AFL football: wind the clock back to 1910
By Ian Whitchurch, 11 Jun 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Collingwood Magpies, Richmond Tigers
Related coverage
Roar guru Damo claimed earlier this week that Australian football is unrecognisable from what it was a hundred years ago. I think this is false.
Below is a slightly delayed report of the Collingwood-Richmond game of 22 August 1910, courtesy of the Melbourne Argus and the National Library of Australia.
See any similarities?
COLLINGWOOD BEATS RICHMOND: AN UNEVENTFUL GAME
When Collingwood and Richmond met at Victoria-park on Saturday, the latter were without their useful follower, Burke. In his place they had M’Cashnie, while Angus, who has been resting for several weeks, appeared once more in Collingwood colours.
At Victoria-park the wind, though not blowing at all directly to the river goal, considerably favoured that end, and on Richmond winning the toss, they had the use of it in the first quarter. Of the general play, it may be said that during that term Richmond, though having something of the advantage in kicking for goals, had in other respects very little gain as against Collingwood.
Of the Magpies, Lee got a shot early in the quarter, kicked badly, and the ball was carried out of bounds. As soon as it was thrown in again he snapped it up quickly, and scored the goal. The first for Richmond was got by Incignari from a long shot, and soon afterwards James got a second from a free kick, while Ohlson, as the result of a very fine mark, bagged the third.
At the end of the quarter Richmond had only had one try more than Collingwood, but they had three goals to one, and led by 11 points. In the second term Collingwood were attacking for the greater part of the time, but Richmond’s defence was always pretty sound, and they managed to keep their goal front clear for some distance out, and so forced Collingwood into the worst scoring positions.
In this way the home team, although having several shots in fairly quick succession, only had four behinds to their score, until Lee came to the rescue in scoring a goal from a mark, though he failed soon afterwards with a shot from a free kick. Then in quick succession Norris and Gilchrist scored goals for Collingwood, and, as a re sult of the first half, Collingwood had in points the equivalent of a three-goals lead.
So successfull was Collingwood’s defence right through the third phase of the game, that the scoring was light. Neither side were able to get a goal. Richmond practically lost whatever chance they had of the match by scoring only one point, while Collingwood got two. Even with a failing wind, there was never any doubt afterwards about the result. Gilchrist snapped a goal for Collingwood about two minutes after the quarter had started and then a remarkably fine mark by Schmidt, of Richmond, followed by an equally good shot, got their fourth goal.
Hughes chipped in with one for Collingwood, chiefly the reward of a good high-mark, and then Maybury scored again for Richmond with a free kick. At this stage Collingwood’s luck was bad, for both Norris and Gilchrist hit the goal-post, and this happened to them no less than four times during the match.
Just at the finish Oliver, who was somewhat lame, marked in front, and scored the eighth and last goal for Collingwood, who right through the day were always slightly the better team. Their wing play was superior to that of Richmond, whose best men in open football were always considerably hampered by the pack. Contrary to expectation, Richmond did their best work when play was fairly open.
Collingwood played so evenly that, to note individual effort, is not at all easy, but amongst their backs Scadden was always dashing, and Rowell valuable for his coolness. He scarcely made a mistake. M’Haile did very well on the centre, though on that line Gibb was, perhaps, their best man. Angus was not affected by his long rest, for he played really fine football, both as a half-forward and in the ruck, where Hughes was also a conspicuous man.
Ever Since Lee has been given greater freedom, he has proved an exceedingly useful man for Collingwood. In this instance he played well, both back and forward. His high-marking was very fine, and he scored three goals. Other useful men for Collingwood were Gilchrist, who looks like making a first-rate player; Oliver, and Baxter.
For Richmond several men who are usually very prominent were not notably so in this game, Mahony being amongst them. Of their backs, Gibson, Ellis, and Abbott were always doing sound work. Bowden was the best of their centre-line, and Incignari of value both forward and on the ball. Maguire roved fairly well; Ohlson and Thomas were hard workers in the ruck, and Herbert was also of great use.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- Record low AFL crowd for GWS home match (209)
- Giant challenges ahead for Greater Western Sydney (200)
- Three Sydney teams? Sheedy’s being greedy (184)
- Kevin Sheedy sticks by comments (143)
- Lack of accountability now haunts the AFL (125)
- Rules and umpires ruining the game (102)
- The AFL expansion story isn’t good enough (91)
- Fremantle Dockers vs Sydney Swans: AFL live scores, blog (65)
- Collingwood vs Geelong: AFL live scores, blog (72)
- Gold Coast Suns vs Western Bulldogs: AFL live scores
- Essendon vs Brisbane Lions: AFL live scores (6)
- Hawthorn vs GWS Giants: AFL live scores, blog (64)
- Bombers bank on big AFL game from Ryder
- Magpies will fight back in AFL, says Ball
- Fremantle Dockers vs Sydney Swans: AFL live scores, blog (65)
- Collingwood vs Geelong: AFL live scores, blog (72)
- Gold Coast Suns vs Western Bulldogs: AFL live scores (1)
- Essendon vs Brisbane Lions: AFL live scores (6)
- Hawthorn vs GWS Giants: AFL live scores, blog (64)
- Dockers can win the flag in 2013 (16)
- West Coast Eagles vs North Melbourne: AFL live scores, blog (138)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, Collingwood Magpies, Richmond Tigers

June 11th 2012 @ 8:55am
Cameron said | June 11th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Ian
“At the end of the quarter Richmond had only had one try more than Collingwood”
So yes, Damo was right, the game was unrecognisable from what it is today because it seems as though they were actually playing rugby 100 years ago.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:15am
Brewski said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I think you will find they had one more try at goal, as in attempt. Context please !.
June 11th 2012 @ 9:24am
Mark Roth said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
No, I read it as a rugby try and not a try at goal. Wasn’t this the same era when touring English rugby teams played friendly matches against Victorian teams without much effort on their part before heading north towards the rugby playing parts of the country?
June 11th 2012 @ 9:38am
Brewski said | June 11th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
No, you read it wrong then, the games you are thinking about against the English were in the 1880′s.
It was the style of writing, at the time.
Read it again, the previous paragraph explains it , Collingwood had 2 shots at goal, Richmond had 3, yet Richmond lead 3 goals to one .
Then read the next sentence,” Richmond had only had one try more than Collingwood, but they had three goals to one”
It clearly means attempts at goal, not trys as in rugby trys.
June 11th 2012 @ 6:32pm
The Cattery said | June 11th 2012 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
A series of such games were played through the 1870s right up to the late 1880s, and then no further, understandably.
Only the truly ignorant would try and make a big deal of such scratch matches, but the historical accounts make for some interesting reading.
From “More than a Game:
“….rugby gained a strong following there after the formation of the Southern Rugby Football Union (SRFU) in 1874. When the VFA was formed three years later it tried to establish intercolonial matches, but the SRFU rejected these advances on the ground that rules were ‘diametrically different’, preferring the prospect of intercolonial rugby matches agaisnt New Zealand.
“In defiance of the SRFU, the Waratah team decided to try its hand at the new code in order to ‘give the public an opportunity of deciding on the merits of the repsective styles of play’. Waratah invited Carlton to sydney for a series of matches under both codes, and while each club won the games played under its own code, the matches drew the largest football crowds ever recorded in Sydney. Moreover, those who saw both games were reported to be ‘unanimous in their preference of the game as played under Victorian rules’. Waratah visited Melbourne in 1878, and the success of htese matches led to the formation of the New South Wales Football Association in 1880.”
June 11th 2012 @ 10:47pm
Boomshanka said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:47pm | Report comment
TC
You quote ……”Unanimous in preference of the game as played under Victorian rules”. I beg to differ.
Below is a leter to the editor from the Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 534, 12 June 1879 from an individual who “was present at both matches”;
Interesting to note the alleged bias of the Melbourne paper then, and this gentlemen obviously did not prefer the game as played under Victorian rules.
Sir— l hope that you will find room in your valuable paper for the insertion of this letter. I royally feel myself, as a Rugby footballer of thirteen years’ standing, bound to champion the rules under which I have played against the cowardly and unprovoked attacks which are constantly made ou them in the Wellington papers by those who are attempting to introduce Victorian rules.
The terms “brute force,” ‘brutal,” “rough and tumble,” and others of a still more offensive nature, are continually applied to the Rugby Union game, whilst the Victorian game is lauded up in such expressions as “game of skill,” “scientific,” etc. Whilst, sir, I am quite willing to admit that a game under the Victorian rules, as played in Wellington, might take place in a crockery shop with perfect safety to the wares, yet I confidently assert that that game as properly played, is infinitely more dangerous than the Rugby Union game, and at the same time is infinitely less manly and worthy of a true Englishman, and I speak from an intimate knowledge of both games. The Victorian rules are simply Association with some objectionable additions, and a study of the English reporting papers will prove that more and more dangerous accidents occur in the Association than in the Rugby Union game.
Last year, the chief Rugby Union club in Sydney (the Waratahs) visited Melbourne and played the chief Melbourne club (the Carlton) two game?, at both of which I was present, the one under Rugby Union rules and the other according to Victorian rules. At the Rugby Union match between 6000 and 7000 people were present and no accidents occurred. At the game under the Victorian rules there were about 5000 spectators, and Mr. Gill, the Carlton captain, had his thigh broken, Melville (Carlton) was badly cut in the eye, and Lee (Waratahs) was disabled by an injury to his arm. These particulars are taken from the account of the matches in the Melbourne Argus, written by a person who was very much, prejudiced in favor of the Victorian game.
I leave the public to judge for themselves, In conclusion, I may state that I prefer a manly breast-to- breast game in which strength and pluck are requisites to one in which any weakling can excel, and to advance which its votaries have to resort to underhand and ungentlemanly means. I am, & One who has played both games
June 11th 2012 @ 10:59pm
The Cattery said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
I note the letter writer mentions the Wellington papers. A man 134 years ahead of his time.
With these sorts of historical accounts, if you want to find individual accounts that back up your current perceptions as seen through modern eyes, no doubt, you will find them.
June 12th 2012 @ 12:01am
Norm said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:01am | Report comment
That writer played RU for 13 years, so had a natural bias. I didn’t realize Emric was that old
June 12th 2012 @ 12:03am
Brewski said | June 12th 2012 @ 12:03am | Report comment
@TC, pointed the same thing out to BS in another thread, he posted the exact same letter, must make winter in Victoria more bearable for him. LOL.
According to the above letter, I note that BS prefers a manly breast to breast game, rather than games that weaklings play.
Reminds me of Jamal Idris again.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/puppy-fat-or-a-saggy-dogs-story/story-e6frexni-1225702277122
June 12th 2012 @ 11:01am
The Cattery said | June 12th 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Brewski
you’ve closed off the loop on that one very nicely, well played.
June 12th 2012 @ 1:30pm
Boomshanka said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
TC
Hardly through modern eyes: Here is a person who was in attendance at both games and was independent of the local media reports of the time, which in his opinion were very much prejudiced.
Correct Brewski, I’d posted this on an earlier thread, however it is very relevant to TC’s post from “more than a game” as it is from the very same game.
Unanimous is defined as everybody is of the same mind. Clearly it wasn’t unanimous that everybody who saw both games preferred the one played under Victorian rules.
June 12th 2012 @ 2:36pm
Brewski said | June 12th 2012 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
And here is the response on 16th June 1879
FOOTBALL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING POST. Sir—
Allow me space to reply to the letter 01 One who has played both games,” which appeared in your issue of yesterday. In that letter he speaks of an attempt to Introduce the Victorian rules. The attempt has succeeded, at all events, inasmuch as the Reform Football Club of Wellington, which plays under those rules, numbers considerably over 100 members, or more than all the other clubs id this city together. He further states that the Victorian game is infinitely more dangerous than the Rugby Union game. This I altogether deny, and I speak with certainty, for I have played the game in Victoria for many years. He mentions as an example of the dangerous character of the Victorian game the fact that M Gill, or Gill, as he calls him, had his thigh broken, Melville his eye cut, and Lee his arm hurt, in a match played by the Carlton Club (Melbourne) against a Sydney club (the Waratabs) i was a witness of that match, and confidently assert that the accidents occurred solely through the carelessness and roughness of the Sydney men, who could not divest themselves of their rough and tumble and scrimmage-loving qualities.
Look at the long list of accidents wbich have happened under the Rugby game in New Zealand. It is well known that broken limbs, broken collar-bones blackened eye, and dislocated joints are not uncommon, and it is unusual to see a Rugby game played anywhere without some such accidents attending it. Sir Thomas Elyot thus wrote concerning football in England a game wherein is nothing but*beastly fury and violence, whereof proceeds hurt, and consequently rancour and malice remain with them that be wounded, wherefore it is to be put in perpetual sflence.” The game has not changed materially since that sentence was written.
It is not the case that the Victorian rules are the Association rules with some objectionable additions, as anyone who will take the trouble may know. The Victorian rules were framed in Victoria and are essentialy Victorian
It is the decided opinion of all who know the Victorian game that it fs not a bit less manly and worthy of a true Englishman or colonist than the other, else how comes it that none but the former game is played in Victoria, which has been described as the “great cradle and home of football in the southern hemisphere Surely no one will call the Victorians and their game molly coddle,” as some Rugby players here call the Reform players of Wellington
The statement that the Reform Football Uub resorts to underhand and ungentlemanly means to advance its game is alike untrue and unjust, and the writer of the letter must have been aware, when he penned that passage, that he was writing what he knew to be untrue.
II have no desire to be on any but friendly terms with the Rugby Clubs, and do not wish to force the Victorian game upon anyone, but when I see that game and the players of it in this city attacked and cried down fn the columns of a newspaper, i feel bound to defend them as far as i am able, so that wrong impressions are not put forth to the public and and much injury done thereby.
This letter is longer than I had antlcipated, but i trust you will find space for it in your columns.
A.Sandilinds, Captain Reform Football Club Wellington, 13th June, 1879
June 12th 2012 @ 2:44pm
Brewski said | June 12th 2012 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=EP18790616.2.14&srpos=36&e=——-10–31—-0victorian+game++rugby–
Here is the link for anyone interested.
June 12th 2012 @ 8:23pm
Brewski said | June 12th 2012 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
Very interesting to note that the pretty uniformed and ignorant letter from the rugby player of 13 years came a couple of weeks after a game of Victorian Rules football was played under lights at the Basin Reserve.
This game was the first football game played under lights in NZ.
Sounds very familiar to me, Australian football shows some initiative, forsight, other football codes get jealous, this guy is just a olden day David Gallop riding into Wagga, or Phil Gould taking another pot shot.
Anyway here is the article.
A football match will be played at the Basin Reserve to-night, the ground being illuminated by the electric light. The proceeds will be devoted to the funds of the Lunatic Asylum. The following are the names of the players Blacklock (2), Bachman, Barett (2 Clark, Davis, Knight, Kirker, MKenzie, Maxtor?, Ludwig, Page, Regg, Robinson, W. Sandilands (.captain), Salmon 12), Wymond, DR Gillon, and Randell.
The following members of the Reform Football Club will represent Te Aro:— Asher. Bentley, Butts, Bishop, Bariley, Cameron, Christie, Campbell, Danks, Forsyth, A. Gray, J Gray, G. Gray. Hill, Haugbton, Jiiggar, C. Kemble, R. Kemble. M Dermott, Row, F.E Sandiands, Stubbs (captain), and Scheer.
The match is under the patronage of His Excellency the Governor and Lady Robinson As this is the first occasion on which the electric light has been exhibited in Wellington there will doubtless be a large crowd present.*
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=EP18790530.2.8&srpos=134&e=——-10–131-byDA—0night+football+basin+reserve+football–
June 13th 2012 @ 11:41am
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Fantastic links there Brewski.
It’s truly remarkable. 133 years on, we cop the same whinging and bouts of jealousy of the modern day forms of Gill.
June 13th 2012 @ 4:08pm
Brewski said | June 13th 2012 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Yes, i found some of the articles extremely interesting, and there are plenty more, what grabbed me the most though, was the fact that a game of Australian Football was the first football game in NZ,
(Basin Reseve in Wellington) played under lights.
That IMO is a pretty impressive initiative by a local football club in 1879.
June 13th 2012 @ 4:21pm
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Yeh – it’s quite incredible – if I’m not mistaken, the first game under lights in Victoria happened in the same year.
June 14th 2012 @ 4:51pm
Brewski said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
@TC, I have done some research, and from what i can gather this football game at the Basin Reserve in Wellington was the first football game of any code played under lights in the Southern Hemisphere.
The following is a clipping from papers past NZ, ……….
A novel sight will be witnessed on the Basin Reserve on Friday, when the Reform Football Club will play a match by the electric light, the proceeds being devoted to the benefit of the Lunatic Asylum. Football matches by the electric light are by no means uncommon at home now, but, as far as we are aware, this is the first exhibition of the kind that has taken place in the colonies. The Reform dub deserve great credit for their enterprise, and the entertainment should attract a large number of spectators. Hi* Excellency the Governor and the Hon. Lady Robiuson have signified their intention of being present.
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=EP18790528.2.12&cl=search&srpos=131&e=——-10–131-byDA—0night+football+basin+reserve+football–&st=1
Note the date in early June, according to some links i have found, the earliest date for night football in Melbourne was August …… Aug 6: First match played at night using electric light: Collingwood Artillery and East Melbourne draw in front of 12,000
June 14th 2012 @ 5:02pm
Brewski said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
The sentence …”Football matches by the electric light are by no means uncommon at home now”. ….threw me at first, but i reckon it must mean the UK. ?.
June 14th 2012 @ 5:06pm
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
Definitely – I took it to mean that – you can imagine that in 1879 “home” meant exactly that.
June 11th 2012 @ 11:57pm
Norm said | June 11th 2012 @ 11:57pm | Report comment
Cattery – Is “More Than A Game” the book written by Prof Ian Turner?
June 12th 2012 @ 11:02am
The Cattery said | June 12th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Norm
I’ll check tonight, it’s still sitting on my desk at home – from memory, it includes a number of writers.
June 13th 2012 @ 10:31pm
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
Norm
The book I quoted from is “More than a Game”, edited by Rob Hess and bob Stewart, with foreword by Martin Flanagan.
The book comprises a series of essays, I quoted from the second essay: ‘The Victorian Football Association in control, 1877-1896′ by Robin Grow.
June 12th 2012 @ 7:17pm
Jaredsbro said | June 12th 2012 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Yes well all the historical accounts really prove is that those disliking of Victorian rules preferred its main competitor (not necessarily in real terms in Victoria as Soccer was probably the next strongest, but in ideological terms ie a handling but running/passing code vs a handling but kicking code) and the fan of Victorian effectively had his mind made up already…a kind of tolerant pseudo-pluralism, something like what you get in the Labour Party these days.
By the way I’ve heard of the scientific argument by Soccer fans in the UK at around the same time and American Football fans at the same time in the US
Also nothing’s really changed has it. Victorians still come out in insane numbers, but they do so because they are one of the few regions on the earth which have a code (of their own making) and are good enough at it to say everyone else who plays them is just a sore loser.
June 11th 2012 @ 7:17pm
The Cattery said | June 11th 2012 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
As for the English, frrom “More than a game” again:
“As early as 1879 it was proposed that English football teams visit the Australian colonies for matches. According to the Australasian of 23 August 1879, the key to the financial success of such a visit was to play matches in Victoria, where football consistently drew large crowds. Victorian crowds, however, would only turn up to see visiting teams if they attempted to play some matches under the local rules, which the locals regarded as superior to those of other codes.
“It was not until 1888 that an English rugby team made the trip. It was planned that the visitors should play some matches against local teams under Victorian rules before playing a series of rugby matches in New South Wales. Despite intense coaching, they were unable to master the basic skills of the Australian game. Ther Victorian tour proved financially disastrous, so they cut it short and headed to Sydney.”
June 11th 2012 @ 2:21pm
Ian Whitchurch said | June 11th 2012 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
“Of the general play, it may be said that during that term Richmond, though having something of the advantage *in kicking for goals*”
Important bit between the stars.
June 11th 2012 @ 10:40am
Brewski said | June 11th 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Victoria Park was always one of the smaller grounds, so it stands to reason that more packs would form, one of the reasons Collingwood left was because the ground was considered too small come finals time at the bigger MCG, there was always plenty of talk of extending the ground at the Yarra end, although i doubt it was a factor, or talked about in 1910.
Victorian football was also played in much smaller grounds (usually) than WA football for example, and WA teams have always been considered to play more open, free flowing football than their Victorian cousins who played in far more wintry, slippery conditions.
Football back then (1910) IMO was lots of packs broken by open play rather than the alternative, the drop punt wasn’t used as much, players were not as fit etc .
The 1980′s,90′s were when AF was at it’s open best IMO.
June 11th 2012 @ 1:31pm
TW said | June 11th 2012 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
The game was played in the 1860`s and 1870`s as two packs of players chasing the ball around rough rectangle fields with 2 posts either end – Sound familiar – Then in the mid 1870`s field positions appeared with 20 players incl 4 ruckmen no reserves and 4 posts – Behinds not counted in the score. – Then cricket ovals were utilised in this period with small flags as boundary.
Geelong in the 1880`s improved the quick breakaway from the packs to the forward line. All of the above developments slowly evolved over time.
The style of play of today could be altered as per Sheedys suggestion to having no kicking backwards and 3 players in the 50 metre arc at all times.
Partick Smith in the Australian has been running articles on the rugby type mauls for several days now and he does not like it. I am surprised this forum has not discussed this topic before
However this topic may depend on how old you are – 50 or under.
June 13th 2012 @ 11:48am
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
I’m not a fan of congested play, especially in the manner that Ross Lyon coaches his team. It’s inevitable that some sort of change will occur because of the insane distances players are able to cover in the modern game, aided by incessant interchanges.
The fact is that rugby has evolved to have very strict rules about mauls and scrimmaging, and Australian Football does not have such strict rules, so when the game descends into a rugby-style scrimmage, it in fact is descending into something that is poorer than the best offered by both codes.
You can never eliminate congestion entirely – but we have to reduce it to tolerable levels – and the way Ross Lyon, and others, coach their teams, it is far from tolerable.
Heaven help us if Lyon manages to bring some success to the Dockers playing in that manner.
June 11th 2012 @ 2:25pm
Norm said | June 11th 2012 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Amazing read!
June 11th 2012 @ 4:50pm
Republican said | June 11th 2012 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
I believe the code was more akin to rugby in those early years as it had not yet defined itself in any distinctive way as it resembled a mish mash of various football influences.
I read an interview with Jezza that took plce last week, while he was in his home town for a reunion of his old footy club, Eastlake.
One of the questions asked of him was whether or not he thought the game had changed. Jezza, like myself believed it was almost unrecognisable from the days he supported and played ‘footy’ and drew an analogy with Union, i.e. to say the code is looking more and more like a ground level grovel that will require structures i.e mauls and scrums to be put in place, in order to deal with this evolution. Perhaps this also stands the code in good stead, in respect of appealing to Kiwis as the AFL try to sell their product to this rugby mad market
The other thing Jezza said that resonates with me is that the AFL can never promote themselves as truly national until Tassie, the ACT and the NT are represented in the league, rather than expanding to demographics with NO footy DNA i.e. GWS and GC and of course now – NZ.
Jezza, as with me, doesn’t even watch the AFL these days for the same reasons, but unlike me and quite ironically, prefers to watch Union.
June 11th 2012 @ 5:09pm
Brewski said | June 11th 2012 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
In 1910 the code was very distinctive from rugby, BTW do you ever get sick of prattling on about NZ, no-one cares you know, and are you seriously suggesting that the GC has no footy DNA, it has plenty of footy history.
June 12th 2012 @ 1:55pm
The Cattery said | June 12th 2012 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
I read that interview from Jezza – to be honest, he embarassed himself, but he has never been the sharpest tool in the toolshed.
For him to honestly think that the game was faster in his day shows that he is completely ignorant of the game in the modern age.
In fairness to Jezza, maybe he hasn’t recovered from the time Stan Magro smashed his face in:
June 11th 2012 @ 5:48pm
Brewski said | June 11th 2012 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Interesting that in this 1910 newspaper clipping they mention Collingwood champion and AFL hall of famer Dick Lee who kicked over 700 goals for the Pies, and also was a VP of the football club untill the mid 1950′s
His father Wal Lee was involved and played for Brittania football club in the 1880’90s , that was a club involved in the setting up of Collingwood FC , Wal lee was then head trainer of Collingwood of Collingwood for 50 years till 1942.
Thats some father and son involvement.
Lee headed the VFL goal kicking list in 1910 with 58 goals.
June 11th 2012 @ 6:16pm
Jeff Dowsing said | June 11th 2012 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Attempting to draw any comparison based on a newspaper report on one game is a bit of a stretch.
So far as the rugby style mauls blighting the game right now, I like Rohan Conmolly’s simple proposition that the umpires call the ball up (or free kick) quickly so as to not provide the teams the opportunity to get all their players within 80 meters of the ball. Sure beats the ludicrous ideas eminating from KB who should know better.
June 12th 2012 @ 10:42am
Pope Paul VII said | June 12th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Check out Dicky Lee’s screamers ( and amazing photography ) if you are thinking it is a different game.
June 14th 2012 @ 8:56am
Republican said | June 14th 2012 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Cat
Faster today true but this does not mean better or more skillful. Frankly, todays game is a frenetic ground level contest that resembles Brittish Bulldog at its best yet the code still promotes itself on the big speccies and clean open play – even blind freddy can see that this is not the reality.
Jezza has more cred than you or I to be commenting I would expect and especially in respect of any expansion which on the subject I agree with a recent comment that this selling off home games needs to be nipped in the bud while bankers i.e. yourself and Ian are encouraged to divert their virtuless interest to the stock exchange.
Brew, I never tire of integrating any NZ context, simply because it is incidiously at play all the time and stands to trump my footy heartland next expansion so in that respect this is quite relevant to most threads here.
DNA is all relative, so the ACT, Tassie and NT have a longer and more illustrious one than GC or GWS to be sure, while NZ speaks for itsself! Based on merit alone, the former three deserve stand alone teams by now, while it is insulting to be mooting the latter in the same breath.
June 14th 2012 @ 5:00pm
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
The high marking and open play is still valued, but it’s just much harder to manufacture with the improved defensive skills and strategies in the modern game.
June 16th 2012 @ 3:28pm
Republican said | June 16th 2012 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
You know what CAT, sumo wrestling is skilful as well.