“Gentleman, raise your glasses, as I propose a toast,” the murmur from the assembled diners died away, ”to association football!” loud cheers greeted this remark.
The speaker continued, “for although we like other games, ours is the real football.”
“Hear, hear” then huge applause broke out from the diners. After the toast, Fred Barlow, president of the Granville football association, resumed his chair. This dinner, for players and committee members of the Granville club, took place in May 1903, on the eve of the most anticipated football season in memory.
The “hear, hears” had echoed across numerous Sydney pubs over the past few weeks.
Within those dark wood-panelled rooms, thick with the acrid blue smoke from dozens of cigars, football men were gathering. Over the familiar clack of billiard balls, the soft thunk of darts, and perhaps to the accompaniment of an inebriated patron playing an out of tune piano, brand new football clubs were being formed.
The sense of excitement in the air was due to the dramatic decision of local football authorities to create a brand new district competition.
Old clubs were tossed aside as part of a new era in the sport of association football. By splitting the football map of Sydney into districts and dividing football talent more evenly, it was hoped that a closer, more inclusive competition would revive a code that had been in the doldrums. It is not dissimilar to the arguments used when the A-League was created just over a century later.
There was a rush to form new clubs. The Balmain district club was founded at a meeting at the Balmain Town Hall on the 27th February; Rozelle at Keogh’s Merton Estate Hotel on 27th February; Pyrmont at the Duke of Edinburgh hotel on March second, Ultimo was founded at the Bristol Arms Hotel on 11th March; Glebe at Glee’s Hotel in late March. South Sydney, East Sydney and the Navy also formed clubs and together with Fred Barlow’s Granville, a brand spanking new nine-team competition was ready to go.
As a move to reinvigorate the local game it couldn’t have been more timely. The year 1903 would prove to be a momentous one for the sport of rugby and that year would also see the introduction of a third football code.
After years in the wilderness, Australian Rules football enthusiasts had banded together and re-introduced the sport in Sydney. An eleven team local competition was due to commence and they were about to receive a massive boost.
The VFL would help the fledgling new league by playing a premiership match in Sydney. The game, between high-flyers Fitzroy and Collingwood, was to have all costs borne by the VFL and all profits to the local association.
Rugby was not sitting back idly. They had organised for a tour by the powerful New Zealand team, which would include the first ever Australia vs All-Blacks Test Match.
In this turbulent footballing year there was bound to be some cross-code rivalry. The Balmain Australian Football club proudly announced that they had recruited well from rugby and Soccer.
Scouts from both rugby and Australian Football turned up at Granville soccer club looking for talent. They were promptly turned away by Mr Barlow.
The NSW Australian football authorities were indignant that the Metropolitan Rugby Union scheduled two matches at venues close to the Sydney Cricket Ground on the same day as the VFL game.
The Metropolitan Rugby Union relented and moved one of their matches, however they conveniently didn’t move the match of the day between Easts and Sydney University which went ahead in front of 10,000 people at the Agricultural Ground right next door.
The VFL match was a success with a crowd of around 18,000 turning out, although it was reported with some glee that a number of spectators on the SCG hill spent most of the afternoon leaning over the fence watching the rugby game!
Amazingly, another VFL premiership game, between Carlton and Geelong, was played in Sydney that year.
Finally on the 30th May, the first round of matches of the brand new district association football competition got underway with good crowds turning out at all the venues. The NSW Football Association had done well to secure the use of local grounds.
Balmain played at Birchgrove Oval by the harbour, Pyrmont and Ultimo would play at Wentworth Park, smack bang in the middle of the two districts. Rozelle’s ground at Easton Park would become notorious for its rowdy spectators.
On the 15th August 1903 rugby played its trump card. In what was to be the first ever Australia versus All-Blacks Test, a crowd of over 30,000 turned out at the Sydney Cricket Ground to witness the New Zealanders crush the home side 22-3.
The New Zealand tour was a stunning success. Their game against NSW also drew over 30,000 spectators, a figure on a par with VFL grand finals at the time. Any history of Australian rugby, or rugby league for that matter, would do well to at least acknowledge the 1903 All-Blacks.
At the same time as the Australian Rugby side was being hammered, Glebe belted Granville 7-1 in the semi-final of what was to be another innovation in that memorable year of association football. Rather than being decided as a knockout challenge cup, the Gardiner Cup would be played between the top four clubs in the League.
It was essentially a playoff system, again with parallels to the future A-League.
On the afternoon of Saturday, 29th August 1903, at the Forest Lodge sports ground, the Pyrmont and Glebe football teams posed for a photo before the start of the Gardiner Cup final. At 3:35pm C Timms for Pyrmont kicked-off.
The underdog Glebe, playing in maroon, scored in the fourth minute and a few minutes later had the ball in the back of the net again but it was ruled offside.
Pymont, in blue, soon equalised before taking a 2-1 lead. Glebe fought back and by half-time the scores were locked 2-2. In an exciting second half, Pyrmont proved too strong, running out winners by the score of 4 goals to 2.
Of course we could only imagine what a game like this would look like. Not so! It turns out that there were photos of that day, two of which accompany this article.
So was the district competition final a success? The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the match was “witnessed by a large crowd of spectators.” The Referee noted “2,000 spectators being present.” The Sydney Sportsman recorded that “the spectators at Forest Lodge must have numbered 3,000 people.”
Interestingly the Sydney Sportsman went on to say, “as many again were congregated on the rocks surrounding the ground.” So it is plausible that there may have been as many as 6,000 people watching the game that day.
For a code without a marquee game such as a VFL premiership match or an international Test match, the district club competition hadn’t done too badly. Unfortunately, the golden age of Sydney district football died along with numerous players in the killing fields of Flanders in 1916.
Had a strong, stable district competition survived or had already been in existence by 1903 could the future of association football turned out differently?
Perhaps the words uttered by committee member Tom Harrison at the 1903 Granville dinner may yet prove prophetic: “Had they done years ago what they are doing now – that is, making district football – the game would be the leading winter sport in Australia.”
albatross
Roar Pro
There are other "Australian" games. Trugo and Polocrosse for starters.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#cm The Melbourne 'isolation' worked for and against. Simply - the need for a common set of rules was still driving the London FA meetings through 1862 until the first draft of rules in 1863. The need for a common set of rules had been driving experiments at Cambridge since the 1840s. Had Melbourne rules of 1859 been more visible and less isolated - then, the evolution may have followed that path. (although - that's simplistic - I don't believe the 'Eton' vs 'Rugby' dribbling vs handling was ever going to see in England a single 'common code'.) I gather the Sheffield FA wasn't truly incorporated into the London FA until 1878. By that point - Melbourne rules were the main game in Brisbane - it wasn't until the 1887 independent schools vote to adopt Rugby (winning by 1 vote) over 'Victorian Rules' (with claimed intercolonial objection to the 'Victorian' in the name). Here - the isolation of Melbourne so far from Brisbane made the tyranny of distance a pretty big deal. Yep - same country - but by comparison to England it may as well been London to Moscow. Melbourne and Victoria was able to impart and sustain influence west ward and southward - but, in and through Sydney and beyond was very difficult - even with a good comp up in Newcastle. Had it been Sydney rather than Melbourne were Tom Wills and friends made their moves - then I have little doubt we'd've seen a very different outcome.
cm
Guest
Love this stuff Perry! Just re: the tyranny, what I meant was that the isolation of Melbourne and the lack of competition was favourable to a code developing under its own steam. I think your last paragraph there actually articulates a bit of what I was getting at. To take the Sheffield example, they had lots of options for competition within a year or two. Local clubs, playing their rules largely. Clubs further afield, playing slightly or very different rules. Public school teams. Ex-public school teams (like Dingly Dell or Forest). These were the options. Largely the only option which afforded them competition were the locals, until the FA gained prominence (largely with their help - they were assisting before they'd played in Nottingham).
Perry Bridge
Guest
#cm - re Wills - I didn't though say that I was comfortable that any such experience (with Aboriginal kids/games) led to his approach to the rules established in Melbourne. Certainly in Australia - prior to around 1858 - 'football' was very much more the domain of being played on the regents/Queens birthday along with other athletic sports etc. Or perhaps a game including the regiment of soldiers out from England and played along their local rules from back home. Melbourne certainly got in ahead of the other capital cities for depth and breadth of football development - such that still by the 1880s the size of crowds for club matches was pretty well unmatched anywhere and the development of enclosed grounds generating revenue was well ahead of other cities and the dirth of such in Sydney was a key issue in code wars there. Certainly early headlines would be 'Football' and under that would be articles pertaining to whatever code - articles needed to be read to determine (esp in Syd and Bris) whether the article described 'touch down' or 'little mark' or other identifiable elements of play. In some cases articles about a particular club AGM would include a vote on what rules they would play by for the following season - this seemed mainly an choice re the 'handling' codes. In QLD for example - the 'Anglo-Queensland Footballers seemed firmly entrench with the soccer game (and clubs named along English lines). The early clubs prior to 1860 pretty well anywhere were most likely to be playing irregularly and/or internally. Sheffield FC for example - est Oct 1857, were playing intra club matches such as 'married' vs 'singles'. The club being established by the Cricket Club (CC). Set up their rules 12 months on (Oct 1858). 10 yrs on Sheffield Wednesday - a CC from 1820 - est'd their football arm. So - in Aust, with Melb CC est'ing MelbFC in 1858, the games predominantly intra club and by May 1859 set up their own rules. Very similar and about 8 months out of phase with Sheffield. You're right about the role of team captains confirming rules/interpretations before the match. The tyranny of distance was interesting in that even in England - it took Sheffield until 1865 to play a game outside of the Sheffield area - travelling to Nottingham - whereas by 1860 Melbourne had travelled the slightly greater distance to Geelong for a match. The smaller population meant that on a local level the tyranny of distance was overcome (by necessity) and the rules spread more broadly - and also, there were not the established institutions (schools) with their own embedded rules that might be the preferred method of the locals. On a broader scale - the tyranny of distance wouldn't really come into until the Rugby and Soccer codes had become more identifiable back in England.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"I always understood that AC Milan was originally set up as a cricket and soccer club by ex-pat Brits." Yes, that's the way AC Milan was formed. And, as a tribute to its English founders, the club retains the English name "Milan", not "Milano" And, it makes a wonderful Case Study for the sports historian to explore why one sport captured the hearts and minds of locals in Milan to produce one of the greatest football clubs in the world ... ... but the other sport introduced to Milanese has captured nothing but dust in Milano.
Bondy
Guest
Crickets really kicked on there pal hasn't it .
cm
Guest
The evolution is true of all football. Football was football at this point in time: not homogenous, just descriptive of the many many ways people kicked a ball around. In England/Scotland at the time people - not just in public schools - were playing variously and regularly; some of the games recorded with ball ups, some with behinds, some with crossbars, and all with various degrees of handling. Largely rules were decided by team captains or organisers. The Australian football experience was just part of the evolution; it just happened to occur under the tyranny of distance, and as you say, without competition - this is vital; its slso interesting that there WAS competition elsewhere in austral8a. But look at the rules - strikingly similar to Cambridge or Sheffield or Surrey, all contemporary, all similarly with plenty of room for interpretation. Anyway it doesn't surprise that "rugby" doesn't return results - but that's not to say that it didn't have elements of it. As for wills. I'm uncomfortable, and will take the extensive research of historians over the desires of footy mad journos and long dead great uncles any day.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
I always understood that AC Milan was originally set up as a cricket and soccer club by ex-pat Brits. The Italian wikipedia says: "L'Associazione Calcio Milan S.p.A., nota semplicemente come Milan,[5] è una società calcistica italiana con sede nella città di Milano, fondata il 13 dicembre 1899.[ " On the history page it says: La sera di mercoledì 13 dicembre 1899[2] un gruppo di inglesi abituali frequentatori dell'American Bar e un gruppo di italiani clienti della Birreria Spaten si riuniscono all'Hotel du Nord di Milano e costituiscono il Milan Cricket and Foot-ball Club.[3] Gli inglesi con la passione per il football, in voga nella nativa Inghilterra, sono Alfred Edwards (presidente), Barnett, Allison, Nathan, Davies e Herbert Kilpin.[3] La fondazione del club viene resa pubblica due giorni più tardi, venerdì 15, dalla Gazzetta dello Sport. The Lumbaart page (lombard) says: L' Associazione Calcio Milan l'è voeuna squadra de folber de Milan indoe l'è stada fondada in de'l 1899. Adess la giuga in de'l campionaa italian de Serie A. L'è la squadra in de'l mond che l'ha vengiuu pussee titoj internazionaj; inscambi in Italia l'è la segonda che l'ha vengiuu pussee titoj nazionaj (de dree a la Juventus). So it would appear that the name Milan is used in the Lombard language.
cm
Guest
But tellingly, "Milan" is not in Italian.
Perry Bridge
Guest
There was an temporary published variation that permitted a goal via the scrimmage - but that was dispensed with fairly rapidly. The rules evolved in general play - and not surprisingly when only a list of 10 or 11 rules are presented - there's a fair bit to read between the lines. Certainly from the 1858 and onward papers the reports were of 'football'. I've edited a fair few articles via the TroveNLA (Argus etc) and haven't seen 'Rugby' used as Celtic Bandaid claims. The Wills notion - I'd be comfortable that he played with the aboriginal kids some form of such sport. Wills' #1 game though was always cricket - and when at school at Rugby in England - he was predominantly into cricket and his 'Cambridge' exposure was via cricket and not academia. When he returned to Melbourne he was straight back to cricket and the Melb Cricket Club - where he was an oddity, both a 'gentleman' batter but he also bowled which was normally the domain of the 'professional'. Via being a member of the MCC - when he'd suggested either the formation of a shooting club or football club to keep cricketers fitter during winter and to aid in the defence of the colony (this was the Gold rush era and really big forts were being built to keep the Russians and French away) - so it fell to him when the MCC members (initially the MFC was limited to MCC members) decided to develop their own game - it fell to Wills and a group of 3 other gentlemen to formulate a set of rules. Wills was perhaps the best long kicker in the colony. He didn't push exclusively for school of rugby laws however at various times its indicated that he was keen on a cross bar because that would encourage a 'specialist' kicker who could clear the cross bar. It was an important variation of the Australian game that specialist kickers are NOT a feature of the game. Sure - positionally there might be the 'goal sneak' in those days, or the full forward - however, anyone might need to take a shot if they happen to win the ball (in play/mark or free) and there's no giving it to a specialist as proxy. Now - this wasn't in the original rules - but it was an important evolution. However - another irony is that 4 years later the London FA original rules had no cross bar and allowed fair catches. However - that game evolved differently. And that game had a similar initial idea which was a simple code for all to play - and the 'simple' was always with reference to the Rugby School rules which were deemed too numerous. The clear issue in England was a direct competition - original member clubs of the London FA rejected the new code and instead became founders of the RFU in 1871. There was evolution by necessity because of competition. In Australia and Melbourne in particular - there wasn't the same direct competition in the early decade in Melbourne - which allowed the game to settle for it's own benefit rather than the English scenario where Rugger and Soccer began to diverge from each other and Rugger became far more a carrying/running game and soccer a hands free dribbling game. It was all about a marketable distinction!!!
Perry Bridge
Guest
Ken - The Australian 'Rugby schism' via Rugby League was a direct result of the potential seen via the New Zealand tour of Aust in 1907 and the All Golds tour to England in 1907 where the Northern Rugby Union rules had been again modified by 1906 and was clearly a distinct game - which is the game adopted rules that were adopted by that touring New Zealand team. That is the game that became known as 'Rugby League'. It was a direct adoption of the English Northern Rugby Union rules. This is very, very distinct to what occurred in Melbourne with the rules. There was NO direct adoption of a set of rules. There was experimentation through the 1858 'football season' of a variety of rules including the Rugby School rules. There were too many people with opposing views (based on their school backgrounds) and there was a recognition that the Rugby School rules were NOT suited to playing against adults (the famous "black eyes don't look good on Collins Street"). The impetus was (as a Cambridge University years earlier) to seek a single code of rules for all to play together. The initial set of 10 rules was a unique collection of rules. It didn't invent the notion of a field and ball sport and included elements of field and ball sports - kicking, catching, goals. The rules meeting in May 1859 did include reference to a variety of school rules - as provided by Thompson (the journalist who produced an annual Cricketers almanac that included a football section with rules from various English Public schools). There is no question that the Melbourne game was unique and distinct from the outset. Very, very different to Rugby League especially in Australia - heck, it was an English game introduce by the New Zealanders!!! And yet - the anti Vic faction who seem to delight in trolling on this continues to assert Rugby League as an equivalent 'Australian' entity to Australian Football. People who assert that either lack an understanding or have an alternative agenda.
roosters14
Guest
All the drama and 5 years of complete crap served to fans and the eels parra stadium crowds are still higher than the wanderers. Last year the wanderers crowds flopped harder than any recent eels cellar dwelling season so i suggest you back track and quick. Yes they had a nice run and got a bandwagon off of that but as soon as the loses started to come the inferior a-league product came to light for most. For the wanderers its 12k at the ground and 90k on tv (if they are lucky)
Tom
Guest
it stands for Association Calcio Milan
Tom
Guest
"There is a very good reason why the British are good losers in sport, in general the British are quite polite and secondly the UK has thousands of years of history with fantastic arts and culture" Huh?? I think that you are confused as you have mixed the uncultured and uncouth English up with the cultured Italians (including the Romans), French, Greek and Spaniards who between them created all of the world's culture as we know and love it today.
Jeff Williamson
Roar Pro
Thanks for this article. There is such a well documented history of football in other countries, but I do not think there is enough history of the game here in Australia
Tom
Guest
"There might be 7,000 people at the stadium but 600,000 people watching" Do you believe in Santa Claus too?
Greg trilby
Guest
It's clear that both the above quotes came before the formation of rugby league, so my vote goes to ricks quote
Griffo
Roar Guru
Yeah that second one is brilliant - I liked the way the official just casually tucks his green tool box under the barrier, like it was no longer safe beside him any more. Hilarious!
Waz
Guest
Lanza - that as one old timer might say is a load of old bollocks. Soccer pre-1960s was a thugs game, chopping of legs was considered an art, barging the goal keeper in to the back of the goal was normal, stand still long enough and you would get injured - the old version of soccer was as much a thugs game as Rugby. Some where along the way someone brought skill into the equation and then FIFA (damn them) started changing the rules to protect the skilful.
Waz
Guest
Netball was developed in England in the 1890's