Every year, the debate about the ANZAC day match is revisited. Is it a respectful way to remember our soldiers? Is it fair that it is limited to the same two clubs?
And why those clubs?
I respect ANZAC day and those who stand for the good of our great country but I am not sure the ANZAC day clash really does justice to the day.
While there are measured attempts to resemble other ANZAC day activities, these simply seem to be token gestures to justify the use of the occasion to promote the game.
Of course the day has been a tremendous success for the AFL. This means every other club has some element of envy. Players in other teams are probably relieved they do not have to deal with the awkward scheduling and compromised recovery, but they would feel that they are missing an opportunity to participate in one of the biggest events on the AFL calendar.
Every other football department hypothetically factors in the gate proceeds into their own budget and dreams of playing in the match. However the current occupants argue the game would not be such a success if not underpinned by their enormous supporter bases – a valid point. What seems to be missed each year is the fact this is marketed as a tribute game to ANZAC day, yet most of the aftermath focuses on the marketing advantage to the occupants and the disadvantage to their players.
It is true that no amount of compensation from the AFL can justify the enormous exposure Essendon and Collingwood attract by playing on ANZAC day. They have cleverly installed it as one of the ‘fixtures’ of ANZAC day celebration – almost as if the ‘tradition’ is as much so as the dawn service. Not only is this not true; it is disrespectful to the actual ANZAC day services, especially when the tribute is only a few minutes of appropriately-themed pre-match entertainment.
Indeed the game has seemed to rejuvenate attention and interest in the day. It can be argued that this much-loved sport is a symbol of the freedom we enjoy as a result of the sacrifices of those who serve. But just playing the sport is not in itself a tribute to the day.
Adding some guards in uniform and a moving rendition of ‘the last post’ is gift-wrapping.
The interviews with players and coaches are fitting – particularly when they talk about their personal history, the people they know who have served and so on. Yet surely there are personnel in other clubs who have similar connections – should they be deprived of the privilege to pay homage? If either the AFL or the clubs are promoting this as a dutiful tribute, then it is selfishness or arrogance that suggests it should be exclusive.
There is no reason why this game should not be honoured by the AFL as a whole, thus all players should at the very least have the opportunity to be interviewed if not stand guard to the national anthem or, forbid, play.
Some will argue the occasion was created by these two clubs so they have earned the right to play. Kevin Sheedy was one of the masterminds behind the day – no longer connected with Essendon, should GWS now have a stake? Where does the ownership of the fixture really lie?
Some will suggest the game would not be so large if contested by different clubs. The previous year’s grand finalists would not only challenge that theory, but would possibly offer similar on field intensity and interest, if not more so. The two largest memberships from the previous year would also ensure a packed stadium – even if this was Victorian teams only at the MCG, and each other state hosted their own game.
Moreover, the Magpies and Bombers hardly need the blockbuster to attract fans: the AFL may actually improve the supporter base and interest of a ‘second-tier’ game and enjoy the profits. Ownership of this day truly belongs to something more than football – not these two football clubs, not even this nation solely – so it seems rich to suggest they have earned the rights to exclusivity.
North Melbourne once owned Friday night football; venturing out into an unrealised market and establishing a fruitful institution. This was despite the continuous warning from the AFL not to do so for fear it would be a financial failure. Instead, upon the ultimate success of the venture, the league identified the potential and dictated it should be shared as it was too great an advantage for one club.
Or arguably, that it could be further capitalised through the involvement of more clubs. Without arguing the equality of this, or the resulting abandonment of North Melbourne on Friday night, this case illustrates how tradition and ownership is more a league concept rather than club-centric.
Despite all this, the real concern for fan and general public alike should be the use of the word ‘tribute’. In what way is this game really a tribute? How is it any different to the marketing tactics to promote other blockbusters in the AFL fixture?
If the game is truly to be seen as a tribute, the proceeds should go to a suitable cause such as the RSL or veteran’s widows fund. As good as the game was this year – and often has been – neither of these clubs are doing anything substantial to justify the tribute match.
Indeed, due to the short turnaround this year, neither club visited the shrine as has been part of the preparation in previous seasons. In fact, we now hear players and coaches – who just days ago spruiked about the game and how it honours our soldiers in hard-fought battles – crying about soft-tissue injuries and video referrals. Not at all like the diggers they apparently were so committed to honouring.
Do not read this as a blight on the game, the clubs involved, the fixture or the day itself. Continue to hold the game and keep the manufactured ‘tradition’ between the existing clubs. Clubs should be encouraged to innovate and they should be rewarded for doing so. However, don’t call it a tribute until it truly is so. Support the relevant causes and it will be difficult to argue that the two largest supporter bases shouldn’t be charged with the fundraising initiative.
John Seabrook
Guest
Collingwood and Essendon became the official ANZAC day clash back in the 90's in a bloodless coup. Pies and Bombers fans loved it, and most others were opposed to this sudden 'tradition'! Certainly, they are two high profile Victorian teams assured of a good attendance, but the monopoly on such an important occasion is galling to all other teams and their supporters. Don't they qualify, or are Collingwood and Essendon the only clubs whose supporters matter? The only two clubs worthy of the moment? The only Two clubs affected by the horrors of war? I think it's wrong.
sheek
Guest
Sorry I haven't read every thread, but I want to say this. I think it's great that we can watch sport on Anzac Day. This is part of precisely what the Diggers fought & died for - to provide us with the FREEDOM to enjoy the day we celebrate in their memory & honour. So let's not politise the day. Go to the Dawn Service, participate or watch the marches, remember the fallen, respect their deeds, go to the pub, play two-up & get drunk, watch a footy game, celebrate & enjoy the day! This is precisely how the Diggers would like us to spend the day - with the freedom to do as we choose.....
Lorry
Guest
AndyMack what does ANZAC day 'raise awareness' of exactly? Sure it aids us in remembering soldiers who died, But does it raise of awareness of 'why' we, along with other nations, invaded Turkey? Does it raise awareness of why Aust has been involved in more conflicts than any other small nation over the last 100 years? Does it raise awareness of why we suddenly switched our allegiance from Britain to the USA in WWII? I don't think so....
Australian Rules
Guest
Agreed. Good read.
Redb
Roar Guru
typically cynical. Have you even been to the game? There are thousands of kids amongst the silent the message is overwhelming poignant in remembrance of our fallen soldiers you could never get that impact in a history class. The kids learn & begin to understand, ask questions later.
Redb
Roar Guru
Dazzle me with your insight - what is on the banner that both clubs run through?
ManInBlack
Guest
The Changi Brownlow book is a good read. Highly recommended.
ManInBlack
Guest
see my post above - key points: Anzac day game was in part at the design of Vic RSL - Bruce Ruxton. Host broadcasters CAN tend to over state things and waffle on. Footy and other entertainment after 1pm is fine - always has been. So long as the activity is NOT prior to 1pm then it's not overriding the significance of the day itself. ANZAC day has always been the morning. AFL match in Melbourne is no more dictating to the country than NRL games.....hmm, in Melb too!!
ManInBlack
Guest
Let's not forget that this game came about in part at the request of the Victorian branch of the RSL with the late Bruce Ruxton (a Collingwood fan) instrumental in making it happen. I gather he wasn't offended. Keep mindful too that for ANZAC day, footy, sport, etc after 1pm was the traditional limit in entertainment activity - so, this game is not stepping on any toes. At the end of the day - it's 'just a game of footy'. However, the old VFL (along with WAFL, SANFL etc) has every right to - should they choose it - to pay respects to fallen soldiers as in through the Boer War, WWI and WWII in particular, the leagues in question and the VFL in particular have had many players serve, and many perish at war. So - I'm really struggling to understand why some people choose to be offended? Perhaps at times some broadcasters can go over the top. That's them - and not the AFL or the players on the ground.
Norm
Guest
It is not just the minute's silence that is impressive - it also the motorcade of veterans. The MCG isn't the only commemoration of ANZAC Day, of course. It was the 1st, back in 1995 - & now the NRL follows suit (as usual). One notices no ref to the NRL from the AFL detractors, of course! The Fremantle game has also been going for over 10 years. Watching it tonight, it is a very impressive tribute to their own history. And the game is pretty good so far.
bazzalencko
Guest
I think most objective fans would support an increase in the financial tribute that should accompany the few minutes pre-game, humbling as they may be
bazzalencko
Guest
Several times when the teams currently involved are mismatched, crowds have been down and the debate rages on their inclusion. If the game is necessary to attract the attention of the younger generations, that game needs to continually attract their attention else risk losing ongoing appeal. Regardless, the issue is less about the teams playing (as gets debated each year) and more about whether the game truly serves its purpose in honouring the day. Beyond those moving few minutes, of course. As compelling as 90,000 normally-loud fans standing silent can be, is it not more moving to watch a 90-year-old man march through cold and rain to the shrine? At a time when most of those footy fans are still asleep? I suspect the game detracts as much as it honours. It is time to justify its existence beyond the few minutes of tribute; considering donation of gate proceeds would go a long way to eliminating the debate and justifying the exclusivity and promotion of the fixture.
bazzalencko
Guest
I agree those minutes are a tribute and an extremely moving one. I agree that there are intentions to respect or draw attention to the day. I question whether these few minutes are enough, or simply window-dressing. You have to admit that - respectful as it may be - the minutes of tribute also double as a great marketing tool for the game. Tribute more than air time
Dingo
Guest
Agree 100%. I watched it on tele and was blown away by the respect shown by the crowd, to have been there would have been incredible. I do cringe at the way the game (and most codes are guilty of it) is sometimes describe as "going to war", I've never been to war but I'm fairly certain the two are poles apart. Certainly what should be remembered is the huge sacrifice that our men and women have made during times of war, but also we should celebrate the freedom that we now have because of their sacrifice. That freedom includes playing footy, which ever code, when you want, where you want, between whichever teams are going to create the biggest profile for game and the occassion. Bickering about wether it is appropriate that these two teams should always play it, or that it should be played at all, actually devalues the occassion more than anything.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Many history buffs ,might know the Cordner name, being famous in the annuls of both Melbourne FC and University. Sure enough, he is related to them.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
This is the story of Allan Cordner: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/133996/default.aspx He was the first VFL player to enlist. Interestingly, Carlton and Collingwood played out a draw on 25 April 1914 (the last time a VFL game was to be played on that date, being pre-ANZAC Day). Cordner had enlisted that morning, played that afternoon for the pies, his 23rd VFL game, and then packed up to present for service. Another Collingwood player and a Commitee man enlisted on the same day. Exactly one year later, Cordner was dead. At least six VFL playerswere to die that day, the first day of battle on Gallipoli, the one we now commemorate. Australian Football is so intertwined with the ANZAC story, if Australian Football can get more people in understanding the story, and reflecting on it, then the ANZAC Day clash is worth it.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
It was actually at the start of the 1915 season that University pulled out of the then VFL, never to return. That was barely six months after the start of WWI. They suffered the biggest casualties of any of the VFL clubs, but they were all affected. In 1916 the comp dropped back to four teams, barely. In 1917, it went up to six teams. In 1918, it went up to eight teams, Melbourne still under pressure with numbers, having contributed many to the war effort. Only in 1919 did the league return to the maximum nine teams. I recall that Fitzsimmons article a couple of years back. Worth recalling that he has written about Australian war history and is not the sort of bloke who would accept disrespect being shown on ANZAC Day.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
The MCG is Australia's Catherdral. 87,000 assemble to pay their respects, and then the commemorations are finished off with a display of our national game, with 1.7 million watching on TV, a game that diggers have played all over the world in or near the war theatre of the day, a tratidion that continues to this day. Others will claim that their sport too has a close connection with the diggers - great - commemorate that fact in your own way! Few will know that the first international game of Lacrosse by Australia played overseas, was in fact played by our diggers when they took on England, who had former Olympians amongst their ranks. The history and connections are there if you're willing to get off your fat asss and look for them. Stop your whinging and whining and do something productive for the first time in your lives.
Australian Rules
Guest
I think this point is lost on the critics. Games of footy have been played by our diggers douring 'downtime' in just about every war Australia has been involved in - this includes locations such as Northen Africa, Turkey, France, the famous Changi Brownlow, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Both World Wars decimated footy leagues around the country - University dropped out of the VFL in 1916, the WAFL lost 2 clubs during that period. For most of the 20th Century, no football was played on ANZAC Day as a sign of respect...but I think a far better way to honour the young fallen is to play. The media can get carried away...but I think the AFL gets this day right. A non-AFL person, Peter Fitzsimmons, conveyed his impressions after his first ANZAC Game at the G: "...rarely seen something so impressive in the world of sport. As they played the Last Post and the national anthem, the 100,000-strong crowd [sic] uttered not a peep, whispered not a murmur. The atmosphere was electric and the general mood in the air one of reverence for the diggers and anticipation of the game to come...Somewhere, someone has done a superb job organising that landmark day in Australian sport."
AndyMack
Guest
Jimmy, you are out of line a bit. I didnt say the Anzacs needed this platform, it just provides it. Should we just stop all Anzac commemorations? Lets just let Anzac day slip down the drain over time (the way it was going at times during the past)??? It helps raise awareness. Your comment is disrespectful.