When I first became exposed to and started following different sports in the mid to late 1960s, there was no such thing as a national club based comp. Each major city had its own home and away competition, plus finals. While all interstate fixtures were … you guessed it … state based.
The VFL had 12 clubs in Melbourne; the SANFL had 10 clubs in Adelaide; the WAFL had 8 clubs based in Perth; the NSWRL had 12 clubs in Sydney; the QRL had 8 clubs in Brisbane and the NCRL had 10 clubs in Newcastle.
However, the first organised interstate comp, and the most enduring, is the Sheffield Shield. Victoria first played Tasmania at cricket in 1851 in Launceston.
Victoria’s first match against New South Wales (NSW) was at the new MCG in 1856. South Australia (SA) joined NSW and Victoria for the inaugural Sheffield Shield in 1892/93. In due course, Queensland joined in 1926/27, Western Australia (WA) in 1947/48 and Tasmania in 1977/78.
In Australian football, which began life in 1858, Victoria first played an interstate match against SA in 1879. The next interstate match that followed was between NSW and Queensland in 1884.
In 1908, the first All-Australian carnival was held, featuring Victoria, SA, WA, Tasmania, NSW, Queensland and New Zealand (NZ). Yes, New Zealand!
This was probably the second mass interstate comp to be played after cricket. However, the All-Australian alternate venue carnival was usually held every 3 years up to the mid-1980s, with the exception of several world wars and other unscheduled interruptions.
In rugby union, NSW first played Queensland in 1882, while in rugby league NSW first played Queensland in 1908. There was tremendous interest in the clash the other night for the inaugural contest between the Melbourne Rebels and NSW Waratahs. And to think that back in the 1930s, Victoria rose as a serious third rugby power behind NSW and Queensland.
The first interstate football (soccer) match as far as I can research, was between Victoria and NSW in 1883, while NSW played Queensland in 1890. In the second half of the 1800s, there was an intense battle for control of the type of football played in the colonies.
While Australian football won out in Victoria, SA, WA and Tasmania, rugby union/league won out in NSW, Queensland and NZ. Soccer continued in all states, but as a much poorer cousin.
Between 1968-77, the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) had a highly ambitious national comp known as the Wallaby Trophy. It’s leading states and regions were divided into two divisions. Those teams competing were – Sydney, NSW Country, Queensland, Victoria, SA, WA, Tasmania and ACT. Sadly, while this was a noble concept, the timing was poor. Rugby union was amateur, poorly organised, internationally weak and broke for most of this time.
Purely for trivia buffs, perhaps the first ever interstate clash of any type was a rowing contest between residents of Sydney (NSW) and Hobart (Tasmania) in boats known as whalers. This occurred in 1833. Then in 1863 NSW beat Victoria in 4-oared gigs.
The first interstate 8-oared rowing contest on the Yarra river was contested in 1878. This ‘head of the river’ race eventually became known as the King’s Cup.
Also in 1878, the Stawell Gift (in country Victoria) professional foot race was run for the first time, while the first interstate Australian Amateur Athletics Championship (AAAC) was held in 1890.
Hockey was popular with women before men took an interest, breaking the common mould with other sports. The first interstate hockey comp for women was contested in 1910 with NSW triumphant. The first men’s edition didn’t occur until 1925, with no winner left for posterity (that I’m aware of).
The first interstate baseball match was between Victoria and SA in 1890, while the first interstate basketball match didn’t occur until 1946, when NSW beat Victoria in the inaugural national championship. The first interstate netball championship of 1926 was won by NSW.
Out of interest, baseball first came to Australia via the Victorian goldfields in the 1850s. The famous Claxton Shield was first contested by the states in 1934, and for a long time was second only to the Sheffield Shield as an annual interstate comp featuring more than 2 or 3 states.
The Claxton Shield was held in the winter, allowing test and Shield cricketers the opportunity to play both sports. Test cricket captain Vic Richardson and his grandsons, Ian (especially), Greg and Trevor, were all outstanding baseballers.
And what of the socially popular pastimes of cycling, golf and tennis? Cycling became hugely popular in the 1890s, and sprouted from there.
The first golf course anywhere in Australia, was opened at Bothwell in Tasmania. The Australian GC opened in 1882 and the Royal Melbourne GC in 1891.
The first tennis court was laid down on Garden Island in Sydney Harbour in 1880. The first Australian Open was held in 1905, and unlike today, where the Open is permanently located in Melbourne, the Open used to take turns around the mainland capital cities.
In surfing circles, the honour of the first surf club is bitterly disputed by Bondi and Bronte, both on Sydney’s eastern shore. Bondi has the official recognition dating back to 1906, but Bronte possibly has more conclusive evidence as far back as 1903, which was regrettably and as it turned, unfortunately for them, lost in a clubhouse fire back in the early 1970s.
Surfing as in board riding, was brought to Australian by the Hawaiian surfer and swimmer Duke Kahanamoku in 1915. He gave his first demonstration of this soon to be hugely popular leisure activity at Freshwater beach on Sydney’s north-eastern shore.
So when did the first national club based comp start, and in which sport? Well, before we get to that, some more background (sorry…).
Because of the wealth of both the Melbourne based VFL and Sydney based NSWRL, Melbourne clubs were recruiting many of the best players from SA, WA and Tasmania, while Sydney clubs were recruiting many of the best players from Queensland and Country NSW.
This was beginning to make a mockery of interstate contests, with Victoria full of ex-SA & WA players, and NSW full of ex-Queensland players.
Consequently, Australian football moved to the State of Origin (SOO) concept in 1977, followed by rugby league in 1980. SOO simply meant that while leading SA and WA players might be playing for Melbourne clubs, or leading Queensland players playing for Sydney clubs, they could still represent the state where they played their first senior game of Australian football or rugby league, as the case may be. Perhaps without realising it, the (SOO) was the first chink in the deconstruction of state based comps.
As history would have it, it was the much maligned association football, or soccer, which inaugurated the first nationally based club competition in 1977, which was called the National Soccer League (NSL). This was followed by the National Basketball League (NBL) in 1979. What about the major sports of Australian football and rugby league?
1982 was a key year for both sporting codes. In 1982 South Melbourne Swans relocated to Sydney. For the first time the VFL had a team from outside its own borders. Brisbane Bears (later merging with Fitzroy Lions) joined in 1987 along with West Coast Eagles. In 1991 Adeliade Crows joined, followed by Fremantle Dockers in 1995 and Port Adelaide Power in 1997. Realising it was no longer a state based comp, the VFL changed its name to the AFL in 1990.
Also in 1982 Canberra Raiders and Illawarra Steelers joined the NSWRL. But it wasn’t until 1988 when Brisbane Broncos, Gold Coast Seagulls and Newcastle Knights joined that the NSWRL had teams outside of NSW participating. Following the brutal “Super League” war of the 1990s, the NRL was inaugurated in 1997 to run the national comp.
Other national club comps to come into vogue were the National Netball League (NNL) in 1985, Australian Baseball League (ABL) in 1989 and the Australian Hockey League (AHL) in 1991.
At the time of writing, rugby union still has no national comp, either provincial or national club based. The Super Rugby (SR) can be viewed as our pseudo national comp, especially as it features the three regional conferences in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, each of 5 franchises.
There were two attempts to kickstart a national domestic comp in the 2000s, but both were scuppered through a combination of prohibitive costs and lack of will. In 2006, the Australian Provincial Championship (APC) saw NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, ACT Brumbies and WA Force play each other once with the best two playing off in a final. This comp was won by ACT beating Queensland in the final.
The following year 2007, saw an 8 team Australian Rugby Championship (ARC) with each team playing the others home and away for 8 matches each. The top four contested the semi-finals and a final, whereby Central Coast Rays defeated Melbourne Rebels. The other teams were Sydney Fleet, Western Sydney Rams, Canberra Vikings, Perth Spirit, Ballymore (Brisbane) Tornadoes and East (Gold) Coast Aces.
As someone who grew up on state based national comps, it saddens me that they might be on the way out. There are effectively just two sports that have remained true to the state/provincial concept – cricket and rugby union. But for how long?
This is if you don’t include baseball, which has returned to the state concept Claxton Shield. Or State Of Origin, which is a contrived (but highly popular) interstate concept for rugby league.
The announcement by Cricket Australia (CA) that the new-fangled Twenty20 cricket comp, the Big Bash league (BBL) would feature 8 city based teams might be the first crack that sees the state based Sheffield Shield collapse. We’ll have to wait and see. And what of rugby union?
I was tremendously heartened to see the banner on the backs of the Reds players – “We are Queensland”. It’s obvious both Waratahs and Reds are proud to retain their provincial titles of New South Wales and Queensland.
The Brumbies are shy to use ACT because they’re pining for a wider audience. The Force are seduced by this modern terminology of ‘Western’.
However, I think both Brumbies and Force could be encouraged to use ACT and WA with a bit of prodding. Perhaps so too the Rebels.
I’m disappointed they have chosen to call themselves Melbourne instead of Victoria. It may be that’s the way they see the franchises heading – city based?
I don’t subscribe to the view that every sport must be city/region based. It’s good for the Australian sporting landscape to have the variety of city based and provincial based comps. South Africa and New Zealand have both done excellent jobs with their national domestic rugby union and cricket comps, creating new provinces out of geo-political provinces or states. Why can’t we do the same in Australia?
For example, a new province operating out of Newcastle and covering Northern NSW, could be called Eastern Australia. It’s appropriate. And Australian Capital Territory (ACT) extending its provincial reach over Southern NSW is no big deal either.
Queensland at or around and above the Tropic of Capricorn would obviously be known as North Queensland. A provincial team based around Gold Coast could be called Border, because it straddles both the Queensland/NSW borders.
It’s a long way off, but if ever the population of North-West Australia (Pilbara-Kimberley region) boomed sufficiently, this new province could be called New Holland, in memory of the time when the whole continent was known by that name for about 150 years from about the mid 1600s to late 1700s. For me, I would like to see both cricket and rugby union retain its provincial roots.
For cricket, this history and tradition dates back to 1851 (Tasmania v Victoria) and for rugby union, this history and tradition dates back to 1882 (NSW v Queensland).
Marketeers especially, take note!
andrewM
Guest
You didn't mention the Australian Rugby Shield, setup by the ARU as a competition for the non-rugby states/regions and ran from 2000-2008. I always thought that this was a huge success, and suprised it was given the axe. It had the strength that its players were drawn from the local amatuer unions, and thus it had a strong (although not necessarily large) and loyal supporter base. A Perth Gold team is stil selected from the local comp, and this year has/will play against the Force 'A' and West Harbour. A sad existence really but could be the foundations of something greater
Chuq
Roar Pro
Crowd wise, Syd FC or Melb Heart aren't that different to Newcastle or North Qld.
Titus
Guest
According to Wiki, the first game of Association Football was played in Hobart in 1879. Tasmania, Association Footballs Heartland.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
RB Your point about the NFL's low participation rate at adult level is interesting, but I should have specified that it is the junior participation that is the foundation for the long-term viability of a sport. If kids are not learning the skills, they cannot play the sport at elite level and, once the player pipeline is interrupted, it spells danger for the future of that sport. In relation to football clubs buying - as opposed to developing players - this is just a natural progression with deregulation of labour markets, which has led to globalisation of the football work-force. Without checking the records I would estimate that, right until the mid-90s, 80-90% of players playing in each of the European football leagues would have been sourced "locally" (in England, I'm including Ireland and the Home Nations as "local"). Now we have much more player movement around the globe yet, apart from the EPL and some Middle Eastern leagues, I reckon most football leagues rely on players sourced from local talent pools.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
With the troubles the regional A-League clubs are having (Newcastle, Gold Coast, North Queensland) , I doubt the FFA will be looking at expanding to small centres any time soon. Hobart, Canberra, Geelong, etc will probably have to wait until the A-League is stabilised again before any more expansion happens.
Wall-Nut
Guest
Bush, I agree with you and disagree with you more on the agreeing part. Unfortunately rugby unions strength is from private school sector, it's like a religion! It our strength. I wish I could talk face to face to most of the people on this site as writing is slow and can't express more point clearly. You seem to have a healthy support of rugby and have plenty of thought about it. My great hope that all can enjoy rugby without the public/private school clash that exists in QLD/NSW. It seems to be our weakness as well. I've have completely resigned to the fact that the sport will be a large niche for years to come because of this fact. Mostly I'm providing you with back ground information. Changing the name of the Reds will affect a portion of people for a period of time, I personally don't think it will cause long term damage, but a healthy tribalism amongst south east Queensland. Growth needs to be smart and slow. Wallaby success is critical to the junior memberships, as in the Memberships rose dramatically when the wallabies won the world cup. I personally don't think Adelaide is a good advocate for either code to grow. My first choice would be western Sydney or South East Queensland. Steady growth is the key and to create a new team in less than a 10 year period would be hitting above our weight. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Invictus
Guest
Probably why they have stayed away from it until now. Realistically, there isn't too many other places they can look to for expansion.
Invictus
Guest
The entire point being to expand into new markets - in this case a growth area with limited rugby penetration.
LT80
Roar Pro
Great article Sheek. There are a couple of points I would add. As you say, historically all interstate competition was based around state representative games. But these games have never been the week-to-week bread and butter of any sporting code, they were always infrequent events that punctuated the normal club seasons. The only football code that has attempted to build a home-and-away style competition based upon state rep teams has been rugby union with decidedly mixed results. The others went for a club-based style, which is superior for many reasons. The problem rugby union now faces is that the teams have an identity crisis. All the Super clubs look and behave like clubs, they are not state representative teams in any way except for the historical links that exist for the Reds and Waratahs. The Brumbies, Force and now Melbourne seem to make pretense of being anything other than a football club.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
Fussball what you are saying sounds intuitively appealing, but I can't see the evidence for it anywhere the NFL thrives on a sport with relatively low participation, in fact, very few adults play the game at an amateur level once they finish college super rugby has expanded to Melbourne, arrived with a splash suggesting they will be a success, but they are likely to get a modest growth in participation even with football clubs all over the world have more of a reliance on buying players than developing their own locally in other words, a club doesn't necessarily need a local base of players to be a successful club (by successful, I mean having strong revenue such that it covers its costs)
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
I reckon playing numbers are the core foundation that is required to build a successful sporting club - i.e. for long-term success. Launching a team simply requires sufficient start-up capital and the business pages are littered with examples of corporations, who failed after expanding operations into untried geographical regions simply b/c they had surplus funds and had saturated existing customer markets. Without underlying interest in a sport and without a constant supply of technically-gifted players, a sport will, at best, become irrelevant; at worst, face extinction.
The Bush
Guest
Wall-Nut, I will approach your response point by point! "I don’t know where to begin, it is first that Super Rugby is a provincial competition. Doggedly sticking to one-team-per-state name, Reds and Waratahs, then the Brumbies years later, it was all there was." I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, quoting me or providing background information... "The A-league team QLD Roar is now Brisbane Roar due mostly to Gold Coast United." Comparing the Qld Roar/Brisbane Roar and the Queensland Reds is ludicrous. As a Brisbanite and a Brisbane Roar supporter I can confidently say that we have so little history, like all A-League clubs, that a change of name affects nobody. There are no legends of the Qld Roar to be offended, no history of premierships etc. The Queensland Reds are one of the greatest, most historically important, rugby union sides in the world. They have beaten the All Blacks (something Ireland has never done), they have won the Super 10, making them the best team in the Pacific - twice! They have over a century of history and importance. To simply change them, or remove them, will not elicit a response of "I just don’t think it will be that great of a big deal!" from their fans. Trust me. "Teams in the NRL have changed their names frequently." Ask any Wests, Balmain, St-Greorge, Illawarra or North Sydney Bears fans about how they feel about name changes, mergers or being cut from the competition. There's a reason by the AFL is the most successful league in Australia, because they have maintained their hertiage. "Australia has small competitions in the main cities with junior and private school development, and so far has been successful. I highly doubt super rugby is going to expand within the next 10 to 15 years unless Pacific Nations are involved." Invictus has already pointed out why this statement is wrong. "You cannot compare New Zealand, South Africa teams to Australian provincial teams as they have national comps." sheek is the one that compared our situation to South Africa and New Zealand to display why it is possible. I used that same comparision to opine why I believe it is not possible. It is not a matter of whether I can or cannot compare our situation to theirs, but rather that is the entire point of the exercise. "With the correct development in Adelaide through junior clubs and private schools it could be a possibility. It happened in Perth. I do admit Perth has a huge English and South African population. But would prefer the comp to stay as it is untill sufficient growth and supporter numbers grow." Surely you're not advocating that we limit ourselves to private schools in yet another state? My grand hope is that one day our sport will be enjoyed by all... Perth is a different fish to Adelaide. Unfortunately I think the NRL has more of a chance than the ARU of establishing any sort of professional footprint in the City of Churches...
Wall-Nut
Guest
Roberto you have hit it on the head. Dead right. It's good to have a fresh voice on the subject! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
The Bush
Guest
sheek, I'm familiar with the territory "on a map", but I've never met anyone from New South Wales who lives in this area and and is into rugby. Do they support the Brumbies enmasse?
The Bush
Guest
Yes I've also heard Western Sydney is the next in line to recieve a Super Team. Doesn't negate my point that that will result in a fundamental change in Australian Super Rugby. The Waratahs will suddenly have two teams "eating away" at their territory. And how much territory would this Western Sydney team have? Western New South Wales? Still begs all the questions...
The Bush
Guest
Roberto, Unfortunately life is not so simple. I'm neither advocating a move away from state-based "franchises" nor the retention of them. The fact of the matter is, in the current set-up, Australian and New Zealand can only afford to keep our high-quality players through the money that comes in from Super Rugby/Tri-nations. Any removal of Super Rugby, presumably for city/region based "clubs" would result in an instant reduction of the "pie" from the broadcasters. Supre Rugby is only worth the amount it is now because of the pooled funds that include South Africa (by far the most important rugby TV market in the southern hemisphere). What attracts me, and others, to embrace a national club set-up over Supre Rugby is that in the long term it could provide a viable national competition that would be more valuable than the current estalishment. However nobody wants to go through the short term pain - losing players and finances - for the long term gain. The future riches include a larger national footprint, matches on FTA (at viable timeslots), possibly even some kind of Asian Champions League (long term). In support of this, I believe that the Tri-nations is the real TV money spinner anyway... However should the Reds disappear or become a State of Origin team, a small piece of me would still die on the inside...
Wall-Nut
Guest
Any code can expand as long as you have some form of grass roots and top level players from alternative areas to be competitive. Union is the perfect example. Rugby is at it's limit for the time being. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
clipper the ability of the AFL to launch a new team in West Sydney, and the FFA's inability to do the same (when it started earlier on the project), tells us that playing numbers are irrelevant as to whether a team can be successful or not
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
Jason the last thing any new sporting competition wants to do is mimic anything that cricket does, especially with its archaic state vs state competion yes, people take a bit of interest in it (becuase of its history) but it generates very little revenue this is the gist of Sheek's article - the state vs state rivalry dispappeared with the Y2K bug
clipper
Guest
While the majority of Sydney's population may be in the western suburbs, very few of that population would play Union - which has its stronghold in the eastern and northern suburbs.