I had the opportunity to attend the Western Bulldogs Vs Sydney Swans game at Manuka on Saturday. Let me state that I dislike Manuka as an AFL venue. While its quaint white picket fence and gum tree back drop reminds one of a footy game in the bush, it’s not really befitting of the modern AFL game.
In fact, your average footy game in Albury would have more atmosphere than Manuka generates. Witness the deathly silence when the umpire goes to bounce the ball to start the game.
One positive for Melburnians is that they get to have a bit of a look at their old MCG scoreboard which will bring back many memories.
Apart from that, Manuka, and Canberra generally, has very little to offer the AFL, and they should leave the city, and its bureaucrats, to the other codes.
The lack of understanding and appreciation for the Australian game in Canberra is only rivalled by one other city, and that is Sydney, who are on the verge of getting a second team, when they barely deserve the first one.
As luck would have it, through a friend of a friend, I managed to sit amongst the movers and shakers of the AFL and Canberra’s polite society, including our Deputy Prime Minister (a very intelligent woman who happens to be a Bulldogs supporter).
Despite feeling like a fish out of water, away from the great unwashed in the outer, I felt I had every right to barrack vociferously.
Directly in front of me sat the President of one of the teams doing battle out on the ground.
I do not wish to name names, but let us just say that it is unlikely he had attended too many games standing on the outer at the Western Oval on a dreary, cold Melbourne winter’s day.
Now, the former Footscray President, who predates David Smorgan (in case I need to be clear about it, I’m not referring to Smorgo above), was a gentleman by the name of Peter Gordon, a principle of the law firm, Slater and Gordon.
As it happens, our highly esteemed Deputy Prime Minister worked for a while with Slater and Gordon, and it was here that she was forcefully required to follow the Bulldogs as part of her condition of employment (and a good thing too, I say).
Now, Peter Gordon was someone who did understand barracking vociferously from the outer, and was perhaps the very best I have ever encountered.
In 1981, I was a part of a group of supporters that regularly stood on a spot on the wing where Peter Gordon could be heard mouthing wise words at the umpires and the opposition.
His very best efforts came whenever we played Carlton, and his socialist leanings would become quite evident as he layed into those Carlton capitalists from Toorak.
I can recall playing South Melbourne in 1981 and there were whispers about them moving to Sydney, so Peter yelled out the whole game: “C’mon Sydney.”
We all laughed, unaware that there was actually a lot of truth to the rumours.
So back to the top tiers of the Manuka Oval, and here I am following the lead of Peter Gordon (who was also present at the ground), and doing what all good barrackers do, hurling abuse at Barry Hall and company.
Harmless things like: “You’re useless Hall”, “Get a kick Hall” or my favourite, “He’s your man, Hall!!”.
Nothing offensive, nothing untoward, but I can assure you all this, it would have been very loud, especially if you were unlucky to be sitting directly in front of me, as this Club President was.
With the Swans trailing by 11 goals towards the end of the second quarter, I took the opportunity to make my personal feelings on a particular subject known to all and sundry, and I yelled out: “This is why Sydney needs a second team” (referring to the Swans’ pathetic attempts at looking like a football team in the first half).
This particular Club President took severe umbrage at what I had said, and turned around to me and called me: “a f@@k!!g idiot” (with no hint of humour, I might add, which would almost have made it acceptable).
What was the problem?
Ladies and gentlemen, I will tell you the problem. Sydney people don’t understand the great Australian game and most definitely do not understand its culture, history and rituals.
At that very moment, he was being a spokesman for the whole of Sydney, declaring Sydney’s ignorance of our game.
How on Earth can we consider a second team in Sydney when they barely deserve the one they have now?
And Richard, if you’re reading this, I’m really not a bad bloke!
Pippinu
Roar Guru
In one of the dailies today, I think it was the SMH, the current Blacktown Mayor is getting stuck into the ACT Governemnt for trying to hijack the 18th license, scoffing at suggestions about wearing different colours and having a name that is different to West Sydney. This is a very interesting development. Who would have thought that all of a sudden you'd get a bit of a contest for the make-up of the 18th license - it's certainly not something the AFL would be discouraging, although, it may point to a problem in terms of getting some consensu on the issue and building a viable brand.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Redb all good points, and yes you're right, it adds an extra element of intrigue to the FFA/AFL interests in all of WS, Canberra and Tassie. It something that I hadn't thought of before. With FFA already having given the green light for the 11th license to a second Melbourne team, you now have one spot for four pretty good candidates (albeit in at different stages of readiness). The three that lose out will have to sit tight for a while yet. Both WS and Canberra are well advanced of the other two for the 12 th license. If the FFA wasn't so ultra keen on WS, I think Canberra would have stitched up the deal by now - the ACT Govt is putting in something like $2.5 mill, which is decent money in anyone's language. If the FFA keeps the blinkers on and gives it to WS regardless, then I can see what you're saying, Canberra will be ripe for hitching to the 18th AFL license (and no doubt, will be hoping for a bit of the ACT Govt's largesse to be put into Manuka, the new club, or a bit of both. Whatever happens, the WS reserves will play in the ACTAFL, strengthening what is already a good standard comp, albeit a small one, currently with only six teams, and one of those is on life support.
Redb
Roar Guru
Pip, I agree you can't be all things to all people, but i think the AFL is sifting through the Western Sydney concept right now and found in the ACT Government a more than surprising interest. In my article on Western Sydney I expected the AFL to look at grass roots as one of the main criteria for establishing a team, well the Canberra, Riverina connections give them that. I was in Albury recently and AFL comp is huge, the Ovens-Murray League gets good crowds for its size, the league is covered by the Border Mail newspaper with the Ovens-Murray AFL comp getting front, middle and back pages. :-) Reading between the lines, the ACT Govt is saying to both the AFL and FFA who wants Canberra more? As you would know Canberra is bidding for the 12th licence in the A League and is up against Western Sydney and others. Now that Lowy has declared 12 teams for while not 14 teams, if Canberra or Western Sydney don't get the 12th licence it adds spice to the AFL's negotiations doesnt it? If FFA goes one way, the AFL could shore up in the other direction. Tasmania is also a bidder for both the AFL and FFA. Intruiging. This is a fluid issue but for the first time the Canberra connection is adding some building blocks to NSW's second team it's not just 'Western Sydney' anymore. Redb
Pippinu
Roar Guru
redb, MC the WS/ACT marriage makes much financial sense - but it doesn't really add up in other ways (as Westy has said, as a long time inhabitant of WS who is not against the idea). Interestingly, the Age article MC mentions also mentions the possibility of using the NSW/ACT Rams name, which we've discussed also somewhere on the Roar. On top of being a mouthful, there is the small issue of the rugby union side using the nick name "Rams", whether that's an impediment in a legal sense, I'm not sure - I know the U18 team of the same name has been around since the mid 90s. The NSW/ACT Rams idea does have the benefit of being the continuation of an existing team concept that already incorporates the Riverina and the ACT (from memory, the Rams name was an amalgam of such areas as the Riverina, ACT, Albury, Murray, Murrimbidgee, Sapphire Coast and Sydney - or parts thereof!)
Redb
Roar Guru
MC, Dan Silkstone is a soccer journalist, note the negative spin he places on the issue. If anything the ACT Govt involvement is a very good thing for the Western Sydney concept it adds some hope that Canberra may yet become part of the AFL landscape. The AFL has a real opportunity here, it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Redb
Michael C
Guest
Interesting the ACT govt has a sniff of some WS18 action: http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/canberra-rejects-afl-bid/2009/06/15/1244917985296.html THE AFL has been rebuffed in an attempt to secure more games in Canberra for the next two years as the ACT Government demands a significant stake in the planned western Sydney franchise in exchange for its investment. Again, as a North Melb supporter I lament that we didn't decide to make a proper commitment to the Wagga/Canberra/Albury tirangle - - the Murray/Murrumbidgee (or, 'little Victoria'!!!). At one point we have the foundation stones, playing 3 games a year in Canberra and the Murray Kangaroos as the 'VFL' team. I'd have loved, 10 years on, for North Melbourne to be the 'Hawthorn' of Canberra with 4 definite games a year and practice matches in Wagga and Albury.....
beaver fever
Roar Pro
Pip I have played footy at the highest level in the ACT and there was/is a huge gulf between the teams financial wise which nearly always translates to onfield sucess. (maybe Queanbeyan excepted). Ainslie, Eastlake and Belconnen(recently) are very financial clubs and are up there with the Southports of this world. Good money in the ACT for footy but having said that footy has drifted slowly from maybe the top footy code to the fourth so you are on the money there. The infrastructure as in big strong clubs who have plenty of money from pokies is a bonus to the AFL plans as well i would imagine some pollies who are interested in the australian game.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
beaver fever given that aussie rules is now probably the 4th strongest of the football codes in Canberra, some of the clubs in the ACTAFL comp are quite strong financially, and the standard of footy continues to be much higher than one would expect (I'd say at least as good a standard as Ovens and Murray). The Swans have thought it good enough to put their Reserves in it for the last 7 or 8 years. I was talking to a recent retiree from the ACTAFL, who continues to be heavily involved with one of the better clubs, and he told me the three 3 top clubs work on a wages budget of $400,000 to $500,000 per annum. This absolutely astounded me - and is unbelievable for what is essentially a 3rd tier comp in Australia (bearing in mind that the A-League salary cap is only about four or five times that figure).
beaver fever
Roar Pro
I think the GC has more chance of working than Western syd/ACT, although the ACT comp is the strongest in NSW and some of the clubs are as financially as well off as Southport footy club in QLD So it can work but there is a lot of work and luck needed. Quite a strong footy culture in ACT but really nonexistant in WS AS far as footy not being an australian game ...... well vegemite is australian... from Melboune to i think . not everyone likes it but its still an aussie icon
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Did Victorian rules really try??
Siren's Call
Guest
Neither Farnham or Victorian rules were embraced beyond Australia. Both tried and both failed. The "Australian Farnham League". Love it!
Captain Nemo
Guest
I gave my opinion on the question you asked, "Which footy code is more respresentative of Australia then?" I read and have just re-read your post about why AFL is more representaive of Australia. I think the whole arguement is stupid. The answer I gave is both right and wrong. It depends on where you are coming from!!! If I offended you on the small man syndrome, I appologise, it was meant to be lighthearted, please don't take offence. This debate about which sport is more Australian, who has the tougher, stronger, fitter athletes etc is in my opinion nothing less than ridiculous because there is no right answer. All sports have tough, strong (mental or physical) men and woman. Great Australians have played all types of sport both here and abroad. I will restate what i have said in previous posts, Australia seems to be the only country that I have noticed where too many people spend too much time publicly slagging off other sports while trying prove that their sport is the best/toughest/most popular etc. Regarding the question you asked, of course AFL is a massive sport in this country and obviously it represents alot of Australians in their love/passion for the game/ their club. I was just trying to make a point that you can look at that question like that from many ways and nobody is really correct. Regarding John Farnham sticking to Australia, probably a smart move!!
Michael C
Guest
Captain Nemo - what are you on about with personal inneundo like 'little man syndrome'? but by the Victorians that are running it. I thought I pointed out that between the chief executive position (the person prior to Demetriou was from Sth Aussie), and the independant commission that really runs the game (headed by a West Australian) that the game is NOT solely run by Victorians. You seem to be rattling off an 'objection' that MIGHT have been valid 15-20 years ago. Time to update yourself. Funny how you seem happily to be able to justify a dislike of an Australian game based on the city of it's origin and headquarters. That seems rather small minded - but, it reminds me of Cricket Australia - based in Melbourne, but, generally fly up to Sydney to make major announcements. It placates the small minded Sydney centric folk who find it very hard to take orders from someone NOT also from Sydney. Gee - - 200 odd years on, and they still think that Sydney is the colonial capital. Me thinx that if you really want to be turned off by the game then you will find a reason - no matter how petty. Heck - it looks like you have already. Are you sure you don't want to bemoan Cricket Australia with their Victorian (James Sutherland) in control down here in chilly Melbourne??? Who is AFL representing itself to??? The AFL is primarily a domestic code in a domestic market. Simple. A bit like how John Farnham pretty well stuck to Australia, whilst Kylie Minogue sought global fame and fortune. Which is the 'most representative' of those two? (should we even try to measure it??) The individuals of Australian origin overseas plying their personal trade - congratulations to them. Whether in sport or business. The vast majority of whom never get to play for the Socceroos or Wallabies or in the Davis Cup. What of it? There's also ex-pat Aussies all over the world who have played major roles in getting Australian footy played by nearing 50,000 participants. They 'represent' Australia too. They are fair dinkum people too. Does it only count if you're a professional sports person seeking better x-currency value on pay? Or, does it apply to people acting on a real love of their game and culture without financial reward or 'global' recognition (as much as that's worth is such a cluttered marketplace). I really don't see what you point is.
Captain Nemo
Guest
Micheal C; do you suffer from little man syndrome????Your post is a good reason why many people (in NSW and QLD) are and have been turned off by ,not the game of AFL, but by the Victorians that are running it. To answer your question, I would say that would have to be 1). football (soccer) 2)rugby and to a lesser extent league!!! Why?? Because these football codes have Australians playing in dozens of countries representing Australia and they way as Australians we are raised as fair dinkum people. Who is AFL representing itself to??? Other Australians!!! So to answer your question, football (the socceroos would have an audience globally of millions watching them being a representative Australia)
Michael C
Guest
Siren's Call - and the point is? btw - AFL clubs this year have over 700 listed and rookie listed players (many of the rookies have and are playing already). 46% from Victoria. There are 35 from NSW and 49 from QLD. The NRL has 16 clubs with 25 man rosters. About 20% from QLD and the other 80% mainly NSW. Which footy code is more respresentative of Australia then?
Siren's Call
Guest
http://www.playafl.com.au "A list of all resources on how people of all ages can Play AFL."
Michael C
Guest
Sirens call - as Rugby has it's roots in the school of Rugby - - it must be concidered only a game belonging to the school/town of Rugby, and soccer Football association was established as the London FA and that game must therefore be regarded a 'London' game. So, we have Rugby Football, London Football and Melbourne Football. Fine. Your logic is impeccable, I really can't fault it. btw - Is Rugby League therefore just an off shoot, or does it become the Bradford/Leeds/Yorkshire Football?? Is soccer still "London Football", or with FIFA HQ in Zurich - - surely that game is "Swiss"....woops, slipped up there....."Zurich Football". - - - - to be sensible - AFL is NOT a Melbourne Game. AFL is a league. AFL is a national league with 6 clubs from 4 states outside of Victoria and an extra 2 on the way. The VFL is and was a state based league (more correctly a Melbourne + 1 from Geelong) league in the old VFL days, and now, the VFL is more of a state based league with Bendigo and Ballarat represented. The WAFL and SANFL are NOT AFL. Up to this time, the SANFL, WAFL and VFL were free to play by 'local rules'. Even in Victoria, the VFA played 16 aside without any wings. Up until the formation of the AFL it was a no brainer that the GAME of Australian football belonged to all outside of the VFL. (the VFL and Melbourne liked to regard themselves importanly of course!!) You need to learn to differentiate (although the tab headings used by the editors of theRoar are HUGELY UNHELPFUL on this pont) between the 'AFL' as a league and administrative body and the game known as "Australian Football" that plays by the rules of "Australian Football". The game is NOT 'AFL'. The game is now administered by the AFL. Remember, the AFL administration has been headed by Wayne Jackson from South Australia. Variously the AFL rules of the game committee, or the AFL commission etc include members from other states. The present chairman of the commission is Mike Fitzpatrick, a Rhodes scholar from Perth who played WAFL and then captained Carlton. Does he count as being a non-Melbournian?? There's more, but, I have better things to do right now. Please accept without questioning ..... otherwise you remind us too much of the "But why" child.
Redb
Roar Guru
Siren's Call, Melbourne is in Australia therefore it is an Australian game. End of story. Redb
ren
Guest
sirens call i wasnt referring to the rules of the game but rather than style of the game played. for example the role of the handball in football was revolutionised by polly farmer (a west australian and later a geelong great). Sydney/SM last premiership was won with a team containing so many WAians that they were known as the swans. Alont these lines there have been so many great players and teams from outside victoria that for my mind is hard to overlook as having had an influence on the game we see every weekend around Australia. Dont forget that in the first state of origin game WA trounced th Vics by a lot (1977). At a junior level these different styles of play are particuarly evident. From personal experiences WA XVIII's play more of a running game when compared to victorian XVIII's possibly due to the size of the grounds. though this trend may be correcting itself since i played jnrs (05, dont forget we finish school at 17 because we are smarter than those in the east, ;)) There can be no argument that Victoria has dominated the development of Football but it is not solely responsible for the game we play today.
Siren's Call
Guest
So there we have it. AFL is a Melbourne game and not an Australian game at all. So its not unAustralian to not like AFL. It's unVictorian not to like AFL.