...what the ****?Our Aussie game is played on Cricket ovals. The most Pommie game of all.
If it wasn't for Cricket we wouldn't have a game. Think about it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...what the ****?Our Aussie game is played on Cricket ovals. The most Pommie game of all.
If it wasn't for Cricket we wouldn't have a game. Think about it.
Cricket wasn't voted for at the expense of Australia football now though was it? They are played in different seasons and compliment each other.
A bit different to ostracizing a local Australian product in preference to a sport invented 10 thousand miles away.
Just pointing out facts.
Tom Wills wrote the first laws of Australia Football
when he was at Rugby school in England where he played Rugby and Cricket.
Think about it.
Our Aussie game is played on Cricket ovals.
The most Pommie game of all.
If it wasn't for Cricket we wouldn't have a game.
Think about it.
I'm fully aware of the history of the game.
Let's move on Dude
Your whole position seems to be that the people who wholly and solely love your sport should be/should have been, valued above the people who wholly or solely love another, predicated on where those sports were conceived or who conceived them.
Your whole position seems to be that the people who wholly and solely love your sport should be/should have been, valued above the people who wholly or solely love another, predicated on where those sports were conceived or who conceived them.
For one, they’re sports. Who the f**k cares.
Two, it ain’t that hard to follow more than one.
Three, there’s lots of games that existed before we got here. Where’s the support for them.
Four, if people ‘voted’ for something - and remember this is a sport we are talking about, not a human rights policy like slavery or racial segregation, then who cares? Why does it offend you so much just because it came from another country? You aren’t going to find many of the hooting and hollering ‘go in the hole!!!’ mob from the US who are turned off by golf because it was invented by Scotsmen in the 1600s.
Why not just be glad that a game invented here actually IS popular here and is among the most watched live sports in the world? We have other codes here, big deal.
if people ‘voted’ for something - and remember this is a sport we are talking about, not a human rights policy like slavery or racial segregation, then who cares?
Why does it offend you so much just because it came from another country?
Why not just be glad that a game invented here actually IS popular here and is among the most watched live sports in the world?
We have other codes here, big deal.
Sport 'is' culture and identity, particular in newer countries like Australia that barely have their own distinct culture.
The Americans, Canadians and even Irish new this by preferencing their own inventions over imported ones from Britian
If only we had that fortitude here, Australian football would likely be international now (at least in places like n.z and the pacific) and something the whole country could be truly proud of.
Instead our prime minister is travelling around the world promoting and throwing hundreds of millions of our tax dollars at a sport invented 50 years later, in some mud patch in Northern England. One that the English don't even care about themselves.
bit harsh...it is only a sport.Who were the scumbags in these states that voted for a pommie sport, over our own Australian game which would have dominated nationally like it should, similar to the NFL, NBA etc. Whoever they were they should have their citizenship posthumously revoked, for treason.
bit harsh...it is only a sport.
also, I very much dislike that you call Rugby League a foreign game.
it has been on this shore for over 100 years
Just because you despise it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
On your "pommie" sport buniesss.
Argentina hates everything to do with the UK.
and yet, according to you, they are playing a pommie sport.
But when you think of Argentina and sport, you think of one name and one name only.
I am a Tasmanian. Australian Rules Football is a Victorian invention, especially considering that we were 6 separate independent(ish) colonies when Aussie Rules was invented.
judging a sport by where it was invented is just meaningless,
especially considering how linked the world was. then and now.
The NRL is a product of Australia.
Its players and teams are mostly Australian.
It is as much of our culture as the AFL.
Sport 'is' culture and identity, particular in newer countries like Australia that barely have their own distinct culture.
The Americans, Canadians and even Irish new this by preferencing their own inventions over imported ones from Britian and guess what, your rugby and soccers still get played there anyway.
They didn't vote for an imported sport in 2 states then actively stand on the local inventions throat like they did here. Imagine how much smaller American football and basketball would be if the states of New York and California chose to play a foreign game and suppress the American games (that would be a disgrace now wouldn't it). They knew the importance of backing in their own cultural inventions and identity. Now those sports (basketball, baseball, American football, ice hockey) are celebrated around the world and something that is the true reflection of the American identity.
If only we had that fortitude here, Australian football would likely be international now (at least in places like n.z and the pacific) and something the whole country could be truly proud of.
I'm sure the Australian government would have been pushing it internationally for generations and funding it through the nose too, as it would have been spreading Australian culture overseas. Instead our prime minister is travelling around the world promoting and throwing hundreds of millions of our tax dollars at a sport invented 50 years later, in some mud patch in Northern England. One that the English don't even care about themselves.
Because sport transcends all else. Sport isd the opiate of the people.
The sport doesn't offend - it's the attitude of certain people
It's the people who put other sports down that offends me.
Like soccer people insisting that they own the title "football".
Like the English calling American Football "handegg'
Like one rugby code hating the fans of the other rugby code.
We definitely appreciate the position of Australian Football.
Those who have knowledge of the history of the game lament what could have been.
We have some other football codes here,
What makes a sport popular and what prevents a sport from being more popular is indeed a big deal.
Why would it be international now?
MAYBE NZ and the pacific at most but even then, probably unlikely
they both chose rugby anyway.
We are a sporting powerhouse pound for pound but fairly culturally irrelevant as far as setting trends go.
You still haven’t really made a decent argument aside from ‘I think because we did this thing 150 years ago it should be really popular now.’
I don’t get why you think that deserves such all-adherent devotion so many years later.
People have a choice and they make that choice.
that doesn’t earn my respect.
If AFL is the product you think it is, it already IS something the whole country can be truly proud of (which they can).
Historically speaking at any rate I’d suggest your gripe is more with rugby union than with rugby league based on most info I can find.
By the time league was established there was a well established Australian Rules competition and culture north of the border.
Sport doesn’t transcend all else.
Music would be my obvious counter to that
That stuff doesn’t go away easily for a lot of people
Because the restrictions that were present historically restricting the spread of Australian Football no longer exist.
Actually Australian Football was the sport of New Zealand for as time.
If the Engliush had not blocked Australian Football in N.S.W. and Queensland and if the English had not reneged on playing a home game of colonial football then the devlopment of Australian Football could have had immense implications.
Remember that the British were jealous of the popularity of Australian Football and feared it would have taken over rugby.
The Canadians and an Americans might not have needed the desire to create their own football if they'd had known more about colonial football. Australian Football was close to becoming the official school sport in San Fransisco.
To chose you have to have a choice.
Depends on what sport we're talking about. Australian Football and surfing and at times tennis and golf.
Swimming and kayaking at the Olympics. Punting in the NFL.
Well, 100,000 people play Australian Football outside of Australia.
This has been mainly through "organic" growth.
Think what a little investment would achieve.
Well have you have to understand the history.
Most people don't have a thorough understanding of another sport.
To have a choice you must be able to realistically choose.
If you choose Gaelic Football or American Football in Australia you're going out of your way.
Nobody has a choice of Canadian Football unless they are in Canada.
Anybody playing NFL has to be absolutely respected.
Yes, but why stop there ?
Of course because rugby league didn't exist when the damage was done.
Australian Football, in spite of everything was holding it's own against rugby union but the professional element of rugby league killed rugby union and Australian Football because of voluntary amateurism and involuntary amateurism respectfully.
I also don't like the idea that AFL will replace NRL here.
Sure an NFL player has my respect
Australians have done their bit for surfing
And of course the professionalism of league was going to make an impact.
Good.
Good
Money that RU didn't want and money that was denied to Australian Football in not being allowed enclosed grounds.
Huh? The 65 000 members is the Lions only. It doesn't include members of the Suns, or any other club, plenty of whom exist in Queensland. You're also claiming there are zero casual fans, which seems plainly inaccurate.Outside the 65,000 members no one in Queensland would give AFL more of a passing interest.
So in this scenario, the Lions will have more competition from three NRL teams, and the AFL should respond by... making them compete with another AFL team too? I disagree strongly. The Lions would need to bolster their fanbase in that scenario, not lose a chunk of it like they did to the Suns.If the NRL do establish another team in Queensland and base them in Brisbane/Ipswich, then I'd say that's when the AFL probably needs to start thinking about a third team in south east Queensland. It's going to be too much for the Lions to compete with three NRL teams in the Brisbane market IMO. The AFL should start a 19th team in Tassie and the 20th team can be earmarked for North Brisbane/Sunshine Coast.
That's assuming a third team has much of a fanbase and that the media pay any attention to it. The Giants make the finals almost every year, but how much has that raised the profile of the game in the media and got casual interest in the game to take off? I'd argue there has been success, but limited success, and that's with the Giants doing less harm to the Swans' position than a new Brisbane team would do to the Lions. Sydney is a very geographically, culturally and financially divided city between east and west, whereas Brisbane is a lot less so. There'd be a lot more overlap and cannibalisation of the fanbase in the latter case.It's fairly likely that the finals system will be expanded to 10 teams soon so you have a pretty good chance of at least one Queensland taking part every year should you have three competing. From a growth perspective, you want to keep each major market engaged in the product as long as you possibly can and if you double the likelyhood of Brisbane participating in September action each year, that's going to pay dividends when the Lions eventually drop off.
I can quite easily imagine it, because up the road in Liverpool, they have two major clubs, one of which is called Liverpool and the other which is called something else that doesn't include the word "Liverpool".Could you imagine if Manchester City called themselves something else that didn't include the word 'Manchester'? They'd never have any hope of competing with Manchester United. Now you've got two massive clubs based in Manchester.
So you agree this would be a kick in the guts to the Lions in terms of fanbase growth. The Lions are not the Eagles and aren't dominant enough yet to be fine with a new local competitor added. I understand we're riding high in public consciousness right now off the back of a premiership win, but three premiership wins didn't save the club from struggling to win for the best part of a decade once the Suns entered the competition.As for the Sunshine Coast/Moreton Bay areas, I lived on the Gold Coast before the Suns existed and I can tell you there were plenty of Lions fans living here back then. Gold Coasters knew that was our best bet to support a local team and they went with it. I think you'd find the same thing would happen on the Sunshine Coast/Moreton Bay if a North Brisbane team entered the AFL. Particularly if they play a home game or two on the Sunny Coast like the Lions used to on the GC.
And yet today you are bigger than ever, and there is also a second club which, while struggling on field, is growing along fine off field and doing wonders for participation and interest in the gold coast.The last thing the AFL and the Lions needs is a third team in SEQ. The inception of the suns stole around 10k members from the club. You can even see the exact moment Gold Coast came into the league, Brisbane saw a dramatic drop in crowd numbers. Even though we went through a banter era, it took the club over a decade to recover from that. The club not only had to find new fans, but they had to bring back the fanbase who left the club over poor performances. It's better for the league to keep brisbane as the only team in town, and once the new stadium is built, you will easily see 50k fans filling out the stadium.