It’s time to bring back the AFL State of Origin

Columnist

By Michael DiFabrizio, 16 Jan 2010 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: AFL, Hall of Fame tribute match, State Of Origin

Related coverage

AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou (R) addresses the media. Slattery Images

Aside from the token gesture that was the Hall of Fame Tribute Match held in 2008, the concept of State of Origin footy has been outside the AFL landscape for over a decade now.

The last true Origin clash was in 1999, when Victoria defeated South Australia by 17 points. In front of only 26,063 fans.

The small turnout at that game, and sub-20,000 crowds in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth the two years previous, gave a clear indication that it was time to push the concept aside for a bit. To be fair, it just had to happen.

But that shouldn’t mean state football should remain in exile.

Even back in ’99, the official line out of the AFL was that an Origin game would not go ahead in 2000 due to the Olympic Games. They never fully shut the door on Origin.

Even now, the door still seems open. Andrew Demetriou said back in 2008 that he didn’t “think we could kill it off,” adding: “We’ve got to consider how it can be best-used, how effective it could be if we have it perhaps on a cycle.”

Since those comments, however, talk of the concept’s return from AFL House has dropped off.

And it’s unfortunate. Because what’s left to stand in the way of Origin’s return?

Perhaps it’s the idea that it will only lead to the same problems that surfaced in the 90s, but how relevant are those problems now?

Interest in state football began to slow around the same as the VFL went national with the introduction of West Coast, Brisbane and Adelaide. Fans all of the sudden had “their” team represented nationally. More importantly, “their” players were playing against the Vics week in, week out.

These days, the argument that a national competition takes away from state football seems far less relevant.

Support is now well and truly divided in South Australia and Western Australia, just like it was in Victoria during Origin’s stronger years, and players are becoming more and more dispersed.

Just look at some of the AFL’s star forwards – Brisbane’s Jonathan Brown and Brendan Fevola are Victorians, Fremantle’s Matthew Pavlich is a South Australian, St Kilda’s Nick Riewoldt moved to Queensland (from Tasmania) at age nine.

The list goes on. And it will continue to go on, given the amount of transplanted players the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney clubs are going to require.

Of course, the national competition wasn’t the only issue that brought down Origin.

Dermott Brereton’s revelations in his newspaper column a couple of years ago provide an obvious example of the other flaws Origin matches.

“After playing for Victoria twice, I did my best to withdraw from them. I played in nine by the end of my career and probably withdrew from at least four or five,” Brereton wrote.

And his reasoning?

“It was born out of dedication to my club. Why should you risk injury to yourself for a group of teammates you would be trying to decapitate seven days later?”

The former Hawthorn star’s comments contain two important lessons. The first is that Origin in the past has suffered from overexposure. The second is that players are always going to be conscious of injury and the effect their involvement may have on their clubs.

The solution here is to simply learn from the lessons of the past.

If Origin is brought back, there’s no need for it to be held annually. The novelty – for fans and players – will wear off otherwise.

Likewise, there’s no need for it to be held mid-season. The AFL has put a lot of effort into International Rules, which works well enough because of the timing of it all – it’s held after the season’s finished.

Funnily enough, this also suits both players and (footy-starved) fans.

Origin can provide a (non-hybrid) representative form of the game. It can provide a way to expand the AFL calendar. It can provide an opportunity for rival fans to watch a game supporting the same team. It can provide a homecoming opportunity for players who’ve moved interstate. It can provide further talking points for the media.

Perhaps more importantly, it can provide the return of the Big V, the Croweaters and Sandgropers to the elite level.

Giving the concept a break had to happen. But maybe bringing it back does too?

Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (38) | Page 1 of Comments

AJ said | January 16th 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment

as long as there is no ‘dreamteam’ type concepts. it will always be a winner. especially when the mighty sandgropers thump the lot of you all the way back to the other side of the nullabor.

Reply
Forgetmenot said | January 16th 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment

I was not excited to watch the Dream Team match at all. That DreamTeam did not repersent me. It basically represented everyone else.
I agree SoO would be great to watch every few years or so. But if it does happen, every state must be on equal standing. There should not be more Victorian games than Northern Territory ones. Divisions should be in place, but combined teams (other than international ones) are a no go.
Holding it away from the regular season raises a very interesting question.
It cannot be held on or near any major public holidays, and should not disrupt the footballers breaks too much. It also needs to be held at a time when the temperature is nottoo high. I cannot see clubs supporting it if it meant disrupted pre-seasons as well.
Could the matches be played at the same time as the DreamTime match each year?

Reply
BigAl said | January 16th 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment

. . . not this tired old dog again !

Reply
bever fever said | January 16th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment

IMO it is true that players are becoming more dispersed, the formative WCE team was really a WA SOO team but is far from that now, not sure when you could play it as the season is pretty busy as it is.

For me it’s just not the same as per the rugby league comparison, the home and away would take precedence, in RL the SOO is the pinnacle.

Totally off track but i would like to see a extended H&A or a nine’s round robin on smaller grounds, something along the lines of a rugby 7,s would be great.

Reply
The Bush said | January 16th 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment

If it was introduced how does it work then? Do you shorten the home and away season a little and then have all six states play each other once with home and away alternating every time, a la the Rugby Six Nations in Europe?

Or do you do dividions so that SA, WA and Vic are top with NSW, QLD, Tas etc bottome and then promotion-relegation?

Reply
gazz said | January 16th 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment

The old chestnut eh Big Al!?!!?

Would love an ‘Australia Cup’ involving all 8 states/territories every 3 years, maybe via knockout.

Reply
- Sth Auckland First XV said | January 16th 2010 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
  
  I agree – the Australia Cup would be a fantastic concept
  
  Reply
Timmuh said | January 16th 2010 @ 6:06pm | Report comment

The International Rules comment is the exact fit.
A four year cycle with all games in the post-season.
Year 1: Origin preliminaries
Year 2: Australia tour Ireland for the hybrid series
Year 3: Origin final and promotion/relegation playoffs
Year 4: Ireland tour Australia

I envisage something like:
Year 1:

Week 1
Division 1
A: 1st v 2nd (Vic v WA)
B: 3rd v 4th (SA v Qld)
Division 2
C: 6th v 7th (NSW/ACT v Tas)

Week 2
Division 1
D: LoserA v Winner B
Division 2
E: 5th (NT) v Winner C

Year 3 (Origin Finals)
F: Winner A v Winner D (Origin Final)
G: Loser B v Winner E (Division Playoff, winner to Division A next time).

Rankings for the next time:
Winner of the final ranked 1st
Loser of the final ranked 2nd
Loser of match D ranked 3rd
Winner of match G ranked 4th
Loser of match G ranked 5th
Loser of match E ranked 6th
Loser of Match C ranked 7th

Who is at home would be like the Davis Cup; whichever of the two teams were at home the last time they played each other would be away the next time. eg. last time Vic played WA was in Perth so game A would be at the MCG, if they then met in the final two years later it would be at Subiaco.

The only problems I see with this format are that:
- Teams play different numbers of games
- NSW/ACT is a conglomerate team, which is not ideal
- The vast gulf between the big three and the 4th state, but every state should have the chance to win the title and that means a chance to play against the big states. The other option would be three teams in the top division and four in the second.

Reply
Michael DiFabrizio said | January 16th 2010 @ 9:03pm | Report comment

Cheers for all the comments. It should be said that there’s no need for any dramatic re-structure of the season. Just look at how International Rules has been accomodated, and you can see the same happening for Origin. Just hold it 1-2 weeks or so after the grand final and you won’t hear too much out of the clubs (or at least you shouldn’t, considering there was never a lot of vocal opposition to players playing in IR).

As for how you structure it, well, there’s a million answers for that.

My personal preference is to see it every two or three years, with a promotion and relegation system across three tiers. So you might have Vic v SA, WA v Qld and Tas v NSW in the first year, or something like that. Two/three years later, the loser of the first game goes down, the winner goes up.

But as I said, there’s a million different ways to do it.

Reply
jimbo said | January 16th 2010 @ 10:00pm | Report comment

The rugby League State of Origin became very popular for two main reasons.

Firstly, the new SoO competition meant the states were represented by true Queenslanders and New South Welshmen and not just those that played in that state.
That is, you previously had Queenslanders who played rugby league in Sydney playing for New South Wales against Queensland.
When the new concept came in, it was a genuine state versus state contest and mate against mate, team mates knocking out their own team mates because they were from a different state.

The second main reason is that the SoO games are used to select the Kangaroos national rugby league teams – so the competition is fierce.

An AFL SoO doesn’t appeal on either of these two fronts – there was never any controversy about which AFL state you represented and the AFL SoO players aren’t fighting for an Australian national team jersey.

There isn’t the same passion, aggression and controlled violence for the crowds to appreciate.

Reply
- Michael C said | January 17th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
  
  jimbo -
  
  on the first front – there was, because, recall that State of Origin started in the VFL before the RL SoO kicked off. The same issues especially from SA and WA, because, they didn’t want to play the Big ‘V’ with ‘relocated’ SA and WA players playing against them.
  
  However, the logistics of running a proper SoO competition annually is harder when dealing with more than just the 2 states, which is why not even ‘All-Australian’ honours are tied to the SoO, because, the players from QLD, Tassie, NT, NSW/ACT need to be in the running for that also.
  
  re the ‘appeal’, there was plenty of that during the mid 1980s, there were some hugely attended classics, including the game in which Stephen Kernahan announced himself to all Victorians by kicking 10 goals for SA, and Carlton fans sat there drooling because he was signed up to come to Princes park the following year. Back then, there was this sense of ‘mystery’, that was also reflected in the WA side where we’d see so many more indigenous players than anywhere else – especially guys like Stephen Michael who never did move to Melbourne.
  
  the passion, aggression etc was there for sure, there were sell outs and close finishes and Gary Ablett (snr) and E.J.Whitten
  
  however, the introduction of the Adelaide Crows really killed it off, because, in combination with the Eagles – we effectively DID have a WA team and SA team playing each week. The WA SoO side and SA SoO side became about 80% Eagles and Crows respectively.
  
  and, also, just possibly, the death of E.J.Whitten might have diminished the Big V for some. He was so symbolic, and the emotion of his lap of honour,…..it might just be that it all seemed a fraction hollow after that (because, as Jimbo suggests, not having a national selection on the back of it which would otherwise have carried the SoO through).
  
  Whereas, should the concept be applied properly now, with the draft and with 2 sides from each of WA and SA.
  
  Reply
Justin said | January 17th 2010 @ 6:56am | Report comment

It went south also as there were too many crap matches/teams involved.

Only Vic, WA and SA are worthy, the rest are not up to it.

Reply