AFL takes big strides into Western Sydney

I have never known the different One channels to ever differ in scheduling. For ratings purposes they are combined. When 10 and One show the same program their ratings are also combined.

OneHD....who knew? was it also on One digital Standard Def??

Yep - these are the ABS ones. And yep, QLD looks a bit like NSW, however, I was being tongue in cheek about rattling off an interpretation of the NSW only figures that had been linked to. I'll see if I can find these state break downs at boys only and girls only levels.

Brissie Kid - of interest......or not!!, I found a great website where you can peruse the Melbourne Argus newspaper from 1848 to 1954, the first article I stumbled across from 1925 referring to Collingwood and Essendon refers to an article from 1862 that describes a game b/w Collingwood and Essendon clubs - - however, these clubs became defunct.....only for new Collingwood (1892) and new Essendon (1871) to emerge. Noting the wikipedia link doesn't mention these clubs - whilst it lists many others from around the world that became defunct. I might have to add a few more Melbourne based clubs to the table. bugger it all - I might get addicted to this site. Ruddy brilliant!!.

THough Chris, although there was 10K at the game, it seems people didn't really care unless they were actually at the game given the ratings (and yes it was live into Sydney on OneHD). 25 2010 NAB Cup – Sydney V Carlton Ten 264,000 14,000 152,000 15,000 40,000 45,000 14K???? Pretty poor reallly. So all up 24K people in a city of 4mil where interested. Well done AFL!

Your right it is strange, i do recognise that RL has been a great part of NSW/QLD sporting history, but in my defence my post was a responce to AL's post stating that Australian Football will never be big in NSW because it originated in Victoria, in effect using his own stupid theory against him.

This is the weakest line of argument of any of the 'code war' arguments, I cannot believe AFL folk persist with it. As you find it strange for Australians to embrace the Rugby codes, is it also 'strange' that I am writing this post in English? Is it also 'strange' that I watched my country play cricket last night while eating fish and chips? What about Christianity, our Westminster system of government, that cup ot tea I had this morning - should I feel ashamed of my own cultural heritage and look to the almighty AFL to enlighten me of my true Australian Culture?

Are these the ABS ones? And QLD looks a lot like NSW too me in those stats!

I have to point out that although this post (above post) has been voted on and deemed poor, it was in responce to Al's post that has since been moderated by the roar, my post did not need to be moderated but now will be read in the wrong context. Getting voted down by the readers does not worry me, but having my post read in then incorrect context does.

No not at all - however, given that we so often get people trying to tell us that Aust Footy means nothing to 55% of the population - - what I'm trying to show is that on the basis of this survey that outside of NSW - the 'national profile' is very different to NSW itself. Now - - RL for example, nationally rates at 3.6%, therefore, with 1/3rd national pln in NSW at 6.7%, makes up 2.23 of the national % pts. That leaves 1.367 for the other 2/3rs and gives a 2.05% participation rate outside of NSW. So, NSW is almost at odds with the rest of Australia!!! Okay, we don't have the QLD figures here. Okay - got it, state by state breakdown - for all girls/boys combined (and remember - the limit was 3 sports per child - but was supposed to be OUTSIDE of school). Aust Football --- Soccer --- RL NSW : 2.0% --- 17.7% --- 6.7% Vic : 18.5% --- 6.0% --- 0 QLD : 3.0% --- 15.6% --- 6.1% SA : 16.2% --- 9.2% --- 0 WA : 13.1% --- 11.8% ---0.4% TAS : 10.0% --- 19.1% --- 0 NT : 8.2% --- 12.7% --- 2.0% ACT : 3.4% --- 18.3% --- 4.9% All : 8.6% --- 13.2% --- 3.6% Obviously the figures look different when you break down boys vs girls. As was illustrated in the 2003 - 2009 figures where soccer for boys fell from 22.2% to 19.9% whilst girls rose from 4.2% to 6.2% and overall the total soccer was 13.4% to 13.2%.

Impossible.

On that basis – - one can suggest that NSW people just don’t seem to realise that they are the nations soccer island, and that Aust Footy is actually a higher pariticpation base (even including girls) outside of NSW (including QLD). So, hardly just ‘Victorian’…..it’s more that it’s just not ‘NSW’. Are you trying to tell me AFL is a bigger participation sport than Football in QLD? Where did you get such stats?

We tried to get tickets but was sold out weeks before the game.... so yes it was a sell out 10K is not a big crowd for an AFL game - that's what RL people don't seem to understand.... it was a good sign for AFL in GWS area...

Simmo - please note how long I resisted.....or, that I have better things to do when at home (but not so when at work?!?!?!? - - todays a quiet day actually). anyway - firstly those stats are lifted from a national survey - - so, aren't actuals. Secondly, that same national survey shows for boys that Australian Football is up to 16% and overall at 8.6%. Given that NSW comes in with Aust Footy not showing with the cut off at 3.3%, just goes to show that outside of that population of NSW, i.e. in the other 2/3rds of the country - that Aust Footy is huge. Meanwhile, outdoor soccer for boys/girls in the NSW figure is 17.7%, compared to the national figure of 13.2%. On that basic, using NSW as 1/3 of nat population, NSW accounts for 5.9 National percentage points of the national 13.2 figure. Outside of NSW - that puts the boy/girl participation at 10.95% for the other 2/3s of the nation to make up the remaining 7.3 percentage points. Aust Footy - let's assume a 'high' figure of 3% in NSW. If it IS that high, then, that accounts for 1 national percentage point - which leaves 7.6 for the other 2/3s of the nation to make up - and that gives a participation rate of 11.4%. On that basis - - one can suggest that NSW people just don't seem to realise that they are the nations soccer island, and that Aust Footy is actually a higher pariticpation base (even including girls) outside of NSW (including QLD). So, hardly just 'Victorian'.....it's more that it's just not 'NSW'. How's that Simmo???? I hope I didn't disappoint. (of course, noting that Aust Footy has some very good pariticipation in regions of NSW - such that if the survey extrapolates too much based on Sydney heavy survey results then the assumptions over the Riverina for example will be misleading)

The venue has a 10,000 licensed capacity, you don't need 'allocated' seats to be able to be ticketed. As if authorities would permit it to be allowed to carry so many people that someone such as yourself would be unable to spy any green grass on the embankment........

Sell Out? There were no allocated seats in 90% of the park, sit where you like and spread a blanket and still plenty of green spaces on the hill from what I could see of 10's lengthy report on the game. They stopped "selling" tickets when they knew they couldn't get any more to come, even with all the free tickets.

If you've stuck with me through all that, BK, you deserve a medal!!!!! my main premise is that - history is murky at the best of times. - - - and back then, when transport and communications were so limited - - the entire notion that some people try to project upon clubs playing organised sport is, most likely, fanciful. After all, these are pre telephone, pre railways, pre factories act etc, sport for many if anything was once a year on a festival day, or, for the lads at public schools. Once a year variants? The things that Melbourne had over the rest of the world: -Young city - in the mid 1850s was just 20 odd years old - - therefore, no establishment so to speak - - no inbred hatreds etc other than what people brought with them. No instutional pre-disposition to any form of game over another. -was a free settler city, almost an illegal settlement and NOT a penal colony -benefitted from the at the time richest alluvial gold field and became at the time about the wealthiest city in the world -expanded at a rapid rate with peoples coming from a broad variety of backgrounds (diluting the British 'imperial' influence) -established the 8 hr day in 1856 -legislated free time along with wealth - helps very much in driving 'recreation' for adults rather than 'discipline' instilling games for school boys. -lots of flat land I often refer to a fellow, Richard Twopenny - I'll link here to a RL1908 reference to him: it is perhaps worth mentioning that an 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. Main thing is - what happened in Melbourne from 1858 onwards was not begged/borrowed from others - but, was forging ahead in glorious isolation. In the main. Given that Melbourne was subject to huge growth rates (of immigration).

Oh I see.

What a long-winded attempt to justify your misguided position! You argue that in Melbourne the lack of formal assocation may be overlooked in concluding a "code" exists, yet everywhere else in the world cannot acclaim to have a "code" until it has formed a collective assocation. You've given us no evidence that every club in Victoria was playing to the same rule book. You refuse to acknowledge these clubs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_football_clubs#Timeline.2C_1824_.E2.80.93_1870 because no "code" existed, even though the rest of the planet accepts they were playing variants on what would become soccer and what was rugby. Association football (1863) is the first and oldest football code. Victorian rules (1877) languishes behind rugby (1871) too.

btw - the notion of clubs per se - - - even if we look at the founding clubs of the FA in London in 1862-63, the history of most is very, very vague - - and, the obvious point is - they were NOT playing an existing code - otherwise, there'd've been no need for the meetings to nut out a single set of rules. a quick example of the founding clubs: Barnes club for example - do they date back to 1839? or 1858? and they ended up a Rugby club anyway. Crusaders, Surbiton - an Assoc Football club, seemingly founded 1863 and now defunct, Crystal Palace - founded 1861? not related to the modern day club founded in 1905 basically, rattle through the founding clubs of the FA in London in 1862/63 and either they didn't exist prior, and or didn't stick with it and or had very vague pre-histories - - - - - hardly the basis for claiming that Melb and Geelong (2 of the greatest and oldest football clubs of any code in the world) were looking too hard in their direction for ...... direction. That Blackheath (note - was a school 'club') attended the 6 London meetings from Oct to Dec 1862 indicates that they too were seeking a single set of rules for all to play by...and given that Richmond club played the first match by FA rules..that it took until 1871 for Blackheath and Richmond to call upon other like minded clubs who had rejected the FA rules to finally get together and write up their own rules - illustrates again that certainly prior to 1862 and definitely in 1858/59 in Melbourne - that there was no clear 'Rugby' or 'Soccer' to copy off. The suggestion that there were existing clubs/codes to borrow off is insulting and ignorant - basically. Noting the FA Cup was not held until 10 years after the Melbourne Caledonian cup had first been played for. I don't see that I'm being overly naughty at all!!!!!! Problem seems that a lot of people imagine the codes they know and love to have fallen from the sky packaged and ready to go!!!! ;-)