Wishing for State of Origin to come back to AFL

I haven't looked at The Roar website for a few months because I was so ticked off at the new website and having to "load" new comments at the bottom of every page on my iPad. First click back in three months and what do I find, the old faithful bring back State of Origin article that seems to appear at least once a month. It's like I never left

Agree with AR, What big code plays a representative game between club and internationals because they know it means nothing. Soccer doesnt do it and Rugby Union doesnt do it because they have national comps and the ESL dropped the Lancashire v Yorkshire roses game some years ago. The fact that RL SOO is big here means the club and internationals are diminished. RL SOO is compromised as well as ACT players play for NSW and peoples affiliations are very loose. Folau bought up in Western Sydney and Inglis in Bowraville played for Qld. Tonie Carroll played for Qld and Australia one year then NZ and then Qld again. A shambles. A NRL official quizzed that the Broncos might dominate the competition suggested that SOO time will bring the Broncos back to the field eg when they play SOO in Melbourne the Qlders have to back up against the Storm 2 days after SOO. A huge disadvantage and a win for the Storm I would suggest...

Picture it if you will. Victoria is playing Western Australia in the revived State of Origin series. In the Victorian team is the champion full-back from Geelong, Matthew Scarlett; on the WA side of the ledger, we have Hawthorn full-forward Lance Franklin. The ball is kicked in WA's F50, Franklin comes running in to mark the ball, Scarlett tackles him from behind. Franklin clutches his knee in total pain and is taken off on a stretcher. The end result is that Lance Franklin is out for the season with a serious knee injury, out for up to 12 months. The Hawks nosedive out if the finals, and are very unhappy with the result of Franklin's injury. This is the same situation that happened in the 1989 Vic-SA State of Origin match at the MCG, where SA's Tony Hall did his knee after being tackled from behind by his Victorian opponent (and Hawthorn team-mate) Andy Collins. Hall came back but was never the same player again.

The reason the All-Australian carnivals were discontinued was because they lost so much money ! I just can't see however this concept could be resurrected.

I also think SOO ultimately hurts the NRL. Undoubtedly, SOO is exciting and tribal and the best standard of Rugby League a person can watch (including international IMO). Whilst all of that might be good for the brand of League (the SPORT), it diminshes the brand of the NRL (the COMPETITION). This is proven even more so, when the season games suffer during Origin period (both from media coverage and the quality of games). NRL fans talk about expansion and demand that the IC make plans to secure the game's future...but Qld and NSW RL fans cling to their old colonial rivalries as though they're the thing that matters. Trust me, the AFL invented SOO and the crowds were massive at times (90,000 in 1989 - Vic v SA) but moving on and becoming, truly, the AFL, was the best decision ever made. As long as the highest form of the game is played exclusively between 2 states, it will limit its appeal amongst the rest of the country and beyond.

Gleeso said "Although the best players come together for Origin it does not produce the highest standard of Rugby League. Club level league does." Nope. Not even close to true. Origin is consistently not only the very best games of rugby league, but the very best games of any sort of football. Regrettably, this devalues the week-in, week-out NRL.

Week to week NRL goes down the toilet in the Origin period.

Excellent article by MD. Best formula I've seen for State games to return.

Along with many of the members on this article, i agree that State of Origin died with Ted Whitten. State of Origin was an annual event which changed over time to eventually bring all states and territories together. It was played so that every state and territory had a team to follow. Now that their are 8 teams outside Victoria, each state barring Tasmania having two teams, it's easy for the general public to follow a team at the elite level. Although Tasmania don't have a team, the north gets 4 premiership games a year and the south as of this year getting 2, but expect that number to rise. Canberra has had many teams their during the last decade, now have a the Giants playing 3 premiership games a year their for a further decade. Darwin/Northern Territory, although doesn't have a team linked to their as such, which i believe either a victorian team or Port Adelaide will be linked to their soon, they get up to 2 premiership games a year, but the territory certainly gets behind THe "NT Thunder" who won the inaugural NEAFL premiership and went close to the last 4 teams in the Foxtel Cup.

Gleeso SOO is a huge phenomenon on the Australian sporting landscape, and its figures are massive - no question about it. But the counter argument is that it takes a large chunk of focus away from the NRL proper - by definition, the NRL plays second fiddle while SOO is on. Also, the idea of two states playing each other ad infinitum is inconsistent with an expansionist strategy. Can you truly expect the fans of the Storm, for arguments sake, sit back and watch their stars fight it out for this series that in all honesty, they have zero stake in - when a Melburnian puts down their hard earned on a membership on their team - they want their teams and players focusing on winning the comp - they don't give a fig about extraneous activities. Finally - people shouldn't think that getting ratings of 2 mill three times per season is as good as getting 5+ million per round for a solid 7 months of the year, representing a sum of 360 million eyes per hour of product - it's not.

Several incorrect assertions in what Gleeso says: 1. League week-to-week Pay TV audiences may be better than AFL - but not on FTA. That is because there is less live AFL on Fox than NRL. There are also more NRL subscribers, because they are denied most of their games on FTA. 2. The very high attendances that AFL gets week-in week-out would not be possible if it were monotonous, as he suggests. As an NRL man, I doubt he has attended more than a few (if any) AFL games. And if he did, it would be with a closed mind.

State of Origin enhances Rugby League immeasurably. However, ask any Rugby League player and they will tell you that to win a premiership with your team mates is the pinnacle. Ian Whitchurch is wrong. With Origin, League gets three great TV audiances a year in addition to very good week to week TV audiances (better than AFLs). Although the best players come together for Origin it does not produce the highest standard of Rugby League. Club level league does. Origin compliments the NRL season perfectly. It provides variety that AFL does not have. The monotony of the AFL season means that Victorian's make this oddly big deal out of presentation nights, childrens drafts and pre season competitions.

I agree with all of those points. The premiership is the pinnacle for both the players and fans, and that's fine by me.

Fitzy, SoO hurts league in two ways. The first one is it gives the code three days a year where it can lie to itself and say the code is healthy. The second way is it focusses the code on the existing strong states, not on growth areas. The AFL isnt growing Australian Rules in Queensland and NSW by offering Origin spots, where you can either play for "the Rest" or get thumped by a record score, or both. Its growing it by giving players from those states a better grade of competition to play in, by nurturing the equivalent of the Queensland and Metro Cups. Finally, the reason SoO worked in the early days is it gave Western Australian and South Australian fans a local team to cheer for, in a game that involved all the players who played week in and week out in Melbourne, and the locals who were good enough but didnt make the move. With teams playing top grade all over the country, this reason disappears. State of Origin, just say no thank you.

Dont know how you mean shrink the code, for mine SOO was the only thing that saved RL duringbtecSL years, in the ARL had something that people were interested in. I really want to get away from their concept mainly because comparing it to something that is successful and works will just give nay sayers something to crow about. IMO it could work in the off season, as long as the pre-season draft was after it and its not done to death but more like a world cup format. I hate this argument that we see SOO every week with teams from WA, SA. It really has no strength, if we accept that argument then what do we call SYD v MELB where combined teams will feature 4-6 nswmen, 6-10 WA, 20-25 VIC etc. The concept is called SOO for a reason, I would love to see NSW take the field as NSW regardless of the result and if you played the game at regional centers you will get a crowd. So how is it going to hurt the game, baseless arguments.

IMO, SOO should have a place in the AFL Commission's desire to expand AFL frontiers. It should be seen as a showcase of the very best of AFL skills for the not yet devotees, that can also be enjoyed by the devotees. Too much will detract from the AFL, I think no SOO team should play more than 3 games a season, so an everyone plays everyone else round robin is out. As a start Michael DiFabrizio's structure, http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/08/12/how-to-structure-an-afl-state-of-origin/ , could be used as a trial on a stand alone week after the NAB Cup final but before the season proper starts, created by compressing NAB Cup Round 1 into a single weekend. If SOO served its purpose of getting wider attention, it could expand to 3 stand alone SOO matches evenly spaced across the season. The essence of the competition would be an 8 team knock out (e.g. Vic, Tas, SA, WA, NT, QLD, NSW, ACT). Basic structure: Round 1: G1: Seed 1 v Random 1 G2: Seed 2 v Random 2 G3: Seed 3 v Random 3 G4: Seed 4 v Random 4 Round 2: G5: Winner G1 v Winner G4 G6: Winner G2 v Winner G3 G8: Loser G1 v Loser G3 G9: Loser G2 v Loser G4 Final Round: G7: Winner G5 v Winner G6 - SOO Grand Final G10: Loser G5 v Loser G6 - 3rd/4th playoff G11: Winner G8 v Winner G9 - 5th/6th playoff G12: Loser G8 v Loser G9 - 7th/8th playoff Games G8-G12 are optional but would make clear where teams stand each year and may work better for television deal purposes. AFL could offer 4 games each SOO weekend, something the NRL cant. Another option for additional games on SOO weekends would be Foxtel Cup matches. The other main issue is defining a players SOO so players who first played in a weaker state but moved to a stronger state for more opportunity and ends up playing for the stronger state.

SOO is the pinnacle of league, above the club comp and way above any international games, and having it as such with just QLD and NSW will surely hurt any expansionist ideas, as you're saying the really big games are just for QLD and NSW, which would be quite right, as no other states could compete. The AFL has done away with this, as NSW and QLD would not be able to compete in a SOO, but can compete at club level, so you are giving the other states just as much chance to see them beat any other state in a weekly competition (albeit there are a lot more Victorian teams) Apologies Ian if I have got the gist of your argument wrong.

How is it crippling the game of RL Ian? The Crowds and TV ratings are up (for NRL and Origin), the players look forward to it and so do the fans. Also the team most affected (usually) by the origin, the Broncos, has also been the most successful over the last two decades. I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong Ian, or perhaps a NSW supporter.

LT80 is elegantly summarising one of the many reasons why SOO fails - the things you do to make it a commercial success help to shrink the code.

I actually think that players shouldn't have to earn their stripes. If your season was good enough, then you should be named All-Australian. It doesn't matter whether you are a first year player or a 10-year veteran. As I said, I think your proposal is very reasonable, however I doubt it could happen due to a lack of interest (including on my part.)