A few questions about this great game....

[The Goon]

That's pretty much BS. Sydney is a huge city geographically and there are many cricket pitches. Historically pitches were built as well as ovals.
Now it is very expensive to find the land for new ovals, though a great number of ovals have been created in recent times

But when the codes were developing Sydney was much smaller, centred on the harbour and did not have the advantage of modern transport making many areas accessible to the common man. In Melbourne on the other hand you could put a cricket pitch in just about anywhere. Draw a 5k radius around both city centres and see how many pitches come up.
I'm not suggesting it was a defining factor, just a contributor.

 

[cos789]

But when the codes were developing Sydney was much smaller, centred on the harbour and did not have the advantage of modern transport making many areas accessible to the common man. In Melbourne on the other hand you could put a cricket pitch in just about anywhere. Draw a 5k radius around both city centres and see how many pitches come up.
I'm not suggesting it was a defining factor, just a contributor.

Before long there was a road from Sydney town to Paramatta and developments in between.
In 1903 there were football teams in Ashfield, Paddington, Redfern, Sydney, East Sydney, Alexandria, Newtown, Balmain, North Shore and West Sydney. The reason these teams did not become powerhouses of Australian Football is not due to lack of grounds initially but to other political factors. The access to football ovals has been an issue in more recent times but that's rather "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" .

 

[The Goon]

Before long there was a road from Sydney town to Paramatta and developments in between.
In 1903 there were football teams in Ashfield, Paddington, Redfern, Sydney, East Sydney, Alexandria, Newtown, Balmain, North Shore and West Sydney. The reason these teams did not become powerhouses of Australian Football is not due to lack of grounds initially but to other political factors. The access to football ovals has been an issue in more recent times but that's rather "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" .

That's not a lot of teams or associated facilities. Plus, you can't play as many afl games on an oval as you can rugby games on a pitch. End of the day were both making assumptions here, so writing the idea off as bs is a bit arrogant IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[cos789]

That's not a lot of teams or associated facilities.

It was in 1903. It was for Sydney and in comparison to rugby at that stage.

you can't play as many afl games on an oval as you can rugby games on a pitch.

Sorry, fail again, you can only play one game of AF or rugby on an oval.

End of the day were both making assumptions here.

I'm not. The number of grounds was not an issue. The availability of grounds was soon to be an issue. And during the modern revival the number/access to grounds has been an issue. But factors other than geography affected the construction of ovals. Even the fact that Sydney's inner city is not like Melbourne, Perth or Adelaide, the original clubs were within walking distance or public transport. If schools had been allowed to continue to field AF teams that would have been an important source of ovals as well.

 

[The Goon]

It was in 1903. It was for Sydney and in comparison to rugby at that stage.



Sorry, fail again, you can only play one game of AF or rugby on an oval.



I'm not. The number of grounds was not an issue. The availability of grounds was soon to be an issue. And during the modern revival the number/access to grounds has been an issue. But factors other than geography affected the construction of ovals. Even the fact that Sydney's inner city is not like Melbourne, Perth or Adelaide, the original clubs were within walking distance or public transport. If schools had been allowed to continue to field AF teams that would have been an important source of ovals as well.

If you're making comparisons perhaps you might like to actually present something to compare it against, like rugby facilities and clubs at the same time perhaps. Or even years earlier when the development of these sports was in full swing?

And for the record you can play 3+ games over a day on a rugby pitch, you can't do the same on an afl oval. I'd have thought someone who claims such a thorough understanding of sporting development over 100 years ago would know such a simple fact.

Finally, you're contradicting yourself. You claim there was no availability issue then go on to list other factors that affected oval construction - one of which is that Sydney's inner city is different from other cities - very much a geographic point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I found quite a different experience. I quickly found the mere mention of rl was enough to be spurned by a young woman so if the topic of football did come up I had to quickly clarify that I was talking about the Sydney Swans. I did introduce a number of people to AFL at the SCG and most are now members or their families are members. By contrast there are no family members that attend rl at all. I think that is the strength of Australian Football in that it appeals across the demographics like soccer and not to a narrow band.

Thanks, happy story but I was referring to the distinction in NSW/Qld between rugby league and rugby union. Call Rugby League "rugby" here (except maybe when specifically referring to "the rugby codes") and see how seriously you get taken.

 

[cos789]

If you're making comparisons...

Just what period are you referring to ?
In 1903 was when the NSW football league was created with nine teams that seems to be the relevant period to focus on.

And for the record you can play 3+ games over a day on a rugby pitch, you can't do the same on an afl oval.

I thought you knew something about Australian Football.
Australian Football clubs in all parts of Australia have played with a league+seconds(reserves)+colts setup from a very long time ago.
that adds up to three games a day. Currently there are many examples of ovals hosting four games of Australian Football a day.(5 games if you include Auskick) But what has that got to do with the availability of ovals in the early days ?

Finally, you're contradicting yourself. You claim there was no availability issue then go on to list other factors that affected oval construction - one of which is that Sydney's inner city is different from other cities - very much a geographic point.

It's a geographic point that Sydney's inner city is not in a rectangular laypout so familar elsewhere, but as I said it had no effect on football as most football grounds were within walking distant of each other or public transport. The Geelong Football Club is a founding club of the VFA yet even today Geelong is considered a long drive from Melbourne. Also a team from Ballarat was considered to also join the VFA. If distance wasn't considered a problem in Victoria why do think distance was such a problem in Sydney.

 

[cos789]

Thanks, happy story but I was referring to the distinction in NSW/Qld between rugby league and rugby union. Call Rugby League "rugby" here (except maybe when specifically referring to "the rugby codes") and see how seriously you get taken.

Never had a problem. There was never any confusion. If I was talking about football it'd always be directed at a particular team/game/league.
I follow the Swans in the AFL, Subiaco in the WAFL, WCE in the SANFL, Easts in the SFL and NRL, WF in the SRU and Glory in the AL(not really)
If a person says "I don't follow rugby" that means he doesn't follow either RU or so why get upset.
It's more upsetting when people say they play "AFL" or "league" when obviously they don't.
But most upsetting(or should I say confusing) when people say they play football when the they mean soccer.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Never had a problem. There was never any confusion. If I was talking about football it'd always be directed at a particular team/game/league.
I follow the Swans in the AFL, Subiaco in the WAFL, WCE in the SANFL, Easts in the SFL and NRL, WF in the SRU and Glory in the AL(not really)
If a person says "I don't follow rugby" that means he doesn't follow either RU or so why get upset.
It's more upsetting when people say they play "AFL" or "league" when obviously they don't.
But most upsetting(or should I say confusing) when people say they play football when the they mean soccer.

Seriously? You've been speaking to a Rugby League or Rugby Union fanatic, about a particular team/game/league, and in the course of the conversation, referred to Rugby League as "Rugby", and they haven't corrected you, or ribbed you, or just given you the cold shoulder?

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree, because that goes completely against all my observations as a 50-something New South Welshman growing up playing Union and following League.

(Plus I seem to recall you and I have had this discussion before.)

 

[invinciBlues]

What is the difference between Rugby League and Rugby Union?

Nothing worth noting.

 

[cos789]

Seriously?

Seriously, if you want to talk about it start a thread on the relevant board.
This thread is about about the Australian game - Australian Football, the indidenous game,
the game played around Australia and increasingly around the world.

 

[Matt Stevic]

If Tasmania got a team, the general consensus is that we wouldn't abandon our current teams but rather we would adopt the Tasmanian team as close second team.

Having a second team is just not football.

 

[Ogopogo]

Have you been able to introduce anyone else where you live to the game?

Whenever I talk sports with people, I talk about the AFL. 80% of the time when I say "Australian Football" they say to me "Oh, you mean rugby". That is what most Canadians think this is - rugby. I then try to explain what it is to them. Honestly, the sport it most closely resembles, in concept, is hockey. Move the object to the other team's end so you can score a goal. It is physical, plenty of action and even more entertaining than what modern hockey has become with it's stifling defensive play.

I actually had a friend over just yesterday and I had the Power v Crows game on for us to watch. At first he said to me "What is this, rugby?". I said no - it's Australian football and he said "Some people call it that but, it's rugby. My university had a team...". We watched the full game and I think he started to realize it is something different.

It is very difficult to convert people here - it simply isn't the culture and people don't often like to change. But, I still preach the gospel of Aussie Rules whenever I can.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

It is very difficult to convert people here - it simply isn't the culture and people don't often like to change. But, I still preach the gospel of Aussie Rules whenever I can.

Don't even bother, we actually don't care what North Americans think about footy. I don't even care what Sydneysiders think about it let alone people from other countries.

 

[Ogopogo]

Don't even bother, we actually don't care what North Americans think about footy. I don't even care what Sydneysiders think about it let alone people from other countries.

You have misinterpreted my post. I don't really care what others think about it either - someone took the time so share the game with me and I am hooked. I am sharing the game with others and, if they don't like it, I don't really care. For the ones that do like it - as I do - it is a great new part of my sporting landscape.

It's not about caring what bashers think, it is about sharing something great.

 

[Ogopogo]

What is the value ? 20 hits to advantage. 20 hits from stoppages. 20 hits that could create goals.
1/3 of Sandilands hits advantaged the Dockers. The corollary is not that 2/3 of hits disadvantaged the Dockers but roughly neutral
so the Dockers have a huge advantage overall.

I think this is what I am looking for. Is there a statistic that shows how many hitouts are to disadvantage? Could it be possible that 20 are to advantage but 25 are to disadvantage so Sandilands might be hurting the Dockers with his ruck work?

 

[Engimal]

Having a second team is just not football.

And usually, I'd agree. But we've waited a long time to support our state and, if we got a team, we'd need to show that we support it.

 

[cos789]

Whenever I talk sports with people, I talk about the AFL. 80% of the time when I say "Australian Football" they say to me "Oh, you mean rugby". That is what most Canadians think this is - rugby. I then try to explain what it is to them. Honestly, the sport it most closely resembles, in concept, is hockey. Move the object to the other team's end so you can score a goal. It is physical, plenty of action and even more entertaining than what modern hockey has become with it's stifling defensive play.

That's true. I explain it to north Americans as a continuous game of American Football will kicking substituted from throwing.
Some of the laws are amazingly similar. Like, you cannot interfere with a receiver, you can only tackle someone with the ball,
you can block but not hold and a caught ball is rewarded with a completion/mark.

It is very difficult to convert people here - it simply isn't the culture and people don't often like to change. But, I still preach the gospel of Aussie Rules whenever I can.

That's great to hear but I never "try" to convert people even though I have brought a lot of people to appreciate AF.
I simply mention that I enjoy the game of AF and they are welcome to join me if they wish. Never had a negative response.

 

[cos789]

I think this is what I am looking for. Is there a statistic that shows how many hitouts are to disadvantage? Could it be possible that 20 are to advantage but 25 are to disadvantage so Sandilands might be hurting the Dockers with his ruck work?

I can definitely say Sandilands is not hurting the Dockers but as for statistics.... I don't pay much attention.
I always thought they recorded ruck clearances which is just that - by either winning or "sharking" the ruck.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Seriously, if you want to talk about it start a thread on the relevant board.
This thread is about about the Australian game - Australian Football, the indidenous game,
the game played around Australia and increasingly around the world.

Yes.

Heaven forbid I should raise the topic of the correct nomenclature for the two rugby codes, in a thread where the OP specifically asks why Aussie Rules has historically not been so popular in NSW and Qld. I mean, what was I thinking, to hijack the thread so arrogantly?

 

[cos789]

The reason why Tassie doesn't have a team and probably will never have a team is pure north/south parochialism. Unlike other states, the capital city does not have the vast majority of the population plus it is not as central as the second major city.

IMO parochialism is not the problem it used to be but it's hard when the critical numbers are divided in two.

Unless a team was based in Launceston or had at least half the games played there the team would be doomed to failure, and the powers-that-be in Hobart would never allow either option.

IMO a Tasmanian team playing out of two cities would work and work better than the current setup.

 

[SpareTowel]

Yet at the commitee to formulate the rules of football, Tom Wills recommended that the new game be neither the game played at Cambridge University nor the game played at Rugby University. It was to be an entirely new game. That we do Know. Any influence is still only conjecture atm even though we know Tom Will's family was in contact with aborigines. For Tom Wills to have attended Rugby University then recommend against adopting their rules IMO he disliked those rules and was thus negatively influenced.

The 'Melbourne Rules' resembled Rugby School Football more than anything else. Some historians think that Tom wanted to adopt the Rugby rules in full, or at the very least a slightly modified version of Rugby so it could be adapted to the environment of Richmond Paddock. This is based on the recollections of co-founder William Hammersley, and Tom's later advocacy of Rugby features like the crossbar. Then there's evidence to suggest that Tom was all for a new game. In a letter to Tom, co-founder J.B. Thompson recalled that they "unanimously agreed" to do away with rough features of Rugby. Tom confirmed this in a letter to his brother, and described the game they envisioned, one in which the ball could be moved around more. I don't think Tom was necessarily pro-Rugby or anti-Rugby. All he cared about was winning, and if that meant bending or breaking rules, then he did it. So when it came to formulating the rules of football, he would've picked rules to his advantage. Because he had experience with Rugby School Football, he naturally favoured it, but the early games in Melbourne allowed Wills the freedom to reshape and thus dominate the sport. That's my take on things anyway.

 

[Riccardo11]

No one cares about Rugby in Victoria by the way.

As a long term member of both Melbourne Storm and Melbourne Rebels, I have to disagree. Both are actually quite well supported, with the former having the kind of success almost every AFL team would envy (salary cap issues notwithstanding).

 

[cos789]

The 'Melbourne Rules' resembled Rugby School Football more than anything else.

There was no tackling and no offside and an emphasis on passing - all features of Cambridge University rules.
And it was lacking all the finery of Rugby University rules - scrums, lineouts etc. I don't see how you can see the resemblance.

Tom confirmed this in a letter to his brother, and described the game they envisioned, one in which the ball could be moved around more.

Definitely not rugby like at all.

It's safe to say Tom was influenced by his environment. But we don't know which way or by how much.
It is obvious that Tom and other people designed a new game and that game evolved with constant changes by the players themselves
most probably without any thought to any other game. The most important features of the game still exist today
and the changes that have evolved make Australian Football what it is today.

The English powerbrokers in Sydney didn't see AF as RU in any way. They saw AF as a completely different game ,
as a more attractive game and a threat to the existance of RU.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

As a long term member of both Melbourne Storm and Melbourne Rebels, I have to disagree. Both are actually quite well supported, with the former having the kind of success almost every AFL team would envy (salary cap issues notwithstanding).

I think the Storm do pretty well in terms of support down here considering they're only 16 or 17 years old. People generally know of the players too - Smith, Cronk, Slater, Inglis back in the day, Hoffman, Duffie, Hinchcliffe. Most people with even a passing curiosity towards rugby league should recognise those names.
I don't know much about the Rebels, they don't seem to get as much coverage down here as the Storm. Maybe half a page towards the back of the sport section once or twice a week.