Footy Developments in NSW and Queensland

[10571z]

Not sure the obsession with taking the game global. One of my favourite parts is it being uniquely australian. Regardless won’t happen

 

[BobbyMorri]

i would say Rugby Union expanded not because of the British "Empire", but because Britain "ruled the waves" (etc a superpower) It is why its growth didn't follow the cricket route. Its similar to NFL, NBA(ish) or baseballs growth nowadays. Something Australia will never be.

But Australia is a regional power, hence why Aussie Rules is already popular in places like Nauru. alas, so is NZ/UK and hence they play Rugby Union in most pacific nations.

Not that AFL needs to go global. who cares if it does or not

 

[NoobPie]

They don't have a model though.

They spread through the British empire, which gave it a multinational focus you can build international games on. It's not some superior strategy footy lacks.



The spread of footy, even if it speeds up Is probably to late for that. Any international tournament is done with the caveat that the winning national would probably struggle against a decent team in a strong Australian country league.

Imagine if RU was the All Blacks, and everyone else was below the level of the sh*te shield?

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

Exactly right. The original rugby and soccer clubs outside of britain were started by brits - whether within or outside the political boundaries of empire brits were everywhere as much as a legacy of the industrial revolution which had also enabled sufficient numbers of adults to spend saturdays playing sport for fun. This timing was a critical advantage as, over decades, these countries took to the sport they were watching the poms play - predominantly soccer.

It is precisely the same manner in which Australian football has grown over the last 3 decades - a growing diaspora of expats starting clubs which eventually draws in locals. The key difference really is all of these societies to greater or lessor extent already have established sports

So it will grow progressively internationally and it would be great if it got to a point where you could set up a rookie program to get a few AFL quality players out of it.

As it is, the biggest locale where rugby is the actual dominant sport is NZ which has about the population of Melbourne with a significantly smaller economy. The AFL is several times bigger than any domestic rugby competition.

As General Giant pointed out the AFL has a clear strategy to progressively deepen its footprint in the other half of Australia and international game is left to largely organic growth.

As an Australian football fan and a non-cultural cringer I can look forward to the increasing dominance of the Australian national game in Australia and know that it's progressive growth elsewhere is the flowering of true Australian cultural expression. There is never going to be a time where some team from another country would be any serious match for Australia but who cares?

Leave the jingoism to the cultural cringers and the little countries like New Zealand/

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And Rugby's international "model" through sevens is essentially to make as much money as it can by making it an Olympic sport from national governments trying to win medals (or otherwise treating sports differently as it's an Olympic sport). World Rugby had its end inclusion in the Olympics and other multi-sport events as an end goal for years, and years, before Rio, simply as that what would make money for the sport.

 

[Gigantor]

To be able to kick a ball out of hand should be considered a basic motor skill, like throwing or catching a ball, not just in Australia, but by any human living anywhere in the world.
And yet your average mid-teens Melbourne girl can kick a leather football better than 99% of all men in the world.

 

[Aussie in exile]

They don't have a model though.

They spread through the British empire, which gave it a multinational focus you can build international games on. It's not some superior strategy footy lacks.

The spread of footy, even if it speeds up Is probably to late for that. Any international tournament is done with the caveat that the winning national would probably struggle against a decent team in a strong Australian country league.

Imagine if RU was the All Blacks, and everyone else was below the level of the sh*te shield?

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

Remind me when France, Argentina, Uruguay, Italy etc were part of the British empire?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Remind me when France, Argentina, Uruguay, Italy etc were part of the British empire?

The British Empire doesn't necessarily equate to direct colonial possessions. Buenos Aires especially, but other European and international cities had tens of thousands of rich business oriented Englishmen (who also had the ability to relax and play/watch sport one weekends while locals worked longer weeks) who spread the game. Even with the historical success of e.g. Argentina Rugby, it was up until the early 2000's very much a sport of country club membership, not wider fandom.

Plenty of famous clubs were directly started by Englishmen in their cities. It's why AC Milan's name is AC Milan and not Milano.

Like everyone else in this thread happy to provide support to organic growth (if an individual Aussie expat starts a club and asks for some free Sherrins, we should pay for it), but we can't replicate 19th century global growth with footy, which is the point people were making.

 

[Gigantor]

Remind me when France, Argentina, Uruguay, Italy etc were part of the British empire?

At one point the Brits had very strong trading links with Argentina, and that's how a few sports were adopted (I presume the game went from there to Uruguay).
In fact, British sports were introduced into Italy around the same time, Milan was established as a football and cricket club by English businness men, although in the case of rugby, France had as much influence as the UK (in the game developing in Italy).
France itself is a different story. I once saw a documentary about some very violent games which were indigenous to France, played up till the late 19th century. At some point, the game of rugby successfully supplanted these violent games.
Given the close proximity of France to England, just as soccer would have been introduced with relative ease by Brits with close links to France, so too was rugby. I don't think there is too much of a mystery there.
One could ask why France took to rugby more than anywhere else on continental Europe, and in part, it could be because of the existence of those older violent games.

 

[NoobPie]

I find the opposite occurs, primary around Marngrook and its role.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "the opposite" to what gigantor described and what marngrook has to do with it?

 

[RedV3x]

Those early games of football were clearly forms of "folk" football, as mentioned, played in the British Isles for centuries.

You have to make a clear distinction between English games and Gaelic games.
Gaelic games were organised affairs including Hurley, Gaelic Football and fhockey etc and had been for centuries.
English football was usually just an excuse for a scrap. The "rules" were ad hock and rarely adherred to.

The game played in Rugby School is indeed quite old, although I cannot say whether there is a direct, uninterrupted lineage from that game to modern Rugby.

You can mount an argument either way.

In the case of Australian Football, there is clearly is a direct, uninterruptred lineage between the first codification in 1859 and modern Australian Football.

it's strange that the game today is the exact opposite of the original rules w.r.t. tackling, running, ball handling. field. No other game has evolved so much.

Some of the key indentifiers in Australain Football, what distinguishes it from all the other codes, are mentioned amongst those ten 1859 rules.

All we know is that the original rules of 1859 were influenced by a number of factors.

1. Irishmen lived in numbers in Melbourne. Their game was organised and recorded as being played in Victoria. One of the founding four was an Irishmen.
The fact that Gaelic Football was uncodified at the time means nothing We don't know how strong the influence but the hand pass is logical.
2. Cambridge rules, the precursor to soccer had an almost identical set of rules. Note that the "fair catch" existed in soccer at the time.
3. Rugby, had zero effect initially as seen by the rules - no running, no tackling, no throwing and no offside.
4. Marngrook was a kick-to-kick game so that probably re-enforced the kick and catch idea but not a game in itself.
5. Weather - rugby initially was only accepted were fields were dark green and Melbourne fields were hard and fast.
5. Freedom - there was a general consensus that people wanted to be free and free of the British establishment that was rugby at the time.
6. Fitness - the game was initially experimented by schoolboys and there was a desire for a game that was more open than the English games
of football that all resembled rugby i.e. one unholy scrimmage. This is were the kick and catch idea came from for colonial rules.
The kick and catch idea is the one that has remained until this day in Australian Football and it's what made Australian Football.

 

[RedV3x]

Can you elaborate what you mean by "the opposite" to what gigantor described and what marngrook has to do with it?

Historians place too much emphasis on Tom wills, at least initially.
Tom Wills rugby playing background means Australian Football came from rugby.
Tom Wills association with Marngrook means Australian Football came from Marngrook.

What is more logical is that Tom Wills was inspired by Marngrook to feature the kick and catch in a game of football.
Noting that Marngrook is a static game of kick-to-kick.
Historians are fond of saying that rugby had the "fair catch" so Australian Football comes from rugby.
Well all football, including soccer had the "fair catch". We don't know about Gaelic Football because it wasn't codified at the time.
i think it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe that Gaelic Football had the kick and catch but probably without the "mark"(fair catch)

Tom Wills influence comes more later through his involvement with the game and the evolution of the game of Australian Football.

 

[Pippen94]

Historians place too much emphasis on Tom wills, at least initially.
Tom Wills rugby playing background means Australian Football came from rugby.
Tom Wills association with Marngrook means Australian Football came from Marngrook.

What is more logical is that Tom Wills was inspired by Marngrook to feature the kick and catch in a game of football.
Noting that Marngrook is a static game of kick-to-kick.
Historians are fond of saying that rugby had the "fair catch" so Australian Football comes from rugby.
Well all football, including soccer had the "fair catch". We don't know about Gaelic Football because it wasn't codified at the time.
i think it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe that Gaelic Football had the kick and catch but probably without the "mark"(fair catch)

Tom Wills influence comes more later through his involvement with the game and the evolution of the game of Australian Football.

There's no evidence Wills saw Marngrook & historians say it's most likely he didn't. Afl just variation on the same

 

[jatz14]

You have to make a clear distinction between English games and Gaelic games.
Gaelic games were organised affairs including Hurley, Gaelic Football and fhockey etc and had been for centuries.
English football was usually just an excuse for a scrap. The "rules" were ad hock and rarely adherred to.



You can mount an argument either way.



it's strange that the game today is the exact opposite of the original rules w.r.t. tackling, running, ball handling. field. No other game has evolved so much.



All we know is that the original rules of 1859 were influenced by a number of factors.

1. Irishmen lived in numbers in Melbourne. Their game was organised and recorded as being played in Victoria. One of the founding four was an Irishmen.
The fact that Gaelic Football was uncodified at the time means nothing We don't know how strong the influence but the hand pass is logical.
2. Cambridge rules, the precursor to soccer had an almost identical set of rules. Note that the "fair catch" existed in soccer at the time.
3. Rugby, had zero effect initially as seen by the rules - no running, no tackling, no throwing and no offside.
4. Marngrook was a kick-to-kick game so that probably re-enforced the kick and catch idea but not a game in itself.
5. Weather - rugby initially was only accepted were fields were dark green and Melbourne fields were hard and fast.
5. Freedom - there was a general consensus that people wanted to be free and free of the British establishment that was rugby at the time.
6. Fitness - the game was initially experimented by schoolboys and there was a desire for a game that was more open than the English games
of football that all resembled rugby i.e. one unholy scrimmage. This is were the kick and catch idea came from for colonial rules.
The kick and catch idea is the one that has remained until this day in Australian Football and it's what made Australian Football.

The evidence anything even remotely like modern Gaelic was played historically is weak.

My understanding is, Irish nationalists were not happy that Irish people were taking up the sports of the occupiers, and not having a good indigenous alternative to the football codes, invented one. Then told everyone it was an ancient Gaelic sport, if your a true Irishman, play it instead of rubbish English sport.

This would make Gaelic younger than footy by decades. I have seen no evidence that Gaelic or anything resembling it was played in Australia prior to footy.

It's just assumed. Gaelic is an "ancient" Irish sport, there were Irish people in Australia, they must have played it.

It's known people involved in codifying Gaelic had been in Australia when footy was developed, so if their is a casual link between the two, imop, it's the other way around.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

There's no evidence Wills saw Marngrook & historians say it's most likely he didn't. Afl just variation on the same

It's based on another assumption.

Aborigines played Marngrook. Wills played with Aborigines, hence he must have known Marngrook.

We absolutely know he was exposed to the English public school sport system, and certainly it developed from there. A link to Marngrook is wishful thinking at best, and a link to Gaelic is just nonsense.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RedV3x]

The evidence anything even remotely like modern Gaelic was played historically is weak.

What is known that Gaelic Football was played along with other Gaelic in an organised matter.
It is recorded that the Irish lived in inner Melbourne in numbers at the time.
It is recorded that the Irish were seen playing their brand of football in Victoria.

What is known is that the codification of Gaelic Football was down by returning Australian Rules Footballer and that the rules accepted were much like a earlier version of Australian Rules Football. It is HIGHLY IMPROBBLE that the Irish would accept rules at odds with their contemporary game.
Australian Rules Football only diverged with the playing of the oval ball by Australians.

 

[TWLS]

At one point the Brits had very strong trading links with Argentina, and that's how a few sports were adopted (I presume the game went from there to Uruguay).
In fact, British sports were introduced into Italy around the same time, Milan was established as a football and cricket club by English businness men, although in the case of rugby, France had as much influence as the UK (in the game developing in Italy).
France itself is a different story. I once saw a documentary about some very violent games which were indigenous to France, played up till the late 19th century. At some point, the game of rugby successfully supplanted these violent games.
Given the close proximity of France to England, just as soccer would have been introduced with relative ease by Brits with close links to France, so too was rugby. I don't think there is too much of a mystery there.
One could ask why France took to rugby more than anywhere else on continental Europe, and in part, it could be because of the existence of those older violent games.

Speaking of Soccer and the England France link history records the French wanted to formalise the game internationally and pushed ahead and did so to create FIFA. The poms -Football Association - did not want to be involved at first. Which I remind my wifes rellies regularly, who also have a negative opinion of our game but attend the NFL matches at Wembley. There is a story somewhere in that situation.

 

[RedV3x]

There's no evidence Wills saw Marngrook & historians say it's most likely he didn't. Afl just variation on the same

"There are many historical records that show Marngrook being played across Victoria. For example, the following is a description from the ‘Assistant Protector of Aborigines’ in Victoria, William Thomas, in 1858:

The ball is kicked into the air not along the ground, there is a general scramble at the ball…When caught it is again kicked up in the air with great force and ascends as straight up and as high as when thrown by hand. (Source: Meanjin)"

https://www.deadlystory.com/page/culture/history/First_game_of_Australian_Rules_Football_played_in_Melbourne_based_on_Koorie_game_Marngrook#:~:text=Tom%20Wills%20and%20the%20origins,family%20had%20a%20large%20property

.

 

[Professor Knowall]

There's no evidence Wills saw Marngrook & historians say it's most likely he didn't. Afl just variation on the same

No evidence Wills saw Marngrook? Some historians say it's most likely he did. Here's a long, detailed article favouring this case. I only quote some of the end conclusion - I've bolded a key part of it.

Marngrook, Tom Wills and the Continuing Denial of Indigenous History

Jenny Hocking and Nell Reidy: Australian football has a black history

meanjin.com.au

"... As more and more material is uncovered about marngrook, Tom Wills and Australian football, the accumulating evidence all points in the same direction—the inescapable link between marngrook and Australian football. With Johnny Connolly’s testimony, a critical component in the denial of that link has crumbled.

Marngrook was played across the Western District, including the area Tom Wills lived in as a child from the age of four. That land was the land of the Mukjarrawaint people and a meeting place for local communities where corroborees were held and games were played. The local Indigenous people were Tom Wills’ childhood friends, he spoke their language, knew their customs, and he was close enough to them for young and old to pine for him when he went away to school. Instead of asking ‘where is the evidence he saw or played marngrook?’, we might ask, why would he not? Are we really to accept that Wills did everything but play football with the Mukjarrawaint people, that football was a hermetically sealed part of their relationship such that whenever a game began, Tom Wills—who arrived at school at the age of ten already highly skilled at sport—neither watched nor played?..."

 

[RedV3x]

Which I remind my wifes rellies regularly, who also have a negative opinion of our game but attend the NFL matches at Wembley. There is a story somewhere in that situation.

Had a rel from Sydney come over to live in W.A. and stated "I hate AFL" in passing.
He went on to play American Football as no rugby league where he was.
And that's the last I ever heard of him.

 

[jatz14]

"There are many historical records that show Marngrook being played across Victoria. For example, the following is a description from the ‘Assistant Protector of Aborigines’ in Victoria, William Thomas, in 1858:

https://www.deadlystory.com/page/culture/history/First_game_of_Australian_Rules_Football_played_in_Melbourne_based_on_Koorie_game_Marngrook#:~:text=Tom%20Wills%20and%20the%20origins,family%20had%20a%20large%20property

.

But none that show Wills played it, or even heard of it. Its like assuming someone that met and played with some Australians must have played Aussie rules, because there is evidence Aussies played Aussie rules. Aussie rules isn't played everywhere, and isn't played by everyone even in those places it is played, and isnt played constantly by those that do play it. So there is ample scope of someone hanging out with Aussies not coming across Aussie rules.

To me, what we know of Wills suggests had he been aware of a connection with Marngrook, or even been able to manufacture a connection, he would have made that public. To me this suggests that even if Wills DID come across Marngrook, he himself did not perceive a connection. To me, the only possible link is a subconscious one, in that if Wills encountered Marngrook, this may have influenced what parts of the varied English football rules at the time appealed to him, without him being aware of this influence. But thats assuming he came across it, which is not established.

 

[jatz14]

What is known that Gaelic Football was played along with other Gaelic in an organised matter.
It is recorded that the Irish lived in inner Melbourne in numbers at the time.
It is recorded that the Irish were seen playing their brand of football in Victoria.

What is known is that the codification of Gaelic Football was down by returning Australian Rules Footballer and that the rules accepted were much like a earlier version of Australian Rules Football. It is HIGHLY IMPROBBLE that the Irish would accept rules at odds with their contemporary game.
Australian Rules Football only diverged with the playing of the oval ball by Australians.

The idea that a bunch of WASPS in the mid 1800s, most of them exposed to English public school sport, based their winter football code on an Irish Catholic game is borderline absurd.

The official GAA website basically claims that the historical Gaelic football gave birth to Rugby and Soccer as well, another patently absurd claim.

What appears to be happening imop. There were various local and regional sports that were traditional, uncodified, semi codified, etc, played all over Europe. These were frequently totally unique and regional. What the GAA is doing is lumping all these in together, saying Gaelic is the derivative of these, and that Soccer and Rugby are as well, and therefore have common ancestry. This is bullshit, pure and simple. Many of these local games, of which a number still exist around Europe, were completely local, and unconnected to other broadly similar sport. Its just, if your inventing sport, use of a ball, and kicking, seem pretty common themes. This does not make them related.

Yes, ball sports were played in ancient Ireland, no, they were not related to the later evolution of Soccer or Rugby in the slightest. Were they directly related to each other, ie Was there a forerunner of Gaelic, or were these distinct and unrelated sports? Are they related to modern Gaelic, questionable. As I said previously, the need for Irish nationalists to present a Gaelic sport meant they re invented the narrative, and their view still holds sway now.

Did the Irish in Australia play ball sports, probably. Did this lead to, or influence footy, no imop.

It may be HIGHLY improbable that the Irish would adopt rules incompatible with their native game, but its also highly improbable that they would abandon their local game in favour of English games, yet that is exactly why they codified Gaelic, because that was what was happening. Its also the case that the Irish in Australia were, in a short space of time, playing Australian/English sport, whether it be Australian football or Rugby.

And it is definitely established, people known to be familiar with the Australian game were involved in the codification of Gaelic. And that codification was driven by politics, not the purity of sport.

I dont understand the desperation people have to link Australian football to Gaelic, it makes no sense. There is nothing in Australian football not explainable by the English public school sport system, with a well established and solid link between the founders of footy, and that public school system.

 

[Gigantor]

The idea that a bunch of WASPS in the mid 1800s, most of them exposed to English public school sport, based their winter football code on an Irish Catholic game is borderline absurd.

This has always been my starting point: knowing what we know about Protestant/Catholic relations of the period, there is zero chance that a bunch of well heeled protestants, members of the august MCC no less, would look to an Irish Catholic game for their inspiration (if it even existed at the time, which appears just as doubtful).

 

[Established1870]

On the topic of international expansion, footy is better as a national game not a global one and for a million reasons the only country we could feasibly expand into and not see the club DOA is New Zealand.

Grow the game in NSW and QLD (and ACT!) and we'll be fine. The NRL isn't crash hot and no other sporting code is coming close to us from a grassroots or financial perspective any time soon.

 

[RedV3x]

On the topic of international expansion, footy is better as a national game not a global one

I don't see a skerrick of logic in that statement.
Australian Rules Football is already a global game played regularly in over 55 countries with a world cup every three years.
Has that impinged on your football life in any way ?
Shall we take back the Swan's premiership with Mike Pyke, or Collingwood's wins with Mason Cox or the myriad of games with Irishmen.
Even with international Rules, if it didn't appeal to you then you simply didn't have to watch it.

Othe only country we could feasibly expand into and not see the club DOA is New Zealand.

Well the AFL was well on the way in N.Z. but a suitable stadium in Auckland is still an issue. (luckily for the AFL with Covid19)
Yes only N.Z. is suitable because it's the only suitable country w.r.t. timezones being closer to the east coast than Perth.
That is also w.r.t. AFL which doesn't mean that leagues in other countries cannot progress to professional statement.
Because of the vacuum around Australian Rules Football overseas, AFL fans hear nothing of the big overseas tournaments.

 

[RedV3x]

But none that show Wills played it, or even heard of it.

But he did see it and knew it intimately.

To me, what we know of Wills suggests had he been aware of a connection with Marngrook, or even been able to manufacture a connection, he would have made that public.

Why ? People are trying to say that the Irish game wouldn't have influenced the design purely because it was catholic.
Who would bother mentioning or recording any connection with Marngrook.
There is a good passage in one reference where Wills tries to propose his idea of the game and the group state that they don't want rugby rules.
The researcher believes that Wills did mention Marngrook but it was interpreted as rugby by the others so Wills changed track.
well that's the theory anyway.