AFL oddity in west Sydney as Giants and Suns rise
By James Dampney, 19 Feb 2011 James Dampney is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- 2011 NAB Cup, AFL, Gold Coast Suns, Greater Western Sydney Giants, GWS Giants, Israel Folau, Karmichael Hunt, NAB Cup
145 Have your say
Related coverage
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- Greater Western Sydney Giants news
- Gold Coast Suns news
- GWS Giants news
A surreal feeling descended on Blacktown in Sydney’s west on Friday as Jarrad McVeigh, Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau fronted up for a press conference.
All three were in their respective AFL uniforms, with the established and respected Swans co-captain McVeigh in traditional red and white, flanked by two enormous physical specimens known for playing a very different sport.
Even though they’ve both shed around six kilos as they prepare for the demands of AFL football, former rugby league internationals Folau and Hunt still dwarfed McVeigh as they stood in front of the cameras and microphones.
There was a psychedelic spectrum of colours on display, with Greater Western Sydney’s orange, charcoal and white clashing horribly with the Gold Coast’s red, gold and blue.
The fact that it was all taking place at the remote and barren outpost of Blacktown Olympic Park only added to the bizarre feeling of the moment.
All three were asked questions, with only those directed at McVeigh reflective of a typical AFL media outing.
For Hunt and Folau, there were questions about their ability to kick and run, comparisons with State of Origin rugby league and a litany of questions about their weight.
McVeigh handled the moment admirably, denying it was an odd scenario with two former rugby league superstars who are yet to play an official AFL game.
“Growing up in NSW I’ve watched a lot of league, but it doesn’t feel weird,” he said.
“We’ve had Mike Pyke and Tadhg Kennelly come across from other sports (rugby union and gaelic football respectively) and they’ve gone very well.
“It’s a big opportunity for these guys and the more guys we can get playing AFL, it’s great for the game.”
All three then took to the middle of the ground for some rather awkward handballs in front of the cameras before they returned to the dressing room.
All in all it was an AFL press conference like no other and upon its conclusion, there was an unshakable feeling the game had changed.
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
February 19th 2011 @ 8:07am
pike64 said | February 19th 2011 @ 8:07am | Report comment
it would be upseting to the AFL sectarians that even McVeigh, a co captain of an AFL club, now refers to his sport as ‘AFL’ rather than football. (“It’s a big opportunity for these guys and the more guys we can get playing AFL, it’s great for the game.”)
February 19th 2011 @ 8:49am
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Football means something else in NSW.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:04pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
one might suggest that when speaking of cross code converts – that it would be highly appropriate to use unambiguous terminology.
It’s not as if McVeigh used an arrogant ‘football’ for his own code at the expense of in this case RL (Folau, Hunt), RU (Pyke) and Gaelic (Kennelly).
It seems a very odd thing to carry on about – - after all, the league is the AFL is it not?
btw – bought an issue of World Soccer recently or do you boycott that??
February 19th 2011 @ 4:58pm
JamesP said | February 19th 2011 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
The AFL delibretly markets the game as ‘AFL’ in NSW and QLD. I dont agree with it, but they do it.
February 20th 2011 @ 6:47am
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 6:47am | Report comment
agreed JamesP,
however, keep mindful, that the ‘brand’ AFL is the business entity of the admin body that runs the peak competition and oversees the code.
Just as FIFA is the business entity that oversees the code of Association Football.
The “FIFA WC” is a phrase used widely, and on computer games, “FIFA ’10″, and the like. It doesn’t imply for a minute the changing of the actual name of the sport. True, you don’t have ‘child’ associations named ‘FIFA Germany’ or ‘FIFA Scunthorp’,
however, the peak Australian Football League in QLD is,….well, is fairly named QAFL or AFLQ. Works either way. It IS after all, an Australian Football League.
February 21st 2011 @ 11:59am
Jason said | February 21st 2011 @ 11:59am | Report comment
That’s because the sport is called AFL up north
February 19th 2011 @ 8:58am
Funktapuss said | February 19th 2011 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Well, seeing all those empty seats at rugby league games played in greater Sydney the people not sitting in those seats now have a game of their own.
Welcome to your game, not some northern English game designed to stop the colonials from creating their own sporting culture.
We are righting the wrongs of history here people!
February 19th 2011 @ 9:57am
bilbo said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Maybe you should read some history before you congratulate “the righting of the wrongs”?
Sure, Rugby Union, Soccer and Cricket owe a lot to England, but Australia has played a massive role in the development of Rugby League. RL would not exist if not for Australia, the same as the AFL.
The only difference between AFL and RL is that RL kept the name of one of its influences, while the AFL changed from “Gaelic-y folk related ball” to “Australian Rules”.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:10pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
the ‘only’ difference??
ONe might also suggest that RL has survived in it’s UK niche for quite some time pretty well independant of what was happening in Australia – - the RLIF really is only a modern construct, that and the interest of Murdoch.
Disagree with Funktapuss all you want, but, RL is an English game, it’s a very minor variation on Rugby Union. It retains pretty well the same field, the same goals, the same scoring methodology, off-side, scrums, etc – - the variations could easily be compared to the difference between test cricket and T20s.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:18pm
zach said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Sigh! It is amazing the number of people who are willing to postulate on the origins of Australian Football whilst remaining totally ignorant on the subject. I suggest you read Professor Blainey’s book “A game of our own” (now in its third edition), and you will learn that Gaelic Football had no influence whatsoever on the creation of Australian Football. Ours is a truly Australian game, unlike Rugby League which remains to this day an obscure northern English variant of Rugby.
February 19th 2011 @ 5:22pm
Geoff said | February 19th 2011 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Zac it is shakey ground to say “Ours is a truly Australian game” when in the chapter on myths, gaelic and aboriginal Blainey says “Australian football in its infant years borrowed heavily from England, especially from Rugby football, when the differences between Rugby and soccer were not as stark as they are today.”
February 20th 2011 @ 2:11pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
re the infant years – of course it borrowed heavily from England.
The ‘especially from Rugby’ is interesting. The Rugby school rules had a good number of references to Off-side plus on-side. This concept was not written into Melb rules. The x-bar, Wills attempted to have it introduced at one point, and in Greg De Moore biography on Wills he suggested it was Wills trying to trade on his own self importance as perhaps the best kick in the colony. (he was already one of if not the best footballer/cricketer full stop……and interestingly, that allowed a lot of ‘oversight’ of his failings in other areas!!!……seems the more things change, the more they stay the same).
At any rate – the key concepts of Rugby did not appear in Aust footy, including the ‘try’ (a requisite to permit a kick on goal).
The early days see reports from people more familiar with the Rugby style handling codes who bemoan the differences, and likewise those from the Eton style dribbling codes who,….you guessed it, bemoan the differences. That kinda suggests they got it somewhere in the middle!!!
True though, the games, all of them, were not as distinct as today. The main difference was really Rugby school vs Eton school (and was that diffference played out to further distinguish one from t’other??). At any rate, for all the people claiming Melb Footy of 1859 was effectively Rugby, well, the comparison of the 10 rule bullet points to the 1863 Rules of the FA in London are again, very similar.
What was clear though, is that immediately, the game was being played. A search of the Aust archives, viewing the Argus of the day, reveals regular matches, a variety of teams/clubs and that in the main the rules of the ‘metropolis’ would prevail, even for the ‘Pivotonians’ (from Geelong) to adopt the rules. Obviously for a set of just 10, there had to be a good amount of reading b/w the lines.
Compare for example to the founding clubs of the London FA and many failed to either survive or opted out. The ‘father’ of the game, Ebenezer Cobb Morley represented Barnes Club who ironically went on to return to Rugby style games. Really, until the 1870s, the English ‘football’ landscape was still in a state of flux. In the 1870s, the London FA and Sheffield FA really came into line and the modern game of soccer really got firmly established. And likewise, the RFU was formed which removed the issues that saw some clubs refuse to play others (over hacking).
So, I’d suggest, from very early on, the advocates of the local game really had very little reason to concern themselves with what was going on in England. As Richard Twopenny (worth googling and reading “Town Life in Australia”) observed, actually worth referring you to a RL site that quotes him RL1908.
English journalist, Richard Twopeny, played both codes and found the Australian game more ‘stylish’: A good football match in Melbourne is one of the sights of the world… The quality of the play… is much superior to anything the best English clubs can produce… there is much more ‘style’ about the play.
A point to remember is that, at least until the 1890s, football in Melbourne was on a much bigger scale than in Sydney. In 1881 Melbourne’s population was 282,000 and Sydney’s was 225,000, but the disparity in the popularity of football was much greater. According to Twopenny, Melbourne had eight times as many clubs as Sydney, the biggest crowds were three times the size of Sydney’s best, and about ten times as many people watched football in Melbourne as in Sydney on any given Saturday. Moreover, the sixpence charged at Melbourne grounds had helped to create a chain of well-appointed suburban grounds while in Sydney, with one exception, matches were played on unenclosed grounds such as Moore Park and the Domain, and disruptions to play were common as spectators spilled on to playing areas.
February 19th 2011 @ 10:02am
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 10:02am | Report comment
So you are hoping to convert the people who have no interest in sport to GoGWS? Good luck!
But I think you will find they already follow the Swans.
February 19th 2011 @ 11:29am
Jake said | February 19th 2011 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Come off it Funktapuss. We all saw you cheering at the cricket and I know you have a love of horse racing.
February 20th 2011 @ 8:43pm
Funktapuss said | February 20th 2011 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
I love Sienese style horseracing as seen at La Palio, not this rubbish they have at Flemington and Caulfield with people who generally rock up to work in a slovenly way, yet attend an overrated drinking session in their finest.
It is only the ridiculously parochial NSW media that has held had a superior game all these years. Let us, for your sakes, kick the rotten door down and the whole rotten structure will ultimately collapse.
February 19th 2011 @ 2:25pm
Mark Young said | February 19th 2011 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Are you from Western Sydney?
Even Greater Western Sydney?
For the sake of that club i hope that you are because you are one hell of a fan!
February 19th 2011 @ 4:28pm
betamax said | February 19th 2011 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Funktapuss – “Welcome to your game, not some northern English game designed to stop the colonials from creating their own sporting culture.”
The Swans were welcomed here 30 years ago pal. We get AFL already. No need for the welcome. Thanks anyway.
I’m going to tentatively wade in the AFL history debate. I may well regret it but here goes : If Australian Rules Football could really call itself Australia’s game I would have imagined it would have been noted in the logs of the first fleet arriving in Botany Bay. If they would have seen a bunch of Aboriginals kicking around a Sherridin-like object in a clearing using gum trees as goal posts, then yes, you would have some claim to it being truly Australian. Everything the first settlers brought with them came from the country from whence they came. If my memory serves me well the first fleet were from England weren’t they?
February 20th 2011 @ 6:38am
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 6:38am | Report comment
betamax -
ah, nice try. By 1858/59 when the game was being developed – the free settler city of Melbourne was just starting to grow up and by this time many of the inhabitants were Australian born. Tom Wills as an example had been born in NSW, and whilst educated for a time in England (at the school of Rugby), was very much Australian and had grown up in Western Victoria somewhat isolated and learning the language of the local indigenous kids with whom he played and whom came from tribes that did play Marn Grook.
In the earlier penal colony settlements, firstly playing sport was not a great priority, and sadly relations with the local indigenous population in the main were…….strained.
btw – the first fleet was from England, and most of the convicts sent out were very much British. However, that explains the penal colony’s demographic. By the time of the 1850s and the Victorian Gold Rush, the free settlement of Melbourne was home to a colony welcoming many seeking their fortune, including Chinese and Americans.
And gum trees for goal posts – - well, that pretty well describes the first games of football in the parkland beside the MCG back in and around 1858/59. This was 70 years on from the first fleet you do realise.
btw – it’s a ‘Sherrin’.
February 20th 2011 @ 8:20am
Jake said | February 20th 2011 @ 8:20am | Report comment
So the time at rugby school had no influence. If it isn’t English then why did they call it football?
February 20th 2011 @ 9:23am
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Jake -
why?
because it’s the English language.
else, it might’be been called ‘Calcio’.
February 20th 2011 @ 8:22am
betamax said | February 20th 2011 @ 8:22am | Report comment
OzFootballSherrin I think in the 1850s the first and even second generation of Australians would have still defined themselves as British. It was after all, still a British colony.
The point I was trying to make was for Aust Rules Football to call itself “indigenous” I would have thought it would have had to predate British colonization. It’s about definition.
I don’t claim to be an expert on these matters, but as I said I’d thought I’d wade in with my 2 cents worth.
Apologies for “Sherridin”. Ignorance on my part.
February 20th 2011 @ 9:21am
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 9:21am | Report comment
betamax -
that is a reasonable question isn’t it. Given that many of the convicts were the detritus of the British Isles – one can’t help but figure that there we at least as many who wanted nothing more than to ‘return home’ compared to those wanting nothing more to do with ‘home’.
Remember too, that just 20 years on, in 1877, that Australia hosted England at the MCG in the first Cricket Test match. So, I’d suggest this was a period of transition in that mentality, and these were perhaps important steps towards federation, from a socialogical and attitudinal perspective (am I inventing words??)
The ‘indigenous’ code stuff……well, main thing is it’s administered and steered from the outset 100% by locals. However, compare to the labelling of other codes, RU as the game played in Heaven, Soccer as the beautiful game, RL as the Greatest Game etc etc. Some people just want to argue for the sake of it.
(btw – I’m not implying you are, and I forgive your ignorance in good faith).
February 21st 2011 @ 11:48pm
TCunbeliever said | February 21st 2011 @ 11:48pm | Report comment
No – that doesn’t work. The definition of indiginous implies ‘native to / originates in’.
The sport – or any sport – that is created exclusively in one nation can be said to be indeginous to that area.. And I think that is irrespective of wheter the seeds of that sport were imported from overseas or not..
For example, if the First Australians played a game quite similar to what we know as Australian Football – could that be describes as indigenous to Australia? The First Australians are as indigenous to Australia as the British and Chinese settlers are. Perhaps they picked up the ideas or concepts of the sport from their travels through Africa and Indonesia, and only when they got here over time did it take on it’s own forms..
February 20th 2011 @ 3:36pm
Ken said | February 20th 2011 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Actually most people in Melbourne in the 1850′s were from NSW, Melbourne having been a part of NSW less than 10 years earlier…
February 20th 2011 @ 3:54pm
Koops said | February 20th 2011 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
I would disagree with that, quite a few people were from NSW, but in the late 1850′s most people in Victoria were migrants from all over the world were drawn to Victoria by gold fever.
Ships that pulled into Melbournes ports were deserted as whole crews jumped ship to head to the fields.
Also of course there were native Victorians, in 1851 Melbournes pop was 75,000, in 1861 it was 500,000.
February 21st 2011 @ 11:34am
Jason said | February 21st 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
lol AFL is the foreigner game up here man. It will forever and a day be seen as some mickey-mouse Southerners game. The whole “rugby league is from northern England” doesn’t work out west or on the GC. Rugby League is OUR game followed by rugby, soccer, flower arranging then Vicball
February 21st 2011 @ 3:42pm
jake said | February 21st 2011 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Hi Funktapuss
Lower crowds at league in Sydney can be explained by the fact that the game is played in suburban grounds across the city as opposed to two huge stadiums within 10 miniutes of the CBD and Sydney dosent have the best public transport from my understanding. Unlike the AFL there isent a fixed season in the NRL (fixtures are decided by TV Networks a few weeks in advance) so fans cant plan late-season away trips. With Rugby League being such a good TV sport many fans take that Option (Ratings in Australia and NZ don’t lie). In conclusion higher Sporting Attendances don’t necessarily mean more passion. In saying that living in Melbourne has taught me to be a true live sports lover.
Your Second Comment is just ridiculous. If there was any sport designed to “stop the colonials from creating their own sporting culture” then that is clearly Rugby Union. Its the upper class game that was played and promoted in establishments such as the military and the universities, witch are key to Colonization. RL, The rebel, working class, northern game made its way to Sydney through the strength of the game (correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the rugby union authorities try to shut it down through confiscating grounds when it first started) Interesting how RU took off in many other British Colonies, clearly the game that was promoted.
What makes the game uniquely Australian is that many of the rules that make League what it is today were created in Australia (6 tackles, 10 ms, uncontested play he balls, 40/20s). Also the kangaroos dominated International RL for decades and the pinnacle of the sport is played between 2 Australian states.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:00am
Jake said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:00am | Report comment
As I found in the Sydney newspapers I read this morning at Rosehill Maccas, outside of the Swans faithful no in Sydney knew who guy in the Swans kit was. Without Folau & Hunt being there the media conference for GWS debut would have been nothing. No matter what shirts they put Folau and Hunt in it still just looks like an advert for rugby league.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:12pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
promotional components of their pay packets well spent then wouldn’t you agree?
February 19th 2011 @ 1:15pm
Jake said | February 19th 2011 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
No. Not if everyone thinks “there’s that NRL guy” everytime they see his face.
February 19th 2011 @ 5:02pm
JamesP said | February 19th 2011 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
I’d have thought Goodes would have been a better option – he is the co – captain as well and would have certainly matched up better physically to Folau and Hunt rather than McVeigh. Then again, Sydney should be proud that they have a NSWelshmen leadign the Swans again – and this time, not from the Riverina, but form the Central Coast – where the yound McVeigh played most of his junior football.
February 19th 2011 @ 10:32am
Republican said | February 19th 2011 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Titus
“Australian Football” then.
February 19th 2011 @ 10:36am
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 10:36am | Report comment
fine
February 19th 2011 @ 10:47am
punter said | February 19th 2011 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Repulican in Sydney it’s AFL or Aussie rules, never ‘Australian football’.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:26pm
zach said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
The official name of the game is “Australian Football” and has been since the late 1800s.”Australian Rules Football” is a popular but unofficial name. “Aussie rules” is a diminutive and offhand form of that and is as offensive to many true fans as “soccer” is to, well, soccer fans.
February 19th 2011 @ 4:46pm
BigAl said | February 19th 2011 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
I don’t mind “Aussie rules” at all !
February 19th 2011 @ 4:59pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Me either, and i think it does rule !.
February 19th 2011 @ 10:54am
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Oooops….yeah,what Punter said.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:12pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
ah!!!…..a chink in the armour!!!
February 19th 2011 @ 10:36am
Republican said | February 19th 2011 @ 10:36am | Report comment
interesting enough, the Swans have a very healthy following in the ACT however many are choosing to adopt the GWS as a second and even first preferance to support.
It remains to be seen if this support grows and is sustained.
This will very much depend on how active GWS are in the ACT footy community in affording us real ownership of this new club.
The Swans have been the most loyal of all AFL brands to Canberra however they have never gone the next step in offering us a real share in their brand as are Sheedy and GWS.
February 19th 2011 @ 10:56am
Republican said | February 19th 2011 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Punter
Semantics old son – you and mostly everyone else knows exactly what is meant by “Australian Football’ in the context of GWS.
Lets try not to indulge in the appropriation of respective code naming rights – it’s akin to pulling teeth don’t you reckon?
February 19th 2011 @ 11:23am
punter said | February 19th 2011 @ 11:23am | Report comment
I am not indulging in the appropriation of the respective naming rights of any code to call a game football. I believe there are many forms of football & all with equal right to call the game football.
But just like Association football is called soccer in parts of Australia so not to be misunderstood with the local game of football.
Football or Australian football can be interpreted many ways in Sydney, hence calling the game AFL or Aussie rules to differentiate the difference to the games we call football in our fair city.
February 19th 2011 @ 11:31am
Jake said | February 19th 2011 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Surely the one that wasn’t born in England is the one with the least legitimate claim on the right to being called football. Should be called Marn Grook.
February 19th 2011 @ 11:39am
punter said | February 19th 2011 @ 11:39am | Report comment
While I personally side with you, but I have no issues with a place like Melbourne where AFL is king that they have every right to call their game football.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:49pm
BIG BEN said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
AFL. For those a little confused, extrapolated – Australian Football League. Therefore by definition the AFL is a league of AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL.
February 19th 2011 @ 12:58pm
db swannie said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Sorry Ben ..Your leader has decreed that the game shall be called AFL..& that is what juniors sign up as ..AFLQ.
Even the Mickey Mouse expat amateur leagues overseas are called AFL (insert country here).
You dont like it ..bad luck .take it up with Vlad,& the media.
February 19th 2011 @ 3:13pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 19th 2011 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
The game is played by the “Laws of Australian Football”,
the ‘AFL’ is an acronym, it represents the peak league and it’s administrative body that just happens to be the peak admin body of the code.
It no less makes the game Australian Football than does FIFA make Association Football ‘FIFA’ as distinct to …..well, whatever else…..after all, we all know well what ‘FIFA World Cup’ is and means,
it certainly doesn’t mean the teams are playing the wonderful game of ‘FIFA’.
Most people are smart enough to separate the legal body that is AFL and the game it administers.
And most people are able to recognise the ‘AF’ portion of AFL refers specifically to the game….’Australian Football’, just as the french language basis of the FIFA acronym refers to ‘Association Football’.
It ain’t rocket science, but, the constant hijacking of the Australian Football (league) tab here on the Roar on this front is tiresome.
February 20th 2011 @ 3:11am
amazonfan said | February 20th 2011 @ 3:11am | Report comment
You’ve said this before, and it was nonsence then, and it is nonsence now. The game is NOT called AFL; the juniors sign up to AFLQL for marketing reasons, while the overseas leagues are also called AFL for marketing reasons. The game is Australian football, whether you like it or not. You keep on repeating it because you not care about facts, not when they get in the way of yourr anti-Aussie Rules obsession!
So how about you read this instead of spouting your repetitive anti-Aussie Rules nonsence?!!!
“Australian Football (Official title of the code)
Whether it is called Australian Football, Australian Rules Football, “Aussie Rules”, the VFL, the AFL, Australia’s only indigenous football code is officially entitled ‘Australian football’. It has never been officially referred to as ‘Australian rules football’. Such terminology has only ever appeared in the form of football journalism, coined by different writers.
AFL refers to the elite Australian football competition known as the Australian Football League.”
http://www.afl.com.au/About/tabid/13532/default.aspx#title
“You dont like it ..bad luck .take it up with Vlad,& the media.”
The media is irrelevent. As for this Vlad? Who is he? You keep on bringing him up, however there is no-one by that name involved in either the AFL or Aussie Rules. I actually asked you once whom he is, however for some reason, you didn’t answer.
Anyway, nobody can decree that the game be called AFL. It is is what it is, and that is Australian Football.
February 20th 2011 @ 7:01am
db swannie said | February 20th 2011 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Sorry Amazonfan..you can say what you want ,but it doesnt change a thing..
Read this intro from AFLQ..
New to AFL? Only have a general idea of what our sport is about?
Click here to learn the basics of Australia’s most exciting sport, AFL.
Now see the difference in RL ..
You sign up to the QRL…
Not the NRLQ.
Your game is known as AFL & there is not a thing you can do about it..especially when the new juniors are told they are playing AFL.
February 20th 2011 @ 7:20am
Timmuh said | February 20th 2011 @ 7:20am | Report comment
db swannie, we don’t like it, and from time to time fans do take it up with AndyD and the media.
The whole game is marketed as AFL, totally against the fact that the title only applies at one level.
Sometimes the parasites that are the advertising and marketing industries lie; this is one of those times.
February 20th 2011 @ 7:22am
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 7:22am | Report comment
db swannie -
enough of the ‘Vlad’ stuff.
It is racially ignorant, it is offensive, it is childish, it is quite frankly rather pathetic. One might’ve thought that in Australia by now that the son of a Greek Cypriot immigrant could hold a position of power in the country and to NOT be racially demeaned.
Seemingly not.
February 20th 2011 @ 6:23pm
amazonfan said | February 20th 2011 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
db swannie, I’m through with this. You’re like a stubborn child who won’t listen to reason. The game is AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL!!!
Oh, and I agree with OzFootballSherrin. The fact that you resort to the ‘vlad’ talk is not only disgusting and offensive, and pathetic, but it also means that nothing you say deserves to be taken seriously!
February 20th 2011 @ 11:41am
Golden Boy said | February 20th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
FFA with its premier footall competion, “A-League” by definition is “Australian Football League”
February 20th 2011 @ 3:03am
amazonfan said | February 20th 2011 @ 3:03am | Report comment
“Surely the one that wasn’t born in England is the one with the least legitimate claim on the right to being called football.”
Why? What is so special about being born in England, that soccer has a more legitimate claim on the right to being called football? IMO soccer (Association Football) no more legitimately has claim on the right to being called football than Australian Football.
February 20th 2011 @ 9:08am
Jake said | February 20th 2011 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Because “football” was an already used to describe an established English sport.
If Victorians didn’t want to play the sport already known as football by creating a new sport, then why give the name of an existing sport?
As if someone would say they don’t want the game cricket, so they invent a new bat and ball game, but then still call it cricket anyway.
February 20th 2011 @ 9:27am
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 9:27am | Report comment
which English sport?
Football was describing a wide array of games played at the Public schools of England/UK, and Universitys, and the ‘folk game’ played often just once a year.
There was no established team as at 1858.
The FA was still 4/5 years off.
The Rugby Football Union was still 13 years off.
It is precisely because ‘football’ was NOT yet an established sport that we see what we do, multiple codes, local variants.
That didn’t happen with either hockey or cricket which WERE established singular games at the time.
Football was mostly, at that time, distinguished as ‘handling’ vs ‘dribbling’ games.
February 20th 2011 @ 9:59am
St Clair said | February 20th 2011 @ 9:59am | Report comment
There was a set of rules aimed at linking the various football codes, known as the Cambridge rules, well before Australian Rules was formalised and Association Football is based largely on this game.
Football had been played at Cambridge since 1579. The Cambridge University Football team was established in 1848. Football had been played in Australia long before Australian Rules came along.
February 20th 2011 @ 10:09am
Jake said | February 20th 2011 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Thanks OzFootballSherrin. A varied way to play a sport is hardly the creation of a new sport. By your logic T20 is not cricket, or rugby 7s is not rugby.
St Clair is right. If the Victorians of 1858 shared your view that they were inventing something new they would not have used “football”. I’ve just googled his Cambridge rules and its not hard to see its just a variation on what AFL is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_rules#Cambridge_Rules_circa_1856
February 20th 2011 @ 10:50am
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 10:50am | Report comment
The Cambridge Rules set out to solve the same problem, i.e. a set of rules that all could play by.
That the Cambridge Rules weren’t widespread is obvious by the fact that in 1858 Melbourne had the same dilemma, as in fact London did in 1862/63 with trying to establish a single set of rules.
The Cambridge Rules either were not deemed a success or hadn’t spread. Football of sorts may well have been played at Cambridge since 1579, however, how defined it was is debateable, and that the dilemma of the 1840s (need for a single set of rules, indeed, a set of rules) occurred is evidence that what existed before was either ill designed, ill equipped or ill defined.
re the varied way to play a sport – - that’s fine, if in fact there is a specific sport as a basis. In the footballing scenario, there was not a specific sport as the basis.
Even the ‘Rugby’ game was specific to Rugby school, and outside of that, there were Rugby like handling games, such as from the school of Marlborough and others that might be considered kindred sports.
There was football at Harrow dating back a long time too. Football is more an idea. The rules from school to school were dictated as much by the field, or courtyard in which game was played, the trees, the pond, etc that had to be catered for. Until people started travelling to compete against each other – i.e. the mid 1800s – there was precious little in the way of an identifiable game.
It is debateable whether the Cambridge Rules were considered in Melbourne in 1859. It seems fair that they WERE in London 1862/63.
February 20th 2011 @ 11:19am
Jake said | February 20th 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Looks to me OzFootballSherrin you’ve confirmed that in 1858 in Melbourne they just took up a varied form of English football.
February 20th 2011 @ 2:25pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Jake -
yes, but, what WAS English Football?
was it what was played at Eton, at Harrow, at Shrewsbury or Uppingham, or Marlborough or Rugby, or Cambridge or the folk/mob football of the villages or????
In many respects – football was an ‘idea’, at the time, one of the best selling books in the colonies was Tom Browns Schooldays, which described life at Rugby school and it included playing football. Not much of a description of the game play – I dare say the Harry Potter books give a greater description of the finer points of Quidditch!!!
I guess – did the ‘idea’ of football exist only in England. Answer is no.
However, of the committee of 4 that drew up the rules, we had Tom Smith (grew up in Ireland, educated Trinity College Dublin), Tom Wills (born NSW, educated Rugby school), and William Hammersley and James Thompson (both had studied at Trinity College at Cambridge).
Thompson was said to have come prepared with the rules of Rugby, Eton, Harrow and Winchester for reference.
There is sufficient reason to suppose that Thompson and Hammersley were well aware of the Cambridge compromise rules – and yet, they still attacked this task as to create their own set of rules.
Perhaps at very least – the notion was fair and square that ‘universal’ football rules did not exist, and that everywhere else were ‘local’ rules for local conditions. And given the relatively drier winters of that time – with harder grounds – local conditions were something to certainly take into account. Because, quite specifically, what had to be designed was the local rules for Melbourne Football – not English football, not Harrow football, not even Sydney football.
February 20th 2011 @ 3:02pm
Titus said | February 20th 2011 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Well all these games of football were sufficiently similar for all the games to come together as either Rugby or Association football.
Australian Rules didn’t join either of the associations, but if you made it so you were unable to handle the ball, introduced an offside rule and changed the goals a little you would basically have the same game as Association football.
February 20th 2011 @ 7:06pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
yep, just a minor tinker.
of course, I still reckon soccer would be all the better if off-side were removed (players are fit enough in the modern era to be able to run back and forth), if time management were changed (FIFA’s own measurements in the 2006 WC showed a lot of ‘dead’ time, and an AFL style ‘time-on’ process would result in a match running roughly 120 mins to achieve two 45 min halves of ‘actual’ time.), and a ‘short corner’ count back to split the difference if scores tied……….note on this last one, it varies from the Aust Footy ‘behind’ because, one could mount an argument that most goals should always win……..oh yeah, and allow at least limited interchange (so aging Harry Kewell could come on and off the bench for pinch hitting ‘impact’ and play 10 mins here, 10 there, another 10 near the end),……….hmmm, one more, offset scoring, 3 pts for a ‘clean’ goal, 1 pt if touched/deflected. Allows off set scoring so you can have lead changes with every score rather than needing 2 goals to turn a deficit into a lead.
but, at the end of the day, thank god for the differences, which, is why when the AFL rules committee trial silly dang things like the last touch out of bounds free kick which sees the essential ingrediant of Aust Footy diluted (that of, see ball, get ball, want ball more than opponent) – - at those times you realise that it’s nice that not all codes have the same basic rules. Celebrate the differences. I am with a glass of red. Right, back to watching the wife ironing……..
February 19th 2011 @ 12:26pm
Republican said | February 19th 2011 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
No worries.
Therefore we should acknowledge that there will be those, even in Sydney and GWS who recognize ‘Aussie Rules’ as Australian Football”
Marngrook is fine by me also however it is unlikely we would glean the support of the staus quo for this name change unfortunately.
Each to their own I say. It was actually Titus and your good self Punter, who chose to bring this up – again.
MOST of my generation no matter where they happened to live throughout this wide brown land referred to the Sassenach Football code as ‘Soccer’ and continue to do so.
Cheers
February 20th 2011 @ 11:10am
punter said | February 20th 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I too have no worries about people of your generation calling the game soccer.
But what I was saying that the people of Sydney has known the Marngrook football as firstly VFL or Aussie rules or AFL, never Australian football.
As winter approaches, we see the banners out for amateur clubs around Sydney to players their respective sports, ‘Play Rugby League, Play Rugby Union, Play AFL & Play Football. I’m sure this is different in AFL heartland.
February 20th 2011 @ 1:53pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 20th 2011 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
correct.
February 19th 2011 @ 1:51pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
In this country we Australian football, British football (soccer), Rugby league football, Rugby union football, American football, Gaelic football, i dont think Canadian football is is played here, but it may be.
But at any rate, this thread is about GWS, who will probably be flogged tonight, but hopefully with the sell out crowd of 10,000 spectators win a few new fans.
Australian football is really starting to break through in western Sydney, but no doubt the jealous few will continue to post there nonsence, but from my experience they are becoming a rare species.
February 19th 2011 @ 3:15pm
OzFootballSherrin said | February 19th 2011 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
all GWS need to do is score and they will’ve done better than the Melb Rebels. All they need to do is kick a couple of goals to match Brissie Lions.
February 19th 2011 @ 5:05pm
JamesP said | February 19th 2011 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
LOL – and GWS are not in the league till next year. All Gold COast have to do is score and they are better then the Rebels
February 19th 2011 @ 4:42pm
hutch said | February 19th 2011 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
can you elaborate on how afl is really starting to break through in western sydney, because most people in sydney would think that comment is nonsense!
February 19th 2011 @ 4:57pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Increased grass roots participation, increased awareness through the Sydney media, the purpose built Blacktown stadium which hosts tonights games, etc etc.
GWS Giants a have $million dollar major sponsor, a ground renovation at the Sydney showgrounds, a 25 million dollar deal with the ACT governement, youth academys in Sydney, Canberra, Wagga, Deniliquin, Illawarra etc etc.
8,000 members, and by this time next year, expect to see around 15/20 k and a growing sponsorship book into the millions.
That would indicate a breakthrough to me, what would it indicate to you.
February 19th 2011 @ 8:22pm
Jake said | February 19th 2011 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
You must be so pleased Koops that Sydney’s west has been won and is now AFL territory.
February 19th 2011 @ 8:35pm
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
I was just wondering, with all those signs up around Sydney that say “come play AFL”, is that for the average wage, like $100-150 000?
I don’t really like the game, and have never played it, but for that kind of money I would seriously consider it.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:03pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
If you dont really like the game, why the constant posting on Australian football threads ?, if your heart is not in it dont bother, that advice is free.
Swans give GWS a flogging, the Suns beat the Swans in a thriller, and the Suns beat off a improving GWS.
The GWS team we saw tonight will bear little if any resemblance to the team that runs out to play at Blacktown in the NAB cup next year.
I did hear the commentators state 15 thousand fans tonight, but it was a sellout.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:08pm
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
Because it’s about Western Sydney, and I’m from Western Sydney. Just thought you might like to know what the locals thought.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:12pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Everyone knows what you think, you post continually that you dont like the game of Australian football, 10 to 15 thousand people, many it seems from Sydneys west would disagree with you.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:23pm
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
So not liking the game means I can’t comment?
If the Herald Sun doesn’t like football, why doesn’t it just not write articles about it, and why do hundreds of AFL fans have to hop on board and give their view of why they don’t like the game?
Just providing an alternative voice so you don’t get lost in your delusional mainstream wonderland.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:32pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
When you are constantly posting that you dislike something, at any given oppurtunity, i would say that is bordering on obsessional, and why you would bring something up about the Herald Sun, football and soccer that has nothing to do with this topic, only seeks to further my point.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:36pm
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Whatever Koops, all of my comments on here have been light hearted banter, if you want all comments on here to be from people who are AFL fanatics like yourself then I will leave you to it.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:43pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Big difference between having a opinion, that leads people to question or see different points of view, to outright bitterness and hostility, there are many people who post on the Roar who dont really follow Australian football as their favourite sport, but they have decent coments !.
February 21st 2011 @ 1:37pm
Nick the second said | February 21st 2011 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
yeah but only 9000 to a game with two local teams and a third franchise with an ex-RL player … I just dont know if the GWS team will stand up on its own without constant injections from the AFL.
heck half the crowd would of been family and friends
February 20th 2011 @ 11:23am
punter said | February 20th 2011 @ 11:23am | Report comment
I have never seen it referred to British football, soccer yes, but never British football.
Football (soccer) being the world game, you would find this being called football in most countries in the world. Even if there is some countries where football is not the no 1 sport like India, China, Japan it is the no 1 football code & calls it football.
It’s only countries where football is not the no 1 football, where football has a different meaning to (soccer)
US & Canada call American football, football.
New Zealand calls Rugby, football.
Even Ireland where the no 1 code is debatable, there is Football, Gaelic football & Rugby.
And then there is Australia where the No 1 code is also debatable (as in there is 2 major football codes in this country). In AFL heartland it’s AFL that is called football in RL heartland, it’s generally though of that Rugby League is football, but (soccer) is also classified as football in Sydney.
February 21st 2011 @ 11:54pm
TCunbeliever said | February 21st 2011 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
And yet the president of FIFA calls it Association Football..
February 19th 2011 @ 4:19pm
Ben of Syd said | February 19th 2011 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
No code is going to take over another code. There will always be a cities favourite sport and then others. It annoys me that people don’t see this ‘code war’ for what it is – Bragging rights for Sydney or Melbourne. Thats what this is about. When I lived in Canada I saw the Calgary team (Canadian football) presented to the crowd at the Calgary Flames Ice Hockey game to cheers. People there follow more than one sport. Because AFL is Melbourne and NRL is Sydney nobody will ever drop their preference and change. An Ice Hockey team of Canadians playing for a franchise in Florida will never stop kids playing Gridiron down there. So I don’t think a team of Victorians playing for Western Sydney (living in Eastern Sydney) will ever stop kids playing league.
February 19th 2011 @ 5:02pm
Koops said | February 19th 2011 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Ok post, untill the last couple of lines, where you really slip up factually.
February 19th 2011 @ 9:52pm
Titus said | February 19th 2011 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
Good points Ben, don’t mind Koops, he just doesn’t like inconvenient truths.
February 20th 2011 @ 2:59pm
The_Wookie said | February 20th 2011 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
actually “sydney” people are the only people who see this as Melb v Sydney. AFL people already know that Australian Football is dominant and partly developed by people in South Australia/Western Australia/Tasmania as well, not to mention having a fairly good part of the territories.
There is not now nor has there ever been a codewar that wasnt started by the media or rubbish coming out of FFA HQ regarding the world cup. Most supporters just dont care.