Adam Goodes (L) and Jonathan Brown during the Hall of Fame Tribute match between Victoria and the Dream Team at the MCG. Slattery Images
So State of Origin is finally back on the agenda. Maybe it’s all a token gesture from the AFL. Maybe, as I pondered last week, they just want to distract us from other stories currently in the news. Either way, it’s on the agenda – all that’s missing is a plan to make it work.
Many theories as to how it may work have been thrown around.
But the problem is most either exclude the lesser represented states, involve some kind of merged or “All Stars” side or, alternatively, involve all states but are drawn-out competitions that would be taxing on players.
Learning from the latter years of Origin’s previous existence, anything “taxing on players” doesn’t sound like it could work long term. At any rate, “drawn-out competitions” would take a chunk out of the footy calendar that would be bound to cause angst among clubs.
So a different solution is needed. A solution that embraces any state that wishes to enter – without being drawn-out or taxing on players.
It is possible. Here’s how it would work.
When Origin returns for the first time, each state would be given a seed. Victoria would be the first seed, Western Australia (currently) the second, followed by South Australia then Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory in whichever order is deemed appropriate.
To begin with, the first seed will play the second (call it the “first division” if you will), the third will play the fourth (the second division) and finally the fifth will play the sixth (the third division). The last seed will sit out for now.
Those three games would be played, and the results would determine the matches for the next season in which Origin is played.
So, the winner of the first division game would remain in the first division, while the loser would be relegated. The winner of the second division game would move up, the loser would move down. The same would apply for the third game, with the winner going up, however the loser would then sit out and be replaced by the team that sat out the first time around.
It’s essentially a promotion and relegation system.
The purpose behind using such a system, as suggested earlier, would be to involve all states without a long drawn-out format – but there are more advantages than that.
This plan does not require players to play more than one game in a season. Even then, there is the potential to hold it every second year, again reducing the impact on players. Better still, it would even be possible to space the three games across two years, meaning Origin would still have an annual presence despite players not having to front up annually.
The promotion and relegation plan would also mean the possibility of states like Tasmania coming up against those with a higher proportion of AFL players would still remain. (You can’t tell me this team wouldn’t fancy their chances of claiming an upset.)
As for which part of the year it would be held, mid-season (given the troubles of the past) is out of the question. However that still leaves post-season (if clubs don’t complain about International Rules, why would they have an issue here?) and pre-season (which has been talked about as the favoured option).
Either would be suitable. Pre-season would probably see a higher number of players being available.
I’ve written several times on why Origin should return. At the heart of this argument is that the issues that killed off Origin over a decade ago aren’t quite as relevant today.
For example, while the national competition enabled West Australian and South Australian fans the chance to see “their boys” each week, fast forward to today and support in those states is divided, plus players are becoming more dispersed around the country thanks to expansion.
But it’s more than that. The one advantage other codes hold over the AFL lies in having a genuine form of representative football. Having another product on the table during the next round of broadcast negotiations can only help the game exact another big return.
The return of State of Origin football is long overdue. It just needs a plan, and a willingness from those in power to follow through on that plan.
AFL STATE OF ORIGIN PLAN IN SUMMARY
First season:
– 1st seed v 2nd seed (Possibly Vic v WA)
– 3rd seed v 4th seed (SA v Tas)
– 5th seed v 6th seed (Qld v NSW)
– 7th seed sits out (NT)Second season:
– All losing sides are relegated to the match below them
– All winning sides are promoted to the match above them
– Winner of 1v2 stays on top
– Loser of 5v6 sits out, while the 7th seed moves upFuture seasons:
– The same system of promotion and relegation continues
Other details:
– Avoids a long drawn-out knockout format
– Less taxing on players than other options
– Does not have to be played annually
– May even be spread out over two years (ie, lesser two games one year, 1v2 the next)
keith
Guest
good idea. sa wa tas would love to keep vics out of div 1 game forever. u can tell a vic; but not very much
Fitzy
Guest
I think biggest problem for SOO is that after 2 years no one will be interested. My suggestion is have it in November every 3 years. That way if a player sits out he sits out for 3 years, give preseason picks as compensation to any club that suffers serious injury to one of their players etc. Make only players who play SOO eligable for all australian and international rules selection. Have the six sides Vic, SA, WA, Tas, NSW/ACT, QLD/NT each side plays each other once with VIC, WA, SA given 3 home games. At the end of the 5 rds 2nd plays 3rd to qualify for final against 1st. Any SOO series has to have a point to it to generate the interest, make it like a world cup got Aussie Rules. The crowds will come if not in conflict with the interests of winning the GF. You might also get the best playing if they will only get to play in 2 or 3 max in their careers.
James of Ascot Vale
Guest
The concept is great. I like Michael DiFabrizio's idea of 1 game, but with 4 divisions with promotion and relegation... each game has meaning. I favour mid-season. Have 'Origin Weekend' in the middle of the season, after round 11. Have any suspensions from Origin only served in Origin games - and vice-versa, so you know you're getting the best players! Have round 11, then a one-week break, then Origin, then round 12, to facilitate 'State training'. Scrap the NAB Cup and let the NAB sponsor Origin, making the season easier on the bodies. If lesser-rated players don't want 2 weeks off, they can play in their State comp. I don't buy that nonsense of WA being better than SA, or Qld being better than Tas... but this can be settled on the field! Games in 2012: Fri N - D4: ACT v NT; Sat - D2: Tas v WA; Sat N - D3: NSW v Qld; Sun - D1: Vic v SA. I actually think that TV ratings would go through the roof - and that in later years we would see companies pay high amounts for advertising. That should keep the AFL fat cats happy - not naming anyone here, mind!
debatable
Guest
i think Vic, SA, WA, NSW/ACT, QLD & an Allies side that features NT, Tasmania and the rest of the world (that xould feature Santanta O'halpin from Ireland, Mike Pike from Canada etc) 6 team single/double round robin, top 2/4 playoff in the finals.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Completely disagree. The All-Australian team should remain the Team of the Year. I have no problem with bringing back SOO, but I don't want to eliminate one of the game's great honours: AA selection. Also, I think it's quite illogical to limit AA selection to those who had already received the honour of being chosen to represent their state. Edit: unless you simply mean that the state teams are simply a nominal precurser to the AA team, like the 40 man squad. If that's the case, and the AA team remains the Team of the Year, I remove my objection. :D
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Agree...I thought this as well,,, the All Australian should be from SOO teams only...also presumably SOO players would get extra payments above their club salary so there would be a financial incentive to put in extra weeks, as well as the incentive of beating the Vics, croweaters, sandgropers etc..
GoGWS
Roar Guru
the population of players hasn't doubled...look I think a 25 man squad of the best WA or best SA players would be very competitive against the Vics...and on the day it's the old adage of a champion beating a team of champions...the team that is favourite on paper sometimes doesn't always win.... I think the players want SOO so the ALF should just make it happen.....you say AFLPA rules prescribe 8 weeks off...well maybe that's so but change the rules for those players involved (a minority) - if the players want SOO then the AFLPA will listen.... also note that teams from QLD, Tassie, NSW and NT would be drawing some of their SOO squads from state leagues, and I guess this would also be open to WA/SA/Vic as well - so the assistance available from state leagues would help......the AFL should just commit to it and work out the details.... the international rules is OK - I don't think it's a joke....there have been very tight games and the series is pretty even over time - sometimes Aust wins sometimes Ireland...unlike some international series I can think of in other codes, the international rules is very competitive and even if nothing else... maybe the AFL should initially start with the big three (WA, SA, Vic) and go with this for this in 2013...suck it and see .....then bring on NSW, QLD, Tassie, NT later......the SOO history/feeing are really between WA, SA and Vic so starting there I reckon is safer...I'd still have a go at doing this post season over a couple of weeks so it doesn't undermine the club competition (as occurs in the NRL)....have three games - SA v Vic, WA v SA, Vic v WA...winner by highest wins and percentage if necessary....the finishing of 1st, 2nd 3rd determines home/away advantages in the series for next season.... I think the series for WA,SA and Vic would do OK - it may not reach the heights of the NRL's version in the short term but I think an AFL SOO would be popular enough
Jackson
Guest
correction: only Leaguie NSWelshmen and Leaguie QLDers hate each other... In rugby union, we even have NSW born and raised players playing for QLD and vica versa!!!
Alitis
Guest
Sorry dont like it. Rugby League has turned "State of Origin" into something like a war. As far as rugby league is concerned, Queenslanders and NSWelshmen absolutely hate each other which is why it works. A war has to be between two foes not between 6 foes.
Brian
Guest
GoGWS The International rules is a joke because players don't train for it properly, in fact Ablett, Judd, Swan & Franklin do not even usually play. AFLPA rules prescribe the players 8 weeks off so if you play proper SOO in October, clubs could not start proper pre-season until after Christmas. Regarding SA & WA competitiveness the gap in population between Victoria & SA has probably doubled since the 80s
GoGWS
Roar Guru
so what?...well when RL fans explain the concept of as though an AFL supporter wouldn't understand you kinda almost have an obligation to point out to them that they are the ones who are mistaken.....good on the NRL for doing SOO well .... I think the AFL should look at it again...it is more difficult to manage for the AFL (more states) but I think they should re-think it...the AFL were premature in making a decision to end SOO...with an expanded national footprint and GC and GWS coming in it's a good time for the AFL to re-think it and have a go at a six state SOO series...
Shaken
Guest
I like the idea of naming state teams as a precursor to the All Australian team each year. AA players would have to come from their respective state team. After allowing a couple of years for this to grow, perhaps the interest in which team would be better could spurn the desire to actually play some games. Then, and only then, should they attempt a concept such as the one being put forward here. I love the concept, but fear it would not work without players buying in.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Not all of those Victorian losses were to full strength Victorian sides. The loss at North Hobart, for example, was a Victoria "B" team. Its also worth pointing out that the big three states could lay claim to players originally from other states. The first major state they played in could take priority over their original state. Overall, Victoria would have possibly benefited from that more than SA or WA. For example, Darren Pritchard captained Tasmania in 1990. He was unavailable for Tasmania in 1989 because he was selected by Victoria who played on the same weekend and his VFL club was Hawthorn, despite being Hobart born and learning his footy a Sandy Bay. Jason Dunstall played for Victoria too, despite being all Queenslander. I think John Longmire and Brett Allison even played for NSW/ACT against Victoria, and for Victoria B against Tasmania in the same year (both Vic losses). That rule got changed once New South Welshman Wayne Carey wore an SA jumper, having played in the SANFL before North Melbourne. Something closer to a true origin rule was then implemented, with the minor states destroyed by the Allies not long after.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
That's pretty much how I view it. the AFL competition is guaranteed of going from strength to strength precisely because it spurns representative football. People focus 100% on supporting their clubs - that's exaclty what you want as an administration.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Further to what stabpass just wrote, there's no denying that aussie rules first used the expression "State of Origin", but so what?
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Droppa GoGWS is right, and this history amongst AFL fans is well known, the Vic relationship to SA/WA was identical to the NSW relationship to Queensland, and indeed the creation of the AFL from the VFL is near identical to the establishiment of the NRL from the NSWRL. But the fact is, most of us have moved on, it's all ancient history now.
stabpass
Guest
Ok, maybe it was not a AFL concept, states have playing each other for thousands of years, across a multitude of things, but from memory a ARL offical saw WA play Vic in SOO Australian football, and used it in RL, it really is a non issue.
waterboy
Guest
It wasnt an AFL concept either. Sean Fagan has gone over this ad nauseam on this site
origin is gone
Guest
Here's what would happen - * Vic, Sa & Wa would perennially at the top, Vic most years in game 1, once in a blue moon in game 2, Sa & Wa would alternate each year - but rarely actually play each other * Tas, NSW & QLD in the middle, fluctuating with pointless match ups * NT & ACT at the bottom, alternating who sits out most years And if any of the following combos occured (which will happen frequently with game 2) VIC/SA/WA vs TAS/NSW/QLD/NT/ACT = a massacre Game 2 & 3 will be of such little interest. And also people saying State of Origin is our World Cup - wake up to yourselves. They're states, not countries.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
I agree...1991 to 1994 was a period when the eagles were premiers (92 & 94) and were as dominant as Collingwood is now....Eagles of early 90s plus throw in Winmar and a few others from Vic clubs and they would have been very hard to beat...also the Crows of mid-90s the same thing..... I don't think it matters if there are periods of dominance...I think sheer numbers suggest Vic in the long term probably would win more games but yes there will be periods when WA and SA rise