entirely independent thinking.
chris said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Nothing is straight forward regard the australian footy codes.
It’s more interesting that the State of Origin could of been maybe like the Rugby Union old 5 nations as that was the golden carrot dangling infront of both Aussie Rules and Rugby League to merge to see NSW v Vic and QLD v WA etc matches.
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Fair dinkum, I’ve heard of the Barassi Line but I think it should be more accurately called the “Barassi Wall”. It’s like time has stood still behind it.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
I could easily argue the opposite. Some of the beliefs in the rugby league camp are held by the most insular paranoid nufties ever put on the planet.
Next time your in Melbourne, come down to the best sporting precinct in the country. You’ll go home wondering how you knew so little yourself.
Redb
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
I’ve been to Melbourne. Australia’s largest country town.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
What were you saying about time (ie: opinions) standing still.
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
No – it’s accurate. You are all largely ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the sporting world. You think that because Australian rules had something before rugby league, that you invented it.
Melbourne’s sporting calendar is so fixed in place and unchanged that the city is like most country towns were in Australia until the 1960s. You can still even get scones at the CWA.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
So – because you could get scones in the CWA, that proves that aussie rules didn’t come up with the idea of SOO first?
Ok – I think I’m starting to follow.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
If my recollection of sporting history is correct, I think Melbourne was the first city in the Southern Hemisphere to host the Olympic games, back in 1956 – beating other great cities of the world such as Rome, Tokyo, Mexico, Munich, etc.
Now, I realiase that the 121,000 we got to the 1970 grand final is not a patch on what the Maracana got at the final WC match in 1950, but, you know, it’s decent by world standards.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Is it really?
Your are insular and perhaps a bit ignorant.
Heard of Melbourne Victory? What about your Storm? Hmmm…. look two more clubs Melb Heart, Melb Rebels in rugby.
Soccer, rugby internationals…
Currently hosting the Champions Trophy in hockey. and had that haphazard driver Tiger Woods running around couple of weeks ago.
Melbourne has a superb sporting calendar and is the envy of all other Australian cities, especially Sydney. Suck it up
Redb
Art Sapphire said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Big deal, Jason. Guess what?
Democracy was initially a Greek idea.
Paul J said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
“Some of the beliefs in the rugby league camp are held by the most insular paranoid nufties ever put on the planet.”
I think you’ll find this type of patritism everywhere.
An AFL coach, i think it was Malthouse, said that it was the AFL coaches who killed the AFL SOO becuse they wouldn’t risk their top players to injury. You need your elite players to make SOO work.
Unless AFL coaches are willing to risk players like Ablett and Reivolt getting season ending injuries playing SOO the concept will not come back to the AFL.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
It’s true that AFL coaches have never been big fans of rep footy.
The one objective of them (and players and fans) is to win the premiership – there’s no room for inconsequential side alley diversions.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Our friend the barker was suggesting only one side was insular.
Rodney McDonell said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
The thing about State of Origin is that the rules around who represents who were first implemented by the AFL. Rugby League took this idea and made it the spectacle that it is today. However the Passion & Pride of representing ones state was not created with State of Origin selection rules. NSW & QLD have been playing each other prior to rugby league’s inception in Rugby.
What happens today in State of Origin is a reflection of the battles of NSW & QLD all those years ago.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
That’s all correct.
Art Sapphire said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
1883 – First interstate football match Victoria vs NSW. Thats right!! – Soccer!!
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
gee it really kicked on.
Barking Glider said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
No way. It was Queenslanders mate, and it was in rugby not soccer. In 1882 NSW vs Queensland in rugby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Reds#Early_Queensland_years
http://www.colonialrugby.com.au/queensland-rugby.htm
edit – just seen Pip’s mention of 1879 SA and Victoria. Either way, not soccer! Ha!
Freud of Football said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Cricket was played in the 1850’s, before there were even states.
bever fever said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
West Australian idea, not the AFL’s
Lets get this straight.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Art
this isn’t really important, but I understand that on 1 July 1879, Victoria defeated South Australia 7 goals to nil at the East Melbourne Cricket Ground in front of 10,000 people.
That was Australian Football.
In fact – you could say that it was played under SOO rules!!
Art Sapphire said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
The point is the article is pointless and I might as well chuck in pointless posts. As I said earlier the Greeks invented democracy but you don’t see me writing pointless articles trying to remind everybody of this.
Redb said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
I think you need to work on your self esteem – nothing everything you say is pointless just this stuff.
Michael C said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
perhaps if the Greeks had just recently, in the past 30 years, invented democracy,…….then it might be more currently ‘topical’.
Main thing is for Aust Footy folk – is now and then to remind them that going back to the future might not be so bad – - – and wouldn’t be a case of copying the NRL but revisiting an Australian Football concept.
What’s wrong with that?? or do you just have to argue everything?
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Art
that’s a pity – I would really enjoy such articles.
Art Sapphire said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Pip – if the money I got paid for producing pointless piffle would enable me to quit my day job, then sure, why not. I would remind everyone that if it were not for Socrates there would be no such thing as the Roar.
Debate would be dead and we would be settling our differences with wooden clubs. Respect
Michael C said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Are you at least going to publicly acknowledge that your grand statement pro-soccer on this here AFL thread was WRONG.
and, btw,
they weren’t playing ‘interstate’ games back in the 1800s……..;-)
btw -
The First ever inter colonial match was the VFA (Victoria) vs SA (South Australian Football Association) in 1879 in Melbourne
In 1881 the VFA also played two games against a NSW team.
1884 Qld and NSW played.
1879 Inter-league Melbourne VFA 7 14 N/A SA 0 3 N/A 7 goals
1879 Inter-league Melbourne VFA 4 8 N/A SA 1 6 N/A 3 goals
1880 Inter-league Adelaide VFA 5 14 N/A SA 2 9 N/A 3 goals
1880 Inter-league Adelaide VFA 3 21 N/A SA 0 6 N/A 3 goals
1881 Inter-league Melbourne VFA 9 24 N/A NSW 0 1 N/A 9 goals
1881 Inter-league Sydney VFA 9 16 N/A NSW 1 8 N/A 8 goals
1881 Inter-league Melbourne VFA 9 22 N/A SA 1 8 N/A 8 goals
1881 Inter-league Melbourne VFA 4 13 N/A SA 1 5 N/A 3 goals
1884 Inter-league Brisbane NSW 7 10 N/A Qld 3 16 N/A 4 goals
remembering that behinds were tallied but it was goal difference that dictated.
Note the early floggings NSW suffered at the hands of VIctoria….it didn’t have too much to do just with the ‘brand’ of football being played – - as, in all forms of ‘football’, Melbourne was light years
ahead of Sydney. Note that by 1884 NSW was beating QLD, but, being 2nd or 3rd didn’t appeal…
….Those NSW folk didn’t like getting beating, so, focused on games that Victoria wouldn’t beat them at but that they could beat QLD at.
If RL hadn’t been invented in ENgland, one feels Sydney would’ve needed to invent something that they could be best at……and yet, recent NRL SoO results show that they just can’t sustain it.
Art Sapphire said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Michael – my statement was not wrong, technically.
I was just telling everyone when the first interstate soccer match was played.
I was not telling everyone when the first interstate of Aussie Rules was played which actuallly does predate the first interstate game of “football”, oops I mean “soccer”
Just being cheeky
MyGeneration said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Actually, NSW was just getting ready to whup everyone’s arse at the national game – cricket.
Michael C said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Yeah, no, Art,
you can’t dig yourself out with that one, ……….nice try though.
btw – remember,
back then, they’s was ‘intercolonial’ matches.
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Jeez turn our arguments against us why don’t ya
It’s too easy/convenient to say that NSWmen (and most were actually from Sydney as with the Cricketing team) just didn’t like what they saw and stopped playing Aussie rules and started playing soemthing they were good at. The simple fact (if history is ever ’simple’) is that NSWman were generally only interested at sport if they were Upper Middle to Upper Class. Working class weren’t too interested because maybe they were just getting into prize fighting or something
Victorians of all classes were into sports, and were good at it generally. And you just mentioned that. Also one cannot discount the influence of those who generally believed (in those days
) that the English way was best of all and thus the Rugbies started to blossom as England started reaching its zenith (possibly of all time) in Rugby Football
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro -
agreed.
That it appears that Aust Football was about to take off with Victor Trumper and others doing the ground work……only for them to jump ship because of the potential of pounds to be gained by touring England……well, in a sense, fair enough….it’s all business.
alas – it might’ve been worth more to them to be able to run a full scale inter-state football code rivalry rather than the odd treck to the other side of the world.
Jaredsbro said | December 2nd 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Lol and who said Democracy’s a good thing! Same with SOO. Now I love the spectacle element of it with the best v the best but in some sense clubs like Brisbane are handicapped by Origin and thus maybe the Aussie rules approach is the right one
Also I might add the Greeks were useless at Democracy even tho they invented it, just as England is useless at its sporting creations…had things been different maybe England would’ve been more like Mr Pegasus 
and have to re-write the rules to keep ahead of the crap…
Springs said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
This is just silly. The ‘ origin’ concept in Rugby League was first used in 1895, in the War of the Roses. Many other interstate/inter-county games were played before that. State of Origin was first thought of as a replacement to the interstate series decades before 1980.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
“The ‘ origin’ concept in Rugby League was first used in 1895, in the War of the Roses. ”
Well that’s a new theory – care to expand?
Springs said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
The War of the Roses was an annual game between Yorkshire and Lancashire in England. Named after the actual War between the two. It ran until 1989, then was revived in 2001, before dying again because of lack of support. The premise was players from the two traditional counties of Rugby League, while other players could play if they played their first senior game in either county.
Michael C said | December 2nd 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
ironic huh,
it’s died out a couple of times,
Aust Footy SoO has struggled to sustain interest (although a couple of ‘glory’ years around 1984-1986),
and it’s only really QLD and NSW who just love to beat up on each other, over, and over,……and over again, and again, and again…….
Jaredsbro said | December 2nd 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Also Origin really isn’t truly Origin these days with Qld dominating players like Inglis and Folau are taking advantage of a loophole which basically allows them to ‘nominate’ which club they first played for even if they originally played footy in NSW
oikee said | December 2nd 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Hahhaa, yes but at least Queensland gets to beat up on someone, other states have to use their pollies to beat up on other states.
Jaresbro, wait until the future Victorians come through, and have to nominate a state to play origin for, Queeenslanddddder.
Jaredsbro said | December 2nd 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Can’t wait, in all seriousness Oikee
Billo said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
I’m surprised that the AFL hasn’t developed a three-cornered Origin concept, with Vic, SA and Wa playing two games each, and one game each in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth every year.
There is a feeling that one of the weaknesses of the AFL is its lack of representative opportunity for its leading players. That is debatable, in my view, but a SOO would give players that chance, and, if each team only played twice, ideally midweek, like rugby league’s State of Origin, it would not be too demanding even for the club coaches, I wouldn’t have thought. But it would create a potentially hugely valuable commodity.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
Billo
As I’ve said a few times: the clubs don’t want it, the coaches don’t want it, players and fans are ambivalent, and the AFLPA wants to reduce the amount of games played during the season, not increase it.
In the modern form of the game, to play two games with a 3 or 4 day break is impossible. Some blokes are running a half marathon inside two hours, they need five days to recover.
Also, to have a three way contest is to leave about 15% of all AFL players out in the cold.
In all honesty, it has very little to recommend it.
In a future where we have 20 teams with an 18 or 19 round comp – there may well be an opportunity to do something like that – but I doubt it.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
I think we will see a Victoria v South Australia origin game fairly soon.
Ultimately I’d like to see a 4 state comp with Vic, SA, WA & QLD. QLD are almost strong enough to field a decent origin side in AFL footy. They would already be strong enough to beat tradtional footy state Tasmania.
Redb
Freud of Football said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Oh yes please Redb. That would be worth flying home for.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Your a goose.
tifosi said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Player gets injured in a SOO game and then what? Out for his club.
Its the same when players get injured playing friendlies for their country in soccer. Arsene Wenger is fuming that robin van persie will be out for 6 months after being injured for holland v italy in a game no one could care less about.
Granted the wages arent as high in the AFL but i doubt any club/coach would be happy to lose a key player playing a game no one really cares for anymore.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
tifosi
very true – it has always been the case – for as long as I can remember – coaches and clubs have not been big fans of rep games.
The other thing we found about 10 years ago when we tried to have a few games is that gun players would use the weekend dedicated to a rep game to get over some niggly injuries (which every player carries), i.e. pulling out of the game last minute.
In the end, a weekend of rest ended up being more important than a weekend of rep games – that’s the way it is.
jimbo said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
The football and NRL Interstate and SoO games were also required to select the national teams for international games and international World Cups and tournaments and so SoO has less significance for MarnGrookies.
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
As the Hunters and Collectors sing – there is one holy grail.