Do you prefer "State of Origin", or the "International Rules" series against Ire

[Dan26]

Do you prefer "State of Origin", or the "International Rules" series against Ireland?

 

[BomberBoy]

Re: Do you prefer "State of Origin", or the "International Rules" series against

Originally posted by Dan25
Do you prefer "State of Origin", or the "International Rules" series against Ireland?

Tough questtion Dan, but i went for International Rules.

Even though it isn't Aussie Rules, it has many of the points that were talked about, when we talking about whether you would want your team to win a premiership or for the game to go international.

International Rules is pretty interesting and the scores are usually pretty good. Its not that hard to pick up either.

 

[ant]

State of Origin easily, the composite rules stuff is basically a made up game, purely so we can play another country. Why do we bother really, it's a boring game, it's not Aussie Rules, so why do we send Australian Rules Footballers to play this 'sport'?? Maybe we should send our basketballers to America and play BASEketball with them, wouldn't that be great......

 

[GOALden Hawk]

I voted for International Rules...because it gives us a chance to see (nearly) all of the All-Australian side on the park together playing as the one team. It also gives a chance to promote the game overseas - Many more Tadgh Kenneally's may join the AFL due to these matches.

I don't think it's boring either...anyone who went to the game 2 years ago at the MCG will testify to that. And it's great having a chance to cheer on your country, because apart from Cricket and the Soccer once or twice a year it's our only chance.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

state of origin here.its a disgrace that it was put in the back burner in the 1st place.there is not much to talk about the fugby league at the momment but you have to give them credit on the way they promote their state of origin series.
what killed our s.o.o was the lack of support by western australia as soon as the eagles became a force they left s.o.o in droves now i bet they wish s.o.o was still around.
cheers!

 

[Peter P]

I went for the Interules. It is a great game in itself and to support Australia is really worth it. When the Australians went out onto Footy Park 2 years ago it sent a tingle down the spine with the National anthems of 2 nations, players announced individually....Buckley, McLeod, O'Loughlin, Crawford, Bell etc etc all on the same team.

It does promote both codes - and in this globalised world both Gaelic and Footy need that. When I was in the UK recently I'd talk about sport and often people would say they'd seen Aussie Rules once on TV or heard it exists, they didn't even know that Gaelic exists [even though its been next door for 200 years], but many said: "hey! what's that game that Australia and Ireland play each year...fantastic sport..so much more exciting than our football".

The world only notices international sports these days.

PS Interules matches have been played between Gaelic and Australian Football clubs in Qld, Ireland, Boston and Denver...it helps a positive interaction for Footy and Gaelic in "frontier" areas.

Still we need Australian Rules at its highest possible level. State of Origin is undermined by the national comp. and that only 3 states can compete at the top level. The Allies never took off......but I would like to see a mid-season match of WEST [SA,WA, NT] v EAST [NSW, Vic, Tas, Qld, ACT]. The best 44 players in the land in one match. It'd get a big crowd in Adelaide or Perth [they need some quality games desperately], and a national TV audience. Another alternative - Vic v the Rest of Aust at the MCG...that'd pack out the G!

 

[red+black]

Australian Rules Football State Of Origin is a joke and should stay gone. Sure we might all remember thrashing SA in 89, but really, no one cares. Terry Wallace has a winge the other week saying that SOO should return. Maybe his opinion would have been different if the dogs didn't get pumped by the Blues that week.

We cannot go a weekend without real football, that is, the home and away season. The only reason it's popular in NRL is because their home and away season is not as exciting (but don't get me wrong, I do like league).

And would all the best players play? Of course not. Players wouldn't miss a game for their club, but to miss SOO, as if they care. If they did, they wouldn't all pull out.

I like the International Rules series, and the crowds prove its popularity. Whether it stays or goes I'm not overly concerned,just don't bring back State Of Origin.

 

[Stucey]

I went for international only because I love seeing our guys run through their guys. I'd love to see them play something more like A.F.L though with our shaped ball

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by red+black
.

We cannot go a weekend without real football, that is, the home and away season. The only reason it's popular in NRL is because their home and away season is not as exciting (but don't get me wrong, I do like league).

We already go a weekend without real football. At least with SOO you have something worth seeing that w/e.

 

[red+black]

Originally posted by Fat Red


We already go a weekend without real football. At least with SOO you have something worth seeing that w/e.

you should explain yourself. i ***ume you mean that each team had a week off in round 12 this year. at least REAL football WAS played on both weekends, whether or not your own team was playing. i'd rather keep abreast of 4 home and away matches than 1 SOO game. yeah i can hear you all wingeing when SOO is played interstate every second year and we have NO football at all in melbourne.

if state of origin was so damn important, why has it been such a yawn in recent years. like I care if the Vics lost to SA (ahem, i mean the Crows, or is it the Power).

the relevance of state of origin has p***ed with the national compe***ion in full effect. anyway VIC v SA is not fully representative of all football states now is it?

the Allies were a joke because state of origin was a joke

 

[X_box_X]

International Rules for me.

 

[ant]

Originally posted by Stucey
I'd love to see them play something more like A.F.L though with our shaped ball

Exactly. Why are we playing with a soccer shaped ball for goodness sakes?? What is the point?? International Rules is just a contrived game to give us an excuse to play the All-Australian team. Our players didn't make the All-Australian team playing international rules, they made it playing Australian Rules footy. It's just ridiculous.

I just feel no p***ion at all watching the Aussies play International Rules, but when the siren sounded for a State of Origin match, SA v Vic., there was a real tingle up the spine.

Anyway, that's my view.

 

[Stegelator]

ahh Both? am i allowed to choose that?


Why Can't they have both?

 

[topdon]

I totally agree with ant. How can one have any pa$$ion for a hybrid game that has little resemblence to the game the All-Australian side was selected from in the first place? Vic Vs SA on the other hand got the blood pumping. It became obvious that the AFL didn't want to put any time and effort into the concept, and priced it to the shizenhousen.

I'd hate to see SOO dead and buried, as the International Rules Series is a poor subst!tute.

 

[Dan26]

Part of the problem is that there are too many football states, and so it is too hard to cultivate a tournament that has any length to give the winner any menaingful recogntion.

In the Rugby League, there are only two states, so it is easy to have a tournament. Just put NSW against QLD, and the winner is the champions. How do you do it in Aussie Rules? There are four states (Vic, SA, WA, Allies) and you need a tournament going for 3 or 4 weeks, to determine a realistic winner. This is unworkable.

So, instead, how does this sound (just for an idea) :

Victoria vs Rest of Australia.

Pros- The BEST 44 players in the country will all be on the field at the same time. This has never happened in the 143 years history of the sport

- It would mean there are only two teams, so it is easy to decide an "overall champion". Just play one match, and the winner gets the trophy.

- It would be the highest standard match in the history of the sport

Cons - Will South Australians support a combined "WA, SA, NSW, ACT, Tas, Qld" team? Will West Aussies support it? Maybe. I'm guessing yes. I'm guessing they would want to see the Vics get beaten. But maybe they wouldn't support it.

I can't think of any more cons.

 

[dees01]

At first I thought this international rules was a joke but I went to the game at the MCG and loved it and I am looking forward to seeing it again this year. State of Origin seems to have lost its p***ion.

 

[GoEagles]

Current Standing: 19-8 in favour of International Rules

 

[SS11]

hmmm i want the good old State of origin back..i really couldnt give a toss about ireland, they dont bring up the same feelings of hate that South Australia did in those red jumpers...

Thats why i picked S.O.O., because i feel the p***ion is there a lot more than an Ire-Aus match.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Dan25 rearranged the Commonwealth...
There are four states (Vic, SA, WA, Allies)

"Map of 'the southern bit of Allies'" doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[Dan26]

Well anyway, Ripp, I think the AFL should consider a Victoria vs Rest of Australia match so that the best 44 players can all be represented in one match, and so the "state or origin" concept can be confined to one match mid year.

Your thoughts?

 

[Mr Ripper]

I have actually floated that idea here myself, Dan (it must have made a lasting impression on your sub-conscience), as a possible way of reviving interest in SOO. Let's face it, everyone hates us Vics, don't they? (can't think why? )

Don't necessarily agree with it, though. It would just be an exhibition game when all's said and done.

The passion for rep football effectively died in the proverbial once the VFL expanded; in 1987 (for WA) and 1991 (SA).

As for the Irish hooey...well, I reckon it's a grouse game, in itself, to watch...but who really cares?

 

[Dan26]

Ripper,

It wouldn't be a TRUE exhibition match, because you would still be representing a "state" (so to speak). I mean, you could argue that the traditional State of Origin matches are nothing but exhibition games.

They key here is Victoria. When South Australia play the Vics at Football Park, they get a crowd of 40,000. Now the South Australians will tell you they are there to see their boys play. Now, if that was the case, they would get 40,000 against ANYONE, right?

Well, when they played WA, they could only manage 18,000 at Football Park. In other words, the Victorians were worth about 22,000 to the crowd.

Now, I think if the Rest of Australia played the Vics at Football Park, the South Australians would still come out in force, primarily with the desire to see the Victorians go down. After all, the presence of the Vics (NOT S.A) drew 40,000 to Football Park, so why couldn't Victoria do it again?

The other factor is that State of Origin has always been more interesting when Victoria lose. When S.A beat the Vics three tims in a row, it caused 91,000 Victorians to go to the MCG in 1989 to see revenge. Similarly, in 1995, 64,000 went to the MCG after the South Australians had won the previous two matches in '93 and '94. The crowds come out when the Vics lose, because it adds interest.

If we had a Rest of Australia vs Victoria match, the Vics would struggle to win. The Rest of Australia would certainly start favourites. This is what State of Origin needs. It needs a team that can regularly beat Victoria at the MCG. This is the only way the Victorian crowds will be inspired to get behind their state.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Originally posted by Dan25
They key here is Victoria. When South Australia play the Vics at Football Park, they get a crowd of 40,000. Now the South Australians will tell you they are there to see their boys play. Now, if that was the case, they would get 40,000 against ANYONE, right?

Well, when they played WA, they could only manage 18,000 at Football Park. In other words, the Victorians were worth about 22,000 to the crowd.

Now, I think if the Rest of Australia played the Vics at Football Park, the South Australians would still come out in force, primarily with the desire to see the Victorians go down. After all, the presence of the Vics (NOT S.A) drew 40,000 to Football Park, so why couldn't Victoria do it again?

You make some reasonable points, Daniel. Perhaps the SAlians would be the best ones to consult as to whether they'd back this concept.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Well, I've just got back from work (some of us have to) and saw this topic, voted for State of Origin and looked up the results - and you could have knocked me over with a feather or a Nick Daffy shirtfront when I saw the relative popularity. Ted Whitten would be turning in his grave. I'm amazed how footy supporters at***udes have changed.

Dan25 - 2 things.
1. I'm with you on the Victoria v. The Rest concept. I reckon it would be supported - and you could play it at the MCG every year, either at the start or end of the season, or in a one week break in the middle. Great idea. Real Australian Rules Football, real ball, best players, best stadium, biggest and most vociferous crowd.
2. I'm aware that the 31 people (who had voted when I had) do not represent a statistically valid sample to judge footy supporters at***udes (see above) but thought it was worth commenting on.

 

[Dan26]

Even as a Victorian, I reckon it would be great for footy if the "Rest of Australia" gave Victoria a real hiding. Victorian crowds, only sem to be motivated when the Victorians pride has been dented. If the rest of Australia could beat Victoria, and beat them convincingly (and I think they could), I see no reason why players wouldn't want to start playing for the Vics again, instead of pulling out with injuries all the time.