Before all you sockah fans throw a flare at me, just hear me out, alright?
After reading Tom Elliott’s sensible and thoughtfully constructed piece in today’s football-friendly edition of the Herald Sun, only one thing occurred to me as wrong with the whole thing: it just doesn’t go far enough.
So while roundball nerds like Vince Rugari might bemoan Elliott gracing us with his views on the not-so-beautiful-anymore game, I’m embracing our new overlord, and looking for ways to execute and improve on his suggestions.
Firstly, the name. While we are all patently aware that “Soccer supporters are possessed by many grievances and conspiracy theories,” some were probably less aware that “The correct name for their game is actually ‘association football’, a named coined in 19th-century England to distinguish the code from rugby football.”
It appears to me, then, a far cry for whinging soccer fans to try to claim the name ‘football’ for their own, when the name is clearly ‘association football’.
Furthermore, let’s put your historically-erroneous theories to bed about soccer being really, really old. Because our own football, AFL – the code you should probably follow in place of soccer – is much older. 1461 days older, if Elliott’s maths on the issue is to be believed.
So that puts you firmly in your place, as lower beings with a liking for base things like explosive maritime rods, internet forums and endless droning in a big herd.
With that established, let’s move on to the bigger issue of your conspiracies, which so often go hand-in-hand with the herd mentality shown on your online blogs, no doubt as you wield flares as you type your ill-mannered and poorly-spelt diatribes.
At this point, I’ll turn to Tom.
“Another big issue soccer fans have is an alleged vendetta by the so-called AFL-mad Herald Sun against their sport.
“What nonsense.”
Nonsense indeed, Tom. But tell me, what is the purpose of a newspaper, if not solely to appease disciples of the roundball game?
“Through informing and entertaining, the Herald Sun’s main aim is to sell as many papers and online subscriptions as possible to readers.”
I understand now. How about a lecture on the basic principles of supply and demand?
“If lots of people become soccer supporters, then the Herald Sun will devote more column inches to it, even though in my opinion it already covers the code brilliantly.”
A fair and honest appraisal as I’ve seen; and sadly not one I could expect to hear from a soccer supporter.
Moving on then, with that particular nut firmly and squarely cracked, to the real issues at hand.
Namely, faking diving and expanding the goals.
Faking injury and diving for free kicks is the lowest of all acts in humanity. I’m sure if you asked Adam Goodes, roundly booed for his proclivity towards this very act, he’d tell you that he deserved every one of those sonorous taunts.
And why can’t something like not-racist jeering of indigenous players replace the organised and cogent singing of scary groups like the Red and Black Bloc? Don’t they realise their singing is un-Australian, and a stain on the game?
If not, it’s time to look at jail time, or at the very least community service, for every active supporter of soccer in this country.
Tom’s coup de grâce? The firm but insistent suggestion of removing two of the great obstacles to soccer’s success: the “silly” offside rule and the goalkeeper.
Such shortsighted people rarely have the vision to appreciate the wonders removing these frankly insulting stipulations from the game.
First of all, forcing someone to wear gloves and another coloured shirt is just plain discriminatory; but when talking to such a caste, how could you expect any different?
And secondly, if soccer people really think their game will take off in Australia, they need to realise what is painfully obvious to the rest of society.
Perhaps expanding the goals to, say, encompass the entire end of the field, and adding a stipulation that one must place the ball down over the line to score would help their cause?
Another option could be to add two, separate, smaller posts on either side of the goal, and allow players to stop if they catch the ball on the full. Now wouldn’t that be a spectacle?
But we’re talking to soccer people here. I’ve no doubt they won’t read a word of this, mainly due to the widespread illiteracy in their community.
So really, I’m wasting my time writing this.
Dok
Roar Rookie
I have noticed you have a patient and understanding manner FUUL.
FIUL
Guest
@pioneer The SPORT - i.e. Football - is the biggest team sport in AUS. More people engage with the Sport than any other team sport. But, you're right, the professional competition is small. Do I care? Not 1 bit. Happy for it to grow organically. Since you attend Aleague you would know there are huge number of kids/teens coming to games. In 10-20 yrs when these kids/teens start families of their own, expect the attendances to double, or triple. Patience required.
pioneer
Guest
Well, I am glad to get a laugh out of you, FIUL... Yes, it is the 'world' game; no sane person would dispute its popularity on a world scale. But it's just not that big down here - there are two other football codes in Australia with much larger audiences. That is a fact. And that's my point: as a soccer/football fan, if you're happy to stick with a struggling domestic competition and instead satisfy yourself with a smorgasbord of top quality professional soccer elsewhere in the world on TV, then it's all good - keep calling it football. My point relates to the national competition's popularity in Australia. And in case you're wondering, I actually am a soccer fan. I play it, and I follow the A-League. I wish the A-League was even stronger than it is - unlike the majority of soccer fans, I have no interest in and do not follow any of the overseas leagues or teams.
FIUL
Guest
"if FIFA wants to grow its audience, one really good and easy way to start is to go back to calling it soccer." I laughed & I laughed. Biggest sport in the world... Fifa doesn't need to change anything to grow the audience. However, the EggBall codes may need to come up with strategies to move outside Australia.
pioneer
Guest
Whatever the initials FIFA do or don't stand for isn't the point. I am just saying that if soccer/football wants to attract new fans, it should (in Australia) call itself 'soccer'. That's the name by which the majority of non-hard core soccer/football fans know it (go the Socceroos!) and, more to the point, to do otherwise is potentially confusing and could certainly be seen as provocative (even if that is not FIFA's intention) by followers of other football codes. It's why they use the term soccer in North America. And if they can do it, why can't we? As someone else has noted on here, it's only an issue because for soccer to ever become the number one football code in Australia, it will need to attract a whole lot of new fans. As for the flares, point taken, but that's two examples in 14 years. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that flares are (or ever have been) an issue in the AFL and NRL - but they are certainly are in soccer/football. In any case, this isn't a question of which code is best. What this is, is a case of one code, (probably the third most popular) appropriating for itself the generic name used by the other codes. It's marketing madness. I still maintain that if FIFA wants to grow its audience, one really good and easy way to start is to go back to calling it soccer.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Tom - Not at all (re your assumption of me being in line with the view you put forward). I simply hope that the game doesn't cease to exist. It's a nice game, it's fun to play and train. It's not bad at all to watch (esp live) and it does give Australia a unique cultural/sporting experience that probably should be promoted more overseas (but tourism Australia tends to focus on beaches and the reef and rock). It'll never take over the world and it'd be a massive ask to develop anything near to a professional league anywhere else in the world. Apart from anything else - certainly not in it's current guise of playing on large ovals with 18 aside. And your assertion of the 'only thing' - nah, Australia wasn't even a country until 1901. So, for let's say 1862 - the Melbourne colony, less than 30 years old and originally an illegal settlement - yep, the locals in Melbourne thought they'd solved the issue of a common code for all. It was working okay in Melbourne - but largely because the young city didn't have the same burden of historical 'establishment' that England had. In Melbourne the 'problem' WAS solvable. In England it wasn't. So - the solution found in Melbourne was never going to be exportable to England because the dribblers and handlers were never going to stay united. Heck - even the handlers had a subsequent schism and that perhaps might (the Northern Rugby league) have been the nearest thing to an opportunity - but, even in 1890s it was a long, long way from Melbourne to northern England.
Freddie
Guest
...and just on your point on "never seeing flares at AFL games" here's a couple for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NFhtSIoCi8 (about 58 seconds in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjn4gKNRDog
Freddie
Guest
Wow, what a lot of AFL fans on here. Not that they are obsessed or anything. To answer pioneer's point. There's nothing wrong with the term "soccer" - it's used as a nickname in England and some other parts of the world, including here with the "Socceroos" The problem is, it's not actually the official name of the sport. Sorry, but that's a fact. Hence FIFA (Federation International FOOTBALL Associations), AFC (Asian FOOTBALL Confederation), FOOTBALL Federation Australia. To say that other "English-speaking parts of the world" call it soccer is a slight misnomer. In South Africa for example, the governing body is SAFA (yep, the F is the football bit), New Zealand Soccer has long since switched over to NZ Football, leaving only the US and Canada as "soccer" in a football world. Personally, I don't have an issue if someone wants to call it soccer. But it seems they have major problems if we want to use the term football. The usual excuse is that it's confusing. Really? Well if that's the case, then you'd better find new names for AFL (known as Football in Melbourne), and Rugby League (known as football to some in Sydney/Brisbane), and what of Rugby Union? Isn't that all confusing too, or is it just when it's the "soccer" people want to use it? Point is, football is a term used by all the codes, so if you're going to use it for one, then you can't complain about others using it for their preferred sport. My normal response is - call it soccer if you want, but I'll be calling it football.
Freddie
Guest
...so what Post_hoc? Sheffield FC are the oldest football club (of any code) in the world - and they play the Association version (still around actually). So what's your point?
Punter
Guest
It works both ways. I've been accused of calling the game of AFL, AFL, even a Roar writer Glenn Mitchell, had a go at me for calling the game AFL, telling me this is the competition & the correct name is Australian football. But this Australia football as he calls it, is different to what I see as Australian football. I see signs around Sydney that says Play AFL, now I know with such a small sport, the pool is small, but surely I could not at my age play in the AFL competition.
pioneer
Guest
The origin and legitimacy of the term 'football' misses the point, I think. For one code to claim exclusivity to the name 'Football', when the term is (and has been for eons) used by a range of other codes as a generic moniker for their game is elitist, provocative and serves no other purpose than to get other codes' fans offside. (What was wrong with the name 'soccer' anyway?) This is a problem in Australia, because it's the followers of these non-soccer football codes that are the very fans soccer needs to attract if it is ever to rival the audiences that the AFL and the NRL enjoy. I like soccer, but I also enjoy 'going to the football' to watch a game of AFL. Telling AFL and NRL fans that their game is not really 'football', because that's OUR game, is no way to broaden soccer's appeal. Forget all this 'sleeping giant awakes' stuff - it's not going to happen in Australia while soccer continues to look down its nose at the non-soccer 'heretic' codes. And nor will it happen while the flare situation continue. Personally I'm almost lost for words after what happened at the Victory/City game. What is it with soccer fans? Yes, it's a minority of idiots that are spoiling it for everyone else, but let's not kid ourselves and look for media conspiracies to blame: the fact is that this kind of cretinous behaviour doesn't happen at the other football codes' games. I've never seen this kind of thing happen at any of the hundreds of AFL games I've been to. I had a look at the RBB website and they've made a video showcasing themselves. Parts of it look like there's a public riot going on.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
That must be it.
Peter Cotton
Guest
Strange for a university city club to use a "distasteful" description of our game in its matchday programme. And mind you, this was not an isolated instance.
Perry Bridge
Guest
'football' is a collective noun describing any of a number of sports. The need to sensibly disambiguate is a common sense requirement not recognised by many and thus - the trouble brews. This website being one such example. The irony of course is that one of the worlds most respected 'Association Football' journals is 'World Soccer' - published for decades from England (the home of the game). Even Les Murray cites his first edition copy as his most prized possession. The irony again here being that 'soccer' is to 'Assocation Football' as 'Rugger' is to Rugby. Neither was an AMerican coined put down phrase. Any claims around % contact with boot is interesting. To me - the object of the game is somewhat significant. In the Rugby codes - originally - the 'try' was achieved as a key to unlocking the door of having a kick at goal. That has changed drastically since - first the try was awarded points, then more points, goals awarded less and now the TRY is the GOAL (object) of the game. But - they're still football codes. In soccer - there's an interesting lack of requirement to kick. Simply - a requirement to NOT use hands (except in certain gazetted instances). Goals are 'scored' and not necessarily kicked. In Australian football - it's actually the only code that requires the MAIN score, the primary object of that game - to be KICKED. And applies qualitative measures to that - can't be touched/deflected off the post etc. In fact, Aust Football also designates other stand out reward for kicks only - in that only a kick can be marked. So - while the other codes dedicate a lot to what you can't do, including where you can't run - Aust Football is one of the few that dictates what a KICK can do. Again though - I'm not going to suggest that any of the codes ain't a code of football. I simply get sick of the silly arguments.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Post Hoc - "The premier version of the game was played for its first 130 years in one state in one country" Mate - the 1908 Jubilee carnival held in Melbourne involved all 6 states as well as New Zealand. The 'premier version of the game' - well, it had to be somewhere - didn't it. Given the tyranny of distance at the time - it was enough to traverse the Australian continent from colonial Victoria to colonial WA let alone trying to sustain connections with Brisbane given Sydney was in the way. When considering the area of England fits inside Victoria with room to spare - certain comparisons are kinda pointless. The game was trans continental within 20 years.
Pauly
Guest
Incorrect, many English people do find it distasteful and consider it an Americanism. Letters to editor of British newspapers do feature these sentiments.
FIUL
Guest
@Daniel FACT: ALeague rates higher than EPL in Australia. But, for sure, Aussies whose football engagement is restricted to: a) sports highlights; and/or b) Fifa video games ... EPL is their No.1 football engagement. But, the FACTS tell us these people don't actually watch EPL on FoxSports.
Post_hoc
Guest
I know why you like the Londn rules, as it puts them after Melbourne, As for the continuous level of Melbourne and Geelong, noteworthy hardly impressive though. The premier version of the game was played for its first 130 years in one state in one country. So at best it had less than 400 professional players?
EastsFootyFan
Roar Guru
Yes, our German friend is clearly Fuul of himself :D
Perry Bridge
Guest
Association football was playing catch up. Rugby (old Rugby) as well as the Rugby Football Union game was more known - including via the literature of the day (Tom Brown's school days). In Australia - Melbourne/Victoria was about 20-30 years ahead of Brisbane and Sydney in developing a taste for winter football. So - by the time the decisions had to be made in Brisbane and Sydney through the late 1870s and mainly into the 1880s it was with recent English migrants schooled in the more established English games. There was 'code wars' in the papers of the day. Clubs voted on what rules to adopt for a given season. It was a big issue. ANd Rugby League didn't yet exist.