Australian football's loss is also a blow for AFL

And maybe make it 'simple' for them to try and understand it too!!

Classic. Steal athletes from other sports to prop your game up. But then again, you have no other countries to which you can compare the skills of your athletes, so focussing on the AFL skill set, whatever that is, isn't such a big priority as it is with just about every other sport. Securing dominance in Australia by suffocating other sports is the most important objective. I've played Aussie rules, soccer and Union. Soccer is a hard game to play well. Union is also hard to play well and physically tough. Personally, playing Aussie rules left me with an empty feeling, with players constantly shying away from the contact, and rewards for being unable to control the ball. And I grew up in Victoria and WA. Give the kids choices. Many will come to the same conclusions I have. Maybe many more than you would be willing to accept. Aussie rules is half the skill of soccer and half the toughness and a fraction of the discipline of rugby. By all means, the AFL can try to take Australia. Even if it succeeds, its position won't last.

AC - things that make this topic murky include that Barnes club is supposedly one of the oldest Rugby clubs - and yet, was involved in the founding of the Football Association and Barnes club member Ebenezer Morley is considered the father of Assocation Football. The first game under FA rules included the 'club' Richmond which was a founding member in 1871 of the Rugby Football Union. That other RFU foundation clubs were involved in the 1862/63 FA meetings in London illustrates that they shared the frustration of the lack of a single or agreed set of rules. That through the 1860s, those teams preferring a 'handling' style of football were still bickering around the finer details. What it does look like is that the most common element was uncommoness!!! Personally, all that matters was that in Melbourne in 1858, no one idea or attempt stood out form the crowd so to speak - - if it had of, then, the local rules would not have been needed. Simple as that. That the same conundrum was inflicting football in London to drive the FA formation illustrates that this was a broader issue. There were clearly variations of variations. Rugby school rules were clearly variation in themselves. Now I'm rambling.

Hey AC that's a sane and reasonable conclusion.

Here are some facts: * The first rugby rules were written down around 1845. * The first Australian rules were written down around 1859 as a set of rules to be played by the MFC. * Games based on rugby rules were played throughout the period up until 1871 when the Rugby Union was created * Games based on Australian rules were played throughout the period up until 1877 when the first Australia football association (SANFL) was created. Some other points to consider: * When the VFA was formed, the number of players on the field per team was 20, not 18. * Rule variations existed between the VFA and SANFL from the beginning and persisted for a very long period of time. * It's about 24 years of RUGBY clubs playing intra and inter-club games. Many of these clubs don't exist anymore, and until some evidence is found to the contrary, the hardline stance is that "the code was born in 1871 when the first common laws were agreed to". Frankly I think that it's a rediculous assertion. Is it conceivable that rules were written down by rugby clubs, to be played at that club, prior to the formation of the rugby union? Absolutely. * According to Australian Football historians, if one club writes down their rules then that's the definition of the code. No? It has to be more than one club? Oh, St. Kilda FC also played by them, though we know that they didnt' followed them to the letter all the time (interpretations were added on the day by the captains). Is it conceivable that more than one rugby club shared a common written rule set with variations before the formation of the rugby union? Absolutely. In my opinion the DNA of the game of Australian rules footbal was created at Melbourne Football club. It evolved until the common rules of the game were created with the SANFL. Likewise, the DNA of the games of Rugby Union, Rugby League and American Football were created at Rugby school and evolved until their common rules were established. You've got to judge them by the same standards, either when version 1 of the rules were written or when their respective associations were formed. Whether the v1 rules were appropriate for all clubs from the outset is, I think, irrelevent.

Piccasso005. The other problems associated with the West Coast Eagles attempt to build a 70,000 seat stadium, at tax payers, expense it all the other codes have rejected the present oval as unsatisafactory for their sports. They have chosen Members Equity Stadium as their prefered stadium as it is a football stadium. It is being upgraded. So 1 billion dollars to buid a stadium that will be used by two AFL teams and that is it. The rental alone will drain the coffers of both AFL clubs. There has also been a world wide trend to build smaller stadiums that cost less to build, maintain and operate. The SA governemtn has , to the horror of AFL and Adelaide crows decided to build a 55,000 mulit purpose stadium. AFL are not happy with that.. Also it is not a good look to have, as happens in Melbourne, to have a 100,000 seat stadium with 30,000 or less in it. As the NRL found out when it moved from the SFS to ANZ it got a greater crowd but only came out fiancially about the same as the demand for tickets was always restricted at the SFS so they could charged a premium for the product. As my brother, who has lived in the west for 2 decades has stated to me , the demographics of WA support of sport has changed and is changing. The AFL and WCE do not have the sway as they did and other sports needs are now being considered equally with the needs of WCE and Freo which is to the annoyance of the WCE who are the big bullyies in the west and are being brought to their knees by the chaging denographics and sensible governence. On the subject at hand I see neither AFL or NRL losing out on grounds in NSW 3 stadiums ar being upgraded as I type. All rectangle. In QLD there is a proposal to build a new stadium for the entry of Central Qld into the NRL if their bid is successful. Yes some construction may not happen Dairy Farmers in Townsville) for example but other will proceed, Adelaide, Carrarra, ME Stadium, and others.

Did he? When?

Good article.

Ahh don't you love the intelligence of Joel (the AFL fan) who is so blinded by his own ignorance of the importance of other sport and can only see the AFL doctrine. World domination in the forseeable future becuse the commander in chief says so.

djf, you don't need to take my word for it. Links are above, check it out yourself.

Jason, if nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. That seems to be the tactic you're employing. It’s not inferred, you said it, explicitly After it was introduced by nemo. Try reading properly. And so what anyway? Even if you were right, how does that detract from my argument and the facts? I have provided evidence to support my view throughout. You have provided nothing but bluff, bluster, illogical contortions, lies and spin. I've laid out the facts, the conclusions are very obvious to any honest person. I'm right. Your turn.

RU has always had a place for all types of people form the short fat kid to the 2.7 meter skinny kid. With AFL I can only take your word on it because I simply do not know.

'Keep digging Jason. There’s nothing inaccurate in what I’ve said.' The only bare faced lie here is in you pretending I’ve moved the goal posts, or that you have corrected anything other than in your own imagination. I haven’t changed my argument at all, I said Australian football requires players with a greater range of attributes, tall and short, lean and muscular, and what of it? I have demonstrated that to be accurate and you haven’t rebutted that at all.' As Melchett said, 'if nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.' 'The argument about weight wasn’t introduced by me explicitly, although it is inferred.' It's not inferred, you said it, explicitly: 'AFL players don’t need to carry that much weight.' - Your words. Again you've failed to make your original case by showing that AFL has a wider range of body types than rugby does. You can't point to the diversity that rugby does. I've covered this before. Who, in AFL replicates the body types expected of half backs, wingers, centres, loose forwards, locks and props? Merely linking to squad lists is not an argument. 'Moving on, you are now making my argument and the argument that you’re attributing to me is your own. You say that my argument is anorexics are brilliant marathon runners because they don’t weigh much, but this is completely at odds with my statement that that professional atheletes gain and lose weight depending on their role, which you disagree with.' Disingenuous nonsense. My comment about marathon runners was a sarcastic response to the ludicrous claim that by losing weight one magically adopts new capability, rather than the opposite, your revisionism notwithstanding. The cart comes after the horse. Hunt is not going to increase his aerobic ability by sitting at home eating salads. He is going to lose weight by focussing on increasing his aerobic efficiency and stamina. Of course, if you've got some peer reviewed medical science study published in a journal that says otherwise, feel free to cite it. 'In fact, it’s you that seems to believe that every sportsman in the world is playing at their natural weight, with their natural muscle mass and as such are being slotted into a role on that basis alone, not me.' The reality is most props, locks and wingers are born with those body types. They adapt and enhance their skills to take advantage of their unique makeup. Any other suggestion is so patently absurd, a person making it would instantly disqualify themselves from speaking on the issue. 'You ignore that most footballers are at or above ‘normal’ wieght for their height. Irrelevant. 'Again, you contradict yourself and support my argument with the fact that, no matter how you want to characterize it, Hunt is losing weight in a deliberate act to fit his role.' That you even bother to continue with this idiotic assertion is proof enough you're just arguing for the sake of it. I'll not entertain your patent trolling anymore.

Why hasn't this thread been renamed: "The utterly childish my 'mum's a better cook than your mum' code war thread" ??? Honestly some of you people need to grow up. On the other hand, my genuine thanks to those who resisted the temptation to descend into tantrum mode, and stayed on the topic.

Any supporter can use statisitics to prove their case You should try it sometime.

Oh wow! Scroll up buddy, is it not you enumerating all the "facts" about the NRL? Or is that a different John? :lol: What have you proven? All you've proven is that the AFL isn't number one in the world. Shock horror, what a surprise. However, as far as Australia is concerned you haven't proven squat. You can't prove it either, because it's a simple fact of reality, no matter how distasteful to you, that the AFL is comfortably Australia's dominant football league.

Keep digging Jason. There's nothing inaccurate in what I've said. The only bare faced lie here is in you pretending I've moved the goal posts, or that you have corrected anything other than in your own imagination. I haven't changed my argument at all, I said Australian football requires players with a greater range of attributes, tall and short, lean and muscular, and what of it? I have demonstrated that to be accurate and you haven't rebutted that at all. The argument about weight wasn't introduced by me explicitly, although it is inferred. I simply stated the obvious fact that players manage their weight and AFL players generally don't need to carry huge muscle mass, or build different weight depending on their role, which you seem to simultaneously agree with and disagree with. Go take a look at any AFL playing list and you will see and wide range of heights. You'll also see a wide range of weights at a given height. http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/players/tabid/8976/category/senior/season/2010/default.aspx Compare that to the All Blacks or a league team and it it's very obvious there is more variation in the AFL. http://www.allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=team http://www.bulldogs.com.au/default.aspx?s=profile-player Moving on, you are now making my argument and the argument that you're attributing to me is your own. You say that my argument is anorexics are brilliant marathon runners because they don’t weigh much, but this is completely at odds with my statement that that professional atheletes gain and lose weight depending on their role, which you disagree with. In fact, it's you that seems to believe that every sportsman in the world is playing at their natural weight, with their natural muscle mass and as such are being slotted into a role on that basis alone, not me. You ignore that most footballers are at or above 'normal' wieght for their height. Again, you contradict yourself and support my argument with the fact that, no matter how you want to characterize it, Hunt is losing weight in a deliberate act to fit his role. All this, and then you wonder why I say you guys have a 'clear thinking' problem, which by the way is a play on how some of your illogical friends characterized themselves.

Joel. "You know, sometimes I wonder if the irrational attitude of Rugby towards Australian football isn't some generational guilt over how it deliberately sabotaged the sport in NSW a hundred years ago" Just out of interest Joel how did rugby deliberately sabotage AFL 100 years ago?

The Wookie you make Joel look like a proffessor and have shown your inability to read simple text and understand what the writer is alluding too. You have completely missed the point. Any supporter can use statisitics to prove their case. In total attendances world wide AFL do not make into the top ten. This is a fact. In total averages in the world the AFL are no 4 (not 3) and if you include American college football it drop to no 5. This is an admirable position and AFl should rightly be proud. As I have stated before both NRL and AFL punch above there weight in this area. Simply put AFL believe they are the no 1 sport in Austrlia. The facts do not back this statement up. AFL use attendances and membership to claim the position but do not consider any other criterions. I wonder why??. I have also stated that NRL (and I am not claiming this) is the no 1 sport if FTA and Pay TV ratings, merchandise sales and club membnership are taken into account. These are facts from independant sources. Unlike the sources being quoted (The roar for example in another post) earlier. What has come out during this debate is the complete arrogance of you and some (not all) AFL supporters when indepenend evidence is produced to refute you exagerted claims. You try to ridcule (and fail) other view points that happen to disgaree with your point of view. You then make stupid statements like " I awat another Anti-AFL person spinning things to suit their own distorted view of the world." when infact it is you and Joel and your commander in Chief Demetriou who have the distorted view. Bring on more of you crap I just love shooting you down and seeing just how out of your depth in this debate you are. Enter the text shown: Reply

'If you don’t want to be mocked, don’t make absurdist arguments, don’t spin and start being honest. As I have said previously – you guys bring nothing to these debates except paranoia, fear, jealousy, parochialism, fantasy and outright lies. As long as you do so, I’ll continue to make fun of you.' More personal attacks in place of rebuttals. 'You know I haven’t moved any goal posts.' But of course you have. To claim otherwise is a bare faced lie. You erroneously claimed that AFL 'is innately more suitable to a wider range of people than any other football code' and that claim has been demonstrated to be wrong. Rugby caters for every AFL body type and more. When this was pointed out to you, you then decided to try a new line of argument, moving to weight and that has been debunked too. 'Case in point, regardless if you want to spin Hunt’s weight loss as a side effect or not, it’s still a deliberate act to have the attributes required for the role. Essentially I’m right and you’re agreeing with me' Priceless. According to "Joel logic", anorexics are brilliant marathon runners because they don't weigh much. 'Really, it’s such a no brainer I don’t know how you imagined you could argue the opposite. Football players go to the gym, they build muscle or excercise depending on what they have to do on the field. Hunt put on weight when he went from league to union' Of course he did. Most kids at school put on weight. It's part of the growing process. ', now he’s losing weight to play in the AFL.' I've already corrected you on this. He's attempting to improve his aerobic capability and a side effect of that is to lose weight.