News surfaced yesterday that the AFL Players Association are leading a push to return State of Origin footy, possibly as soon as next year.
Proposals were discussed at an AFLPA meeting on Wednesday night.
President Luke Ball told the Herald Sun: “A straw poll of our players suggested there was strong interest in reviving some form of State of Origin or a ‘best of’ scenario.”
It’s not the first time players have voiced their approval of the concept, but it was a sign they are now getting serious about it.
And it came on the back of news last year that a discussion between club CEOs and the league was supportive of taking a closer look at Origin.
First, though, let’s deal with the inevitable. The naysayers.
At the time of writing yesterday, 90.33% of respondents to a Superfooty poll said the AFL should bring back State of Origin. But there’s a vocal minority that are convinced Origin has no place in the modern game.
Their argument centres around the reasons that brought about Origin’s demise being some kind of sign it should stay buried. But just how relevant are those reasons today?
Let’s take a look.
Reason #1: When the league introduced the Eagles and Crows, it took the passion out of Origin
This is true. With the Eagles and Crows, the people of Western Australia and South Australia could all of the sudden see their boys week in, week out. That obviously had an impact on Origin’s standing.
But what about today? Those two markets are now well and truly two-team towns; support is divided, not united.
In addition, expansion means “their boys” are going to be shipped off interstate more often.
Reason #2: Players grew tired of representing their state
Again, this is something that did happen. But there was a reason for it: overkill.
State of Origin being held annually, and sometimes with states playing more than one game in a year, was just asking for trouble. But there’s nothing to say it has to be that way now.
The players do want to represent their state, don’t forget that, but to ask them to do it again and again is something that can be avoided.
Reason #3: Clubs don’t want their prized assets playing Origin
At that meeting last year, it was the club CEOs that told the AFL to look into the idea further. Clubs are obviously a hurdle, but maybe not as much of a big one as has been made out.
Once more, by not going down the annual path their concerns have to be eased. The real clincher, though, could be avoiding mid-season and holding it pre-season instead. This is an idea favoured by the players.
If you must go down the mid-season path – MCG availability is a reason it may go that way – follow the idea of Graham Cornes and make players who pull out unavailable for their next club game.
Reason #4: We’re a club game, we don’t need a representative form of the game
This insular type of thinking needs to stop.
Look at how Australia rallies behind the Socceroos in a World Cup year. Look at the passion on display when New South Wales and Queensland meet in rugby league’s Origin. Look at the enormous public interest in our cricketers over summer.
Clearly, we are conceding ground to other codes by not having a true form of representative footy.
Reason #5: You cannot have an All-Stars side, you cannot hold it for longer than a week, you cannot exclude any states, etc.
There’s plenty of cannots when it comes to State of Origin. So I came up with a can.
A system of promotion and relegation, which I unveiled in column on The Roar last August, answers every single one of the typical “you cannot” calls.
Have a look at it. Consider the rebuttals to the familiar complaints.
Then tell me we can’t bring back State of Origin.
State of Origin proposal:
Some of the feedback it has received:
Daily Telegraph AFL writer Neil Cordy (@neilcordy):
“You’ve done some fine work. Love seeing stars playing together that otherwise wouldn’t.”
AFL.com.au writer Ashley Browne (@afl_hashbrowne):
“not bad, only marginally less complicated than the World Cup cricket super sixes”
Daniel Clough (@cluffdog):
“that’s the most sense I’ve seen since this topic was raised. Bit worried about crowd sizes for the lower seeds but love it”
Andrew Leonard:
“Great concept – but include the ACT to make it 4 games over an Origin weekend – it would be brilliant. Play one game on the Friday night, one Saturday arvo and evening and one Sunday.”
The Cattery:
“I have to admit, this is the best AFL SOO concept I have ever come across – it has potential. It has potential because the reality is that you’re only going to get away with one weekend per annum, no more, and it’s a genius way to accommodate 8 teams.”
Dingo:
“Great idea Michael, this is the only formula I’ve seen that has any hope of working imo. I like Andrew’s input also, you blokes might be onto something. Hopefully the powers at AFL House read the article, it could get some legs.”
James of Ascot Vale:
“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.”
Lachlan
Roar Guru
North (NT QLD) vs South (Vic Tas) vs East (NSW ACT & Int.) vs West (WA SA)
Mick Clifford
Guest
Would love to see it back but the Victorians are not really that keen. Understand its a risk for all clubs, especially the SA and WA clubs, as a large proportion of their players would be involved. I do not agree with the argument that we see interstate rivalry as it stands in the AFL as all teams have players from all states on their list - hence the reason for STATE OF ORIGIN. If the Victorians dont have enough pride to be involved, suggest SA play WA and the loser invite Victoria for a softer version of the game - and no one precious will get hurt. Dont forget TASMANIA.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
It's all relative. For a domestic competition with a salary cap in a country of 21 million people that isn't of particularly popular internationally, quite a few are being paid the Australian equivalent of Messi, Rooney, CRonaldo money. Regardless, whether international soccer players make themselves available for representative matches isn't all that relevant. Do you really think that Carlton, if faced with Judd's playing SOO, could give a stuff what Barcelona does with Messi? :P :D
Greeney
Guest
Not a big fan of SOO for the other reasons that the people against it have said, BUT if we did have to give in and put on a SOO day or game, why not have it in between the Preliminary Final and the Grand Final? Perhaps on Grand Final eve, on the friday night? That way, the players aren't off on annual leave so they would still be availiabe, match fitness would not an issue, obviously players playing in the Grand Final aren't eligible, but players from the other 16 teams would still be avaliable. It would add to the carnival atmosphere of Grand Final week. Just a thought.
Rossi
Guest
Thanks tc for getting my point. The only thing about Chris judd I would b cheering 4 in the big v, is cheering 4 him 2 get an injury. It's irrelevant. Although, maybe 4 minnow clubs & their supporters it may be different...
Frank Lee Kennedy
Guest
Ian, if your statement “But its a game that cannibalises your existing game.” would be right, we would not wait with so much excitement every year for the SOO period. Rugby League State of Origin is the SHOWPIECE of the “great game of rugby league” as you mentioned. That’s why it prospered.
Dingo
Guest
Actually, no that's not true, because having no teeth would make me a Collingwood supporter by default.
Dingo
Guest
I'd love having my teeth removed without anaesthetic more than I'd ever love Collingwood. ;)
piesman2011
Guest
to many players away on holidays post season. Plus there would be a lot of players struggling with injuries after a long season.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I wish I had a complete answer. The first thing is that we just haveot accept that the interest isn't strong in local footy a ny more, and with ready access to AFL all weekend it never will be as it was. The days of 5000 people turning up to watch Glenorchy and Clarence are over (except for one-off "name" appearance like Aker last year). Secondly, Tasmania's demographics mean a slide of some sort is inevitable. For 20 years now, many of the age group that should form the state's player base has had to leave the state to find work. So, not only is the overall population almopst static, the player pool is probably in decline. That said, things can be made far better than they are. The TSL needs to attract the best players that are in the state. That doesn't happen now. The salary cap is too low, and other leagues can virtually match it. Why would anyone play TSL if they can make more money, with less training and travel, by playing at a lower level. The misnamed "AFL Tasmania" needs to be supporting the clubs, not denigrating them in the media as they have done with Hobart for a couple of years now. Or, like they are doing now, telling two clubs over a century old they are competing for one licence because they want to bring in a new club from an area with no demand because AFL Tas stupidly built a new ground with nobody to play on it. State league football was only ressurrected, through the TSL three years ago. At that time AFL Tas went through what they claimed was a roigorous assessment process for the licences. Many, including myself feel ten was too many to enter the TSL. But that decision was made. Now, with the same people at the helm, they don't want to stick with it. What has happened so much in three years to overhaul the league? Nothing. What killed the first statewide league? A few things, but one was the constant playing around with the number and make-up of clubs in the competition. If the process was so rigorous, how did it fail so soon? Only incompetence could possibly be the answer. The few people who followed the league, particularly any of the impacted clubs, left in droves. And so did players, who didn't know what league the club would be in next year. Players, supporters, volunteers, etc, all left. Repeating the mistakes of the past is one thing could easily have been avoided. Instead, AFL Tas seem intent on ensuring the destruction of clubs (particularly Hobart - and I'm not a fan of the Tigers). Tasmanian football can probably be saved, but not while AFL Tasmania is focussed on its pet projects and cronyism. Heads have to roll from the top, but there is no way of doing that when the whole of the management agrees with the same backflips and occasional vindictiveness. Even then, it will require more help from the AFL - who already take more money out of Tasmania than is sustainable.
kennoth
Guest
Listen up you Dheads !! If u are so keen for SOO its so simple. Just confine the draft to players to teams inside their state boundaries. That is players can only play for teams registered inside their state of birth. Then you can have soo nearly every weekend. That way Tassie will at last get a team. IMO is that SOO will never work and that silly NSW v QLD is for rock-apes and the tip is its days are numbered as well. In 2 yrs time there will be only one mid season RL soo game Who wants to risk valuable stock in a game that is little more than a demo to showcase a few stars. The Premiership is the BIG Deal keep it that way. A lot of players will never experience (GF) it but a SOO call up will never match that !!
Australian Rules
Guest
Wookie, I watch plenty of games from the 80s. Yes, we all get nostalgic about the good ol biffo and toughness...but you cannot, possibly, contend that today's game is not faster, harder (running) and more akin to elite athleticism than what it was 20+ years ago. The sheer intensity of the modern game leaves the old game for dead. Tackle after tackle, effort after effort, constant spread, zoning, running.....
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Good on ya, I couldn't disagree with ya ;) Cept I like Origin more than Collingwood :)
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yes but what happens when the Eagles (as they always do) don't live up to their potential and start to fade as the season picks up ;) That's the point of a SECOND competition, it is neither a distraction if handled properly nor a burden on clubs as it gives them opportunities to turn the ship around as we all know Worsfold's gonna have to do in say, six or eight weeks time :P
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Wookie, Here is some play from 1991 - it's part of the Tour de Lockett series The game is so much slower, and the players are so much less fit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLxU2Hnvmc&feature=relmfu
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yes but the point is not so much about them playing more games, ie getting bigger bang from buck, tho in Rugby League they do choose to play more...and obviously the clubs apply pressure. What I'm talking about is having them benefit the club by being re-energised by their rep team mates. This might sound a bit too 'socialist' for you, but it's definitely the case in Rugby League and is so even in the 'meaningless' ANZAC tests, where Australia are almost shoo-ins to always win. Here there's only so much pressure to win, even though there is still some. Yet you get the re-energising. I believe players who were shoo-ins for Origin often play, and in the case of Johanatan Thurston I believe the ANZAC test actually helped him and therefore North Queensland get to the level they are right at the moment. Now the AFL's probably never going to have an international component, so that's why it's easy to get into this dichotomy of SoO/club where both are seen as threats to the other, but rep games can be as you say non origin-style...and can be treated like a footnote/build up to the big club games. And guess what the best way to prepare for a big game is to take two steps up, so if things go wrong you can take a step down and still keep it all together and thus for your club to get the benefit. Maybe the cost is to miss a few lower-level club matches if this were to happen, but otherwise I feel you're left with just comparing the best on paper...which leaves the fans potentially disillusioned and prob just as horrible, people start channeling their support for only the big clubs, a market-determined outcome.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Just because a game is now faster doesnt make it more physical. Look at the differences in defensive tactics alone. Key defenders and forwards always fought - the stuff that Haydeny Ballantyne and others like him get chasitised for - that was the go across the entire field. Players hit packs harder. Contested footy was genuine contested footy. Hip and shoulders went with the game. Do I think the game was more physical - you bet I do. The pace the game is played at is irrelevant, in fact while most injuries back then were primarily clash or contest related, the majority of major injuries arent a result of contests at all.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Yeh - but it's a big jump from resting - to making yourself available for another game - in fact such a big jump that it's impossible to believe. Judd pull out of a club game to play SOO? Sorry, can't see that.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Are you trying to argue the game was more demanding in the 80s than it is now? 25+ years ago the game was played at a snail's pace compared to now.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Ive often thought that Origin should replace the NAB Cup every three years, and have the International Cup played at the same time. State or Country of borth. Internation Cup matches could be curtain raisers that could feature the AFLs irish contingent actually playing for Ireland (and Im not convinced that given the quality of some of the Irish players they couldnt give Tassie a run for their money). Folau could line up for Tonga :D