It was with tempered optimism that this writer received the news that representative football is finally back on the AFL’s agenda, after 13 years in the wilderness.
Details are, of course, still very sketchy, but the league’s operations manager Adrian Anderson told The Sunday Mail in Queensland that the door is ajar for a possible return of interstate matches.
It’s the news many footy fans have been waiting for.
The fact that AFL House is now willing to discuss the notion of representative football is testament to how loud the calls for it were.
Anderson said there was clearly an ‘appetite’ for it from the AFL Players’ Association following the recent collective bargaining talks.
It is true that there is certainly a State of Origin-shaped hole in the hearts of players and supporters.
But it’s also true that there is no Origin-shaped gap in the footy calendar, and so thus the hard part begins – trying to nut out a way for it to be done properly.
This debate is hardly new territory. Just about every man and his respective dog has an idea about how it could be done, and yes, I’ll get to mine later.
But we may as well drop the idea right now if all parties involved are not going to be 100 percent committed to getting it right.
When interstate football burned out over a decade ago, it was because not everyone was on the same page.
Clubs were concerned about their star players getting injured. As a result, fans lost interest. The perceived value and, subsequently, the passion for State of Origin waned once the game went national in the 1990s.
Now in the age of the draft, where teenagers are plucked from their hometowns and flung across the country, clubs are inevitably starting to lose their local flavour.
We’re happy to accept that. In a way, it mirrors our globalised society. People and cultures are converging.
At the same time though, the importance of recognising one’s roots remains – and the opportunity to celebrate that lies in wait. We see just how well rugby league has seized that opportunity three times per year.
NRL State of Origin is a headline-stealing, ratings-dominating, stadium-packing monolith. The fact that Queensland and New South Wales can continually play in front of a full house in Melbourne is proof of that alone.
If the AFL can package its own representative games in the right way, and deliver it with the same gusto that birthed the two new expansion clubs, then the sky is the limit.
Few would mourn the loss of the NAB Cup, especially if it was dismantled and replaced with a series of practice matches.
That could make room for the first of two interstate matches, and what better way to lead into round one?
The NRL Indigenous All Stars game earlier this year was a terrific spectacle, and if February is good enough for representative rugby league, it should be good enough for the AFL.
Sure, players are not at their peak fitness, but if the match is played in the right spirit then the drawbacks can be negated, as it was in the NRL All Stars game.
Another gap could be fashioned in mid-season. If the AFLPA wants State of Origin badly enough then they’ll have to accept that elite players will be busier than usual.
And if someone goes down with an injury in a representative game? Tough luck. They can also hurt themselves at training, at the beach, at home – anywhere.
Poor Levi Greenwood fractured his foot a couple of years ago after an argument with his tracksuit pants and a staircase. You can’t tread on eggshells.
But then there’s another matter – who plays? The Big V is a certainty, but who should they lock horns with?
For fans outside of Victoria to emotionally invest in State of Origin, the disrespectful concept of a ‘Dream Team’ should be scrapped.
Bring back South Australia and WA, forget the Allies, and rotate the teams on an annual basis based on success. First up, have Victoria against SA.
Say Victoria loses the two-game series – then Western Australia takes their place the next year, and so on and so forth. Make each state earn the right to remain.
There is no doubt the discussion will continue over the coming months, behind closed doors. But please, forgive my enthusiasm – I’m just happy it’s on the table in the first place.
Paul
Guest
The proposals outlined in this article would alienate players coming from Tasmania, NT, ACT, Queensland and NSW. This is also what limits league's appeal in non-traditional states. A Victorian kid can never aspire to SoO, thus they'd be more inspired to aim for the AFL holy grail of premiership glory or a spot in the Wallabies or Socceroos lineups, three honours which they can aspire to just as much as a kid from any other state.
Republican
Guest
Ian I am not referring to the token recruit you may stumble across as the exception in NZ or the U.S.A or anywhere else for that matter. I am referring to the desire of a growing number of Australian Footy brethren, to have the AFL go prematurely Trans Tasman, at the expense of real domestic markets and what that might look like. The context of my post is rather unrelated to what you have provided in your retort of sanctimonious indifference. The thread is discussing I thought, the pros and cons of interstate footy rivalries and I have simply expounded on this by introducing another dynamic. I thought your point was actually a very compelling one, in opposing any resurrection of rep footy. We are indeed from diametrically opposed universes but I do value your posts just the same Ian.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Republican, Very simply, because there are a number of fine young New Zealanders and Americans who, if they commit to the game and learn it, could be very very good AFL players. If we hire them, and some other team does not, then we will be are more likely to win a premiership than they are ... especially if these players do not count against our list or salary cap. I realise in your universe Israel Folau can never learn to be an AFL footy player, and can never dominate a third quarter with a series of contested marks, and can never win a game by correctly picking the smart option to feed a goal to a team mate by an over the top pass - but my universe has had such things happen. In my universe, there are also going to be a number of young Americans who can jump as high as Nic Natanui, are as tall as Chris Judd and are built like Tony Lockett that we may be able to turn into servicable forwards or tap ruckmen. They are called 'UDFA Tight Ends, cut from training camp', and I would commend hiring some of them, and finding if they can in fact learn a different sort of footy.
Republican
Guest
So if Australian Rules doesn't need rep football and has evolved beyond such base parochial tribal state demarcations, why then do some here insist it needs to be internationalised and when I say internationalised I do so using a very soft 'i'. Imagine what would ensue. I mean Ian refers to this as a bunch of bad choices but crikey, this would result in farce in the extreme. The pressure to engineer a Trans Tasman origin event from the get go, given NZ's insatiable appetite for these sorts of contests would be impossible for any promoter to ignore. Aside to this, the NRL League SOO is certainly fair game also. As parochially entrenched and concentrated as it may appear, it is far from sacrosanct since NZ have been typically active behind the scenes, in the hope that they might be added to the mix. If the SOO were to include NZ, the impact on the pseudo international status the code currently commands in respect of Aust and NZ anyway - would be compromised in no small way. 'What a tangled web we weave ..... '
SportsFanGC
Roar Guru
State of Origin is just not going to fit on the AFL calendar anywhere that coaching teams and panels will be happy for their best to players to participate in. The game is national already and is played in every state and territory throughout the year. However, just to play devils advocate, how about these lines up across a stand alone weekend: Vic Metro v SA - MCG Friday Night Queensland v NSW/ACT - Gabba Saturday Afternoon WA v Vic Country - Subiaco Saturday Night Tasmania v NT - Bellerieve Oval - Sunday Afternoon You play for the state that you first played junior footy for (none of this picking and choosing like the NRL origin seems to do of late). A couple of stars for the non-Vic teams would be Jack Riewoldt and Mitch Robinson for TAS, Nick Riewoldt and Kurt Tippett for QLD, Jarrod McVeigh and Lenny Hayes for NSW and Shaun Burgoyne for NT.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Gucci Ok - I now better understand your query about mid-week games, and to be honest, as you describe it would be even worse in AFL land! Collingwood fans would burn down the town fall if their 4 or 5 best players went into camp for a week to play SOO and missed out on playing for their team on the weekend - they'd have kittens! Believe me mate, this sort of stuff happened in the 70s, and everyone went ballistic over it - it will never, ever happen again. Our recent experience with SOO, during the time of the Allies concept, is that the top players pulled out - they took the opportunity to freshen up and get over niggly injuries rather than play in a concept that was less important than the premiership. The evidence is there, it's precisely why the AFL doesn't push it - there is no clamour for it - and with good reason.
Gucci
Guest
I see, thanks for the explanation. It sounds to me lik the biggest issue is about the lack of relevance of AFL to states. Like you said, either have 8 teams (which would be administratively impossible, and some teams will be utterly crap), or why bother at all with just 3 (some people have already said they don't like the combined states option). But I think you misunderstood my question about mid-week games. In NRL, the selected players don't play for their clubs during the Origin weeks. They go to camp and do special training. So there won't be any issue with recovering in 3 days. I also don't buy the argument about coaches withholding their best players. There's no reason why NRL can't do the same either, but they don't, because everyone loves Origin. And the fact is, NRL players do very often get injured during Origin. So this is more an attitude towards Origin thing rather than protecting the player thing I reckon.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Gucci These are fair enough questions. If you go back 100+ years, they used to hold Carnivals where all the states were represented (and even NZ competed in at least two of them). As time went on, the situation in Victoria paralleled that of NSW and League, i.e. it became the premier competition and pinched players from the other 3 footy states, and the disdain that SA and WA felt for Victoria was pretty much on par with the disdain that Queensland felt for NSW - pretty much identical circumstances, except for two key differences: 1. Victorians never really quite reciprocated the fervour and disdain; and 2. with 3 states involved (potentially 4 states), it makes it that little bit more complicated than having two states. Also, we have the additional complication that all the states and territories are capable of getting half-decent teams together, and indeed some of the greatest players from the last 20 years do not come from the three major footy states (e.g. James Hird, Wayne Carey, Nathan Buckley, Nick Riewoldt, etc.) - so how can you justify having a three-way SOO when so many great players can't be represented? This is what the argument about the national competition is all about - players come from all over Australia, and that is increasing, so you either do it with all 8 states and territories, or you don't bother with it. The idea of just having Vic/WA/SA is completely contrary to the notion of a national competition. With your argument about mid-week games - it's impossible - the AFL gave up on mid-week games 20 years ago, it's now enshrined in the players' agreement, it will never come back - elite Australian Football is not the sort of game you can play with a three day break. Does the AFL have a greater focus on winning the flag? Well, it effectively ensures that by ignoring SOO. I can recall Wally Lewis saying that to him SOO was more important than winning the premiership - so yes, maybe there is a cultural difference between League and aussie rules.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Vince not just the AFL - fans, clubs and players lost interest - and coaches were only to happy to oblige (in lobbying to get rid of it).
doubledutch
Roar Pro
Never going to happen.
me, I like football
Guest
If we were to bring back SoO every state should be represented.
Lachlan
Roar Guru
bring back State of origin
Australian Rules
Guest
A large part of the reason was that despite WA and SA having some success, Victoria was generally too strong. It WAS big (1989 Vic v SA drew over 90,000 spectators) but slowly died out due to fading public interest and less support from the clubs. For example, Malthouse (Eagles coach) was coaching WA and would rest his best WCE players from Origin so as not to risk injury to them. It's understandable...Clubs get huge bonus money, fans, members, extra sponsorship dollars etc for winning the Premiership...risking all that for an exhibition game just didn't seem worth it. The AFL competition also became truly more national and so the old rivalries between the WAFL, SANFL and VFL diminished and the administrators and public seemed to embrace a more cohesive effort to grow the game Australia-wide. There simply wasn't the angst that existed between the QRL and the NSWRL for example. I agree with your last point...it'd be nice to see champions players alongside each other ('89 was a great example)...but that time has passed.
Gucci
Guest
I only started following AFL in the last 10 years or so, so there's a lot about this I don't understand. I fail to see why SOO can be successful in NRL but not AFL and also fail to see why a lot of issues are so big. To name a few: 1. Scheduling - Why can't they do they same as NRL? Mid-season 3 Wednesday night games, with selected players to miss normal club matches on weekends. 2. Player injuries - Doesn't NRL have to encounter the same? 3. Focus being on winning a flag - Are people here saying NRL players care less about winning the flag than AFL players? Surely that can't be true. 4. National game - NRL is also a national game isn't it, with clubs in 3 states. 5. Fan interest - This is the one I just can't get my head around. Take the WA for example. I would love to see Buddy, Dean Cox, Sandilands, McPharlin play in the same team. And it doesn't make any difference that I'm not from WA. How can any AFL fan not want to see that?
Poohdini
Guest
It is a good argument because cam has displayed that there is limiited player interest in non premiership season football. Why would people want to watch the sports second offering?
Vince Rugari
Expert
Fair argument, I disagree, but you can't use International Rules as a reason why SoO wouldn't work. Completely different concepts.
'Absence makes the heart grow fonder' is a cliche for a reason. We often look back fondly on things that we haven't seen or heard of in some time. But like the drop kick, king-hits, and full strength beer in the outer, state of origin belongs to a bygone era, and has no place in the world of the modern professional footballer. In my opinion, and the late 90's showed this to be true, players like the 'idea' of SoO more than they like playing it. Eventually, they realise that their number one goal in their football life is to play in a premiership, and any concept outside of club football compromises this view. If we need any further proof of the elite players lack of interest in representative football, let's look at last years International Rules series held at home. Only one All-Australian felt compelled to play against the Irish (Stephen Milne). With all due respect to the likes of Richard Douglas, Jake King, Ben McGlynn, Easton Wood and David Wojcinski, we were seeing a line-up of tradesmanlike footballers and journeymen. If we need further evidence of the players self interest, let's look at the calibre of footballer called upon where there was an all-expenses paid trip to Ireland in the offing - four All-Australian's made the trip over (Swan, Montagna, Riewoldt, Frawley), not including players the quality of Adam Goodes, Dustin Fletcher, Bryce Gibbs, Matthew Boyd and Jarrad McVeigh. The same 'fans' that want State of Origin back were no doubt part of the 109513 people who saw the IR series in 1999. By 2005 crowds were down to 84526, and then last year a paltry 35466. Damning statistics if you ask me.
Vince Rugari
Expert
Did you count the nearly 70k that went to Victoria v Dream Team in 08? I'm well aware of the crowd figures of SoO games in the 90s. As I child I went to the ones at Footy Park with my old man, and those games are some of my earliest footy memories. If you read on in my yarn, I conceded that the interest in SoO went down over the years for a handful of different reasons, and they're all fair enough. But there's an opportunity to bring it back, the AFLPA cared enough to talk about it in their CBA discussions, most people I speak to would love to have it back... It may not be required, but it'd be awesome.
Lucan
I think Vince would be referring to the fan polls run by the Hun and the Footy Record in recent times, and the players poll via the AFLPA. Those numbers do show more FOR than AGAINST State of Origin.
Gav
Roar Pro
I think a 2 tier system is the way to approach it, with promotion/relegation. Tier 1: VIC, SA, WA Tier 2: NSW/ACT, QLD, NT/TAS - Each team plays one another in their tier, with a bye each round. - Bottom team from Tier 1 is relegated to Tier 2 - Top team from Tier 2 is promoted to Tier 1