Footy in Queensland

[Mostyn]

IMO the AFL just dodged a massive bullet with Penrith preventing the Broncos from claiming their first NRL premiership in 17 years. However, there is currently a MASSIVE turnout at Lions HQ to see their team which suggests there's a much more loyal AFL fanbase in Brisbane than people think. Literally thousands have turned out and people up here are very shocked by it. Especially considering the Broncos are also holding a fan day right now. The media keeps mentioning that it's now obvious the two codes of rugby league and Aussie rules can "co-exist" in Brisbane and today proves it. That's a GIGANTIC step forward for the AFL in Brisbane.

It's not a scientific study, but I'm in Brisbane and my social media was full of people talking about the Lions, and barely anything about the Broncos.

I think NRL still rules once you're outside of the metro centres, but the AFL is VERY strong in the cities.

 

[Phar Ace]

It's not a scientific study, but I'm in Brisbane and my social media was full of people talking about the Lions, and barely anything about the Broncos.

I think NRL still rules once you're outside of the metro centres, but the AFL is VERY strong in the cities.

Correct - south east corner of Qld very strong interest in AFL, still outnumbered by NRL of course, but the differential is dropping year on year. It took NRL too long to get their second Brisbane team up again. If Dimma can get GC going (I'm not sure he can though) then it will be derby vs derby for a few years to come.

 

[Taper]

I think the fact the lions were still selling out their games when their was a local derby across the street showed there is a loyal following now. My parents were just up in QLD and were saying the travel agent place they went into had a born and bred Queenslander that kept talking to them about the footy, but had no interest in rugby.

Rugby isn't that popular here when compared to AFL and NRL.
Broncos are still far bigger than the Lions.

 

[Bjo187]

Rugby isn't that popular here when compared to AFL and NRL.
Broncos are still far bigger than the Lions.

You know what I mean, when I say rugby i mean both. It's annoying rugby league has a stupid name. It basically indicates that it's just the league of a local rugby competition.

 

[Mostyn]

Rugby isn't that popular here when compared to AFL and NRL.
Broncos are still far bigger than the Lions.

NRL is rugby.

 

[Taper]

You know what I mean, when I say rugby i mean both. It's annoying rugby league has a stupid name. It basically indicates that it's just the league of a local rugby competition.

I thought you were referring to Union as the rugby world cup is currently on.
League and Union are two different sports, saying they're the same sport is akin to saying cricket and baseball are the same sport.

NRL is rugby.

No one in NSW or QLD refers to NRL as rugby, NRL is referred to as league or footy.
Rugby = rugby union.

 

[Bjo187]

League and Union are two different sports, saying they're the same sport is akin to saying cricket and baseball are the same sport.

I would say it's equivalent to saying test match cricket and t20 cricket aren't in fact both 'cricket'. Two different forms of the same sport.

 

[Scotty_222]

I would say it's equivalent to saying test match cricket and t20 cricket aren't in fact both 'cricket'. Two different forms of the same sport.

You would be wrong in saying that.

 

[Bjo187]

You would be wrong in saying that.

If it's not 'rugby' then how come 'rugby' is one of two words used to describe the sport?

 

[Mostyn]

I thought you were referring to Union as the rugby world cup is currently on.
League and Union are two different sports, saying they're the same sport is akin to saying cricket and baseball are the same sport.

No one in NSW or QLD refers to NRL as rugby, NRL is referred to as league or footy.
Rugby = rugby union.

I'm in Queensland.

Rugby is rugby.

 

[Scotty_222]

If it's not 'rugby' then how come 'rugby' is one of two words used to describe the sport?

One is rugby union and one is rugby league.
I feel like you’re trying to pick it apart.

 

[Bjo187]

One is rugby union and one is rugby league.
I feel like you’re trying to pick it apart.

What are you on about, it's two different forms of the one sport. Rugby league is just an off-shoot of the original rugby. I mean bloody hell, rugby league even played under full rugby rules when it was first developed.

It's like saying the VFA wasn't Australian football, but was a completely different sport .

 

[Mostyn]

I've never heard a single Queenslander mention rugby union. Or anyone really. I think it's quickly becoming a dead sport. It's like Latin.

 

[Walshawk]

What are you on about, it's two different forms of the one sport. Rugby league is just an off-shoot of the original rugby. I mean bloody hell, rugby league even played under full rugby rules when it was first developed.

It's like saying the VFA wasn't Australian football, but was a completely different sport .

They split in 1895. And significant changes were made day 1. Have you watches each code? The basics of the game that you cant throw the ball forward, offside (in heaps of sports) and the scoring of a try and conversion (also in Gridiron) are the only things still the same. At least 50% of the play is totally different. If you think that they are the same sport you clearly don’t understand either sport.

 

[Mostyn]

They split in 1895. And significant changes were made day 1. Have you watches each code? The basics of the game that you cant throw the ball forward, offside (in heaps of sports) and the scoring of a try and conversion (also in Gridiron) are the only things still the same. At least 50% of the play is totally different. If you think that they are the same sport you clearly don’t understand either sport.

They score tries in gridiron??

If you'd never watched the different kinds of rugby before, you'd think they were the same sport, though you'd find the throw in stuff a bit weird.

Five day test cricket and t20s look more different that league and union do.

 

[Bjo187]

They split in 1895. And significant changes were made day 1. Have you watches each code? The basics of the game that you cant throw the ball forward, offside (in heaps of sports) and the scoring of a try and conversion (also in Gridiron) are the only things still the same. At least 50% of the play is totally different. If you think that they are the same sport you clearly don’t understand either sport.

What a ridiculous assertion, I've watched plenty of both. Rugby league comes from rugby and therefore is an altered form of the original rugby. Tossing a ball backwards (the only sport in the world that goes backwards to go forwards), tackling, field goals, tries, the words 'rugby' in the name of the sport, wtf do you think it is?

I suppose t20 cricket isn't cricket, swimming butterfly instead of freestyle isn't actually swimming, 3 on 3 basketball at the Olympics isn't basketball, indoor soccer isn't soccer? I can't believe how dumb this argument actually is, it's staggering actually.

 

[raskolnikov]

NRL is rugby.

No it's not.

 

[raskolnikov]

If people just say rugby it's rugby union.

 

[eastfreo75]

About time Queensland started to produce more players to the AFL. It is good to see. Would've thought after all those great Queenslanders of the late 90's and early 2000's that the state was going to produce a lot more. I believe there are around 30 Queenslanders in AFL squads at the moment. That is in comparison to 25 Tasmanians, 17 Northern Territorians and 53 from NSW/ACT. For the record, I have it down as 429 Vics, 128 from WA and 109 from SA.

A lot of work still to be done if Queensland were to be considered to have a 3rd AFL side. With the Tasmanian side imminent, maybe North Melbourne should look to establish themselves a 2nd base somewhere north of Brisbane.

You can see the upside though, if footy really does catch on in QLD and NSW and the better athletes in those states choose Aussie Rules like they do in Vic, WA and SA. Mind you - a fair bit of work to be done to ensure AFL is still the sport of choice in the traditional footy states too.

With the population so far spread up the coast of Queensland and inland from Brisbane, it seems it would be difficult to get a strong home based, viable, state league? I presume Brisbane is not quite so the centre of the state as, for example, Adelaide is in SA.

Before any third Queensland team, you need to build up to 100 Queenslanders players playing in the AFL.

 

[raskolnikov]

I'm in Queensland.

Rugby is rugby.

Noone in NSW or Qld refers to rugby league as just "rugby". If you say just "rugby" you are referring to rugby union.

 

[Walshawk]

They score tries in gridiron??

If you'd never watched the different kinds of rugby before, you'd think they were the same sport, though you'd find the throw in stuff a bit weird.

Five day test cricket and t20s look more different that league and union do.

You have no idea. Nothing changes in a shorter game of cricket except they try to score more quickly.

Union has no play the ball, which happens hundreds of times in a game of League. League has no rolling mauls, or line outs, or meaningful scrums. Less the half the play is similar.

 

[Mostyn]

This is a ridiculous debate.

Rugby is rugby. It's thick necked guys running in straight lines at each other. Sometimes it stops and someone rolls the ball out the back.

But it's all the same thing. Fans might say "oh, but in this version a guy chucks it in from the side" but it's all the same thing. It's chunky blokes trying not to throw the ball forward.

It's one of the main reasons that union is dying (or arguably has died). No one who isn't already a fan understands why there needs to be two versions of the same game. Rugby Union is just Ms Pacman.

 

[Thommo 42]

they are 2 completely different sports, and require different types of athletes and have a different amount of people on the field, incredibly different rules etc.

Rugby Union is a far better game than League, but it is dying a slow death due to horrendous administration and relying on about 40 exclusive private schools for its talent (and pacific islands..)

There are players that will be good at both, and most league players could convert to Union and still play at an elite level, but half the Union players skills are not transferable. Most front rowers in union, and a majority of 2nd rowers simply are only built for that sport and would be unable to transition. In fact, 2nd rowers in Union would have more luck converting to Aussie rules and trying their hand as ruckmen than they would trying to play League.

Probably the key differences:

League:

• the ball is rarely, if ever, in dispute. Which is the main reason I hate the sport. Possession of the ball is not a contest, you get it for a set period and then generally hand it over.
• the defensive line is set back 10m, so the ability to move the ball around and shift the play is easier
• it is a collision based game with very little nuance.

Union:

• ball is always in dispute, you can have it for as long as you like if you're good enough to keep it. (much like Aussie Rules)
• Scrums require athletes with power you simply don't find in League or Aussie Rules. Guys that are 6' and weigh 130kg and couldn't run 2km in under 8 minutes are abolutely crucial in set piece play.
• the defensive line is flat and on the gain line, ball players have less time to make decisions and spin the ball, but can also wear a defensive line down via attrition and posession (20+ phases of attack in a row etc)

 

[Lingsface]

Go talk about that putrid sport on another site!

 

[GC2015]

This is a ridiculous debate.

Rugby is rugby. It's thick necked guys running in straight lines at each other. Sometimes it stops and someone rolls the ball out the back.

But it's all the same thing. Fans might say "oh, but in this version a guy chucks it in from the side" but it's all the same thing. It's chunky blokes trying not to throw the ball forward.

It's one of the main reasons that union is dying (or arguably has died). No one who isn't already a fan understands why there needs to be two versions of the same game. Rugby Union is just Ms Pacman.

I see what you're saying but if you spend enough time in Queensland or New South Wales and talk to enough people then you'll start to gain an appreciation for the differences between the two rugby codes. At the grassroots level, the biggest difference is probably the socioeconomic roots that are still enforced to this day. Put simply, rugby union is an upper class sport and rugby league is a working class sport - hence the reason rugby league is the more popular of the two. Union has retained their strong affiliations with the elite private schools throughout Queensland and New South Wales whereas league thrives in the government schools. There's a decent level of animosity between the two but you will occasionally see them work in unison at the junior level with the intention of engaging in a bidding war for the junior's services later on.

This is why you'll see players like last week's Dally M Medalist (the NRL's Brownlow) Kalyn Ponga receiving a scholarship to play rugby union for an elite private school while also taking part in the Brisbane Broncos' development academy. Ponga was playing rugby union for his school on Saturdays due to his scholarship commitments and rugby league on Sundays for his local club Easts Tigers as a part of the Broncos development pathway. That's a normal occurrence for an elite rugby league talent in Queensland or New South Wales. Ponga even joined the Brisbane Lions academy for a short period of time and had his choice of seven separate pro sports teams spread across the three football codes at the age of 15 but stayed true to rugby league in the end. If things had played out slightly differently then Ponga would have run out for the Brisbane Lions in the AFL Grand Final last week instead of winning the NRL's highest honour of the Dally M Medal.

Anyway, if you're looking for visual differences between the two codes then the most obvious would probably be the 15 players per side on the field in rugby union vs the 13 per side in rugby league. You've also got the tackle count being limited to five in rugby league whereas rugby union can have an unlimited amount of tackles (known as phases). You may also notice there's a lot more in-game kicking in rugby union because it's more of a territory game than rugby league is. The international element is far more prominent in rugby union as well with massive brands like the All Blacks that really draw in a lot of viewers while rugby league's international equivalent is pretty lacklustre in comparison if the person being asked was being honest.

If you refer to rugby league as "rugby" in front of a true rugby league fan that lives in Queensland or New South Wales then they will almost definitely correct you and tell you it's "league" or "rugby league" as they consider the word "rugby" to mean rugby union. Similarly, if you use the word "footy" then they will assume you mean rugby league when you probably mean Aussie rules. Once they realise what you mean, they will insist on referring to the sport of Australian rules football as "AFL". This is a socially acceptable way of referring to the three codes of football in Queensland or New South Wales. To add to the confusion, you'll occasionally come across association football fans who really resent the word "soccer" being used to describe their sport and insist on calling it "football" which can be a problem amongst rugby league fans who believe the word "football" refers to their sport. Most Aussie rules fans in Queensland and New South Wales avoid using "footy" or "football" to refer to their sport because they know there's a high chance they'll be misunderstood unless they are in a setting where it's obvious like attending a game at the Gabba.

This is how it is in the northern states. I know Victorians who have lived here in Queensland for 25+ years that still don't know the difference between the two rugby codes but it's because they're simply not interested enough to learn and would rather stick to Aussie rules because they believe it's the superior sport anyway. I'm inclined to believe you would fall into that category because you live in Queensland but are running with the "rugby is rugby" spiel.

Back on topic. It's generally an uphill battle for Aussie rules in Queensland but the tide does seem to be turning somewhat. I guess it just goes to show how important it is to have successful brands within a market. The Swans will never be number 1 in the Sydney market but they've definitely found their niche supporters base that allows them to remain competitive in the AFL and I think the Lions are on their way to achieving that in Brisbane as well.