Research Origin of Australian Football's Gaelic Origin Myth [+Marngrook]

[Garlic muncher]

Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources. However I am aware of the quote. I think it's from T. S. Marshall. He's very clear in stating that rugby was the main influence.

You asked me to show where Australia Rules had stolen elements of Gaelic football or Caid.

I think it happened then and still happens now.

The Irish flocked to the imagined El Dorado; between 1851 and 1860 roughly 101,540 of them had arrived in Australia with the vast majority of the immigrants finding their way to the goldfields.

I find this interesting though ...... O’Farrell produced the much more sweeping claim that it had been the Irish Catholics, by opposing the dominant Protestant English and Scottish colonial ethos, who were the galvanising force behind the development of a new Australian identity and society.

Pretty sure we can relate that above quote back to the formation of a new game in at that stage was one of the richest cities in the world

 

[SpareTowel]

You asked me to show where Australia Rules had stolen elements of Gaelic football or Caid.

I think it happened then and still happens now.

The Irish flocked to the imagined El Dorado; between 1851 and 1860 roughly 101,540 of them had arrived in Australia with the vast majority of the immigrants finding their way to the goldfields.

I find this interesting though ...... O’Farrell produced the much more sweeping claim that it had been the Irish Catholics, by opposing the dominant Protestant English and Scottish colonial ethos, who were the galvanising force behind the development of a new Australian identity and society.

Pretty sure we can relate that above quote back to the formation of a new game in at that stage was one of the richest cities in the world

Can you name a prominent Irishman in the early Australian game? Besides Thomas H. Smith, whose footballing background was rugby, having attended the rugby stronghold of Trinity College (home of the world's first organised rugby club). Also I think it was Blainey who researched early player lists and found very few Irish surnames. None of the early clubs had Irish colours or identities. The game was considered an off shoot of English sporting culture thriving and evolving in a new land. This was at a time when Victoria was desperate to import and improve upon English social and cultural institutions. Not until Federation was the game associated with the kind of Australian nationalism you are referring to, ie around the time some people started likening it to Gaelic football. I'm not discounting the Irish influence on Australian culture at large - it's been massive - but when it comes to early Australian football it seems to be minimal at best.

 

[RedV3x]

He's very clear in stating that rugby was the main influence.

Where exactly ?

 

[RedV3x]

This was at a time when Victoria was desperate to import and improve upon English social and cultural institutions.

If that was case then they wouldn't have speficalled ruled out rugby and soccer as the desired game!!

 

[SpareTowel]

Where exactly ?

He wrote the following in 1896:

"Victorian footballers and supporters of our game are apt to speak scoffingly of that played under Rugby rules, and to compare it, of course unfavorably, with the more scientific Victorian game. The present generation of footballers is doubtless unaware that we are entirely indebted to Rugby for the introduction of football to Victoria, and that although the two games are now widely divergent, it must be conceded that the matrix of the Victorian game was Rugby."

 

[SpareTowel]

If that was case then they wouldn't have speficalled ruled out rugby and soccer as the desired game!!

There was no soccer to rule out, it was yet to be codified. No code of football had yet to gain broad acceptance, well, anywhere, so many clubs devised their own rules, including Melbourne.

 

[RedV3x]

Speculation.

No. the rules are there to see. They are similar to soccer and opposite to rugby.

All the rules in the original 1859 code have precedence in English public school football,

Yes and they weren't borrowed from rugby were they.

Those who pioneered the game considered rugby a major influence.

Yes, a major negative influence. It seems they said we don't want the game to look like rugby.

S Early match reports refer to the game being a "modification of the Rugby rules".

They are match reports. Everything looked like rugby brawl then. Even today Americans get confused.

Haven't come across anyone else drawing such conclusions re Cambridge rules.

You don't find, what you're not looking for. Plenty of people have noted that the original 10 laws closely follow those of Cambridge.
They are completely unlike the long and complicated laws of rugby.

Football had effectively died off in Ireland around the time it was becoming organised in England and Australia. The country was still reeling from the effects of the great famine.

Irrelevant clutching at straws. They struggled to play Gaelic Football because they were being starved by their English masters - wow.
Don't you think this news would have reached Australia ?
Don't you think that information would have strengthened the anti-English sentiment !

fifty years passed before anyone claimed an Irish influence.

If, as you claim, the colony claimed English anointment then noone with prominence is going to acknowledge that the game has any aboriginal or Irish influence. People ignore the most basic of facts. I have yet to see anyone promote Australian Football as the N.S.W. game because that's where the two founders came from, yet it's plain for every body to see. I have yet to see anyone say Australian Football is really an English game because it was founded in an English colony. Yet again - that is a fact. If Melbourne craved English anointment as you suggest then why wasn't the game taken up as the "new English game". If Australian Football was so influenced by rugby, looked so much like rugby why didn't rugby embrace the new rules. Rugby didn't - did it. In fact rugby was so jealous of the new game they tried to ban it at least three states.

As far as I can see, the only influence rugby had on our game was a big fat negative.

 

[SpareTowel]

No. the rules are there to see. They are similar to soccer and opposite to rugby.

J. B. Thompson, one of the four original rule framers, wanted a game that looked something like soccer. He was dismayed in not getting his way, and for years protested against the rugby-like ball handling and tackling.

You don't find, what you're not looking for. Plenty of people have noted that the original 10 laws closely follow those of Cambridge.

Alright. Find a quote then, from a football pioneer or modern historian, claiming a strong Cambridge influence. Also it's odd/funny that you would push this while also attempting to downplay English influence on the game.

They are completely unlike the long and complicated laws of rugby.

Greatly simplified, not "completely unlike".

Irrelevant clutching at straws. They struggled to play Gaelic Football because they were being starved by their English masters - wow.
Don't you think this news would have reached Australia ?
Don't you think that information would have strengthened the anti-English sentiment !

Does that explain the lack of Irishmen in early player lists? They were turned off by the Englishness of the whole thing?

If, as you claim, the colony claimed English anointment then noone with prominence is going to acknowledge that the game has any aboriginal or Irish influence. People ignore the most basic of facts. I have yet to see anyone promote Australian Football as the N.S.W. game because that's where the two founders came from, yet it's plain for every body to see. I have yet to see anyone say Australian Football is really an English game because it was founded in an English colony. Yet again - that is a fact. If Melbourne craved English anointment as you suggest then why wasn't the game taken up as the "new English game". If Australian Football was so influenced by rugby, looked so much like rugby why didn't rugby embrace the new rules. Rugby didn't - did it. In fact rugby was so jealous of the new game they tried to ban it at least three states.

As far as I can see, the only influence rugby had on our game was a big fat negative.

Everything about the early Australian game is English - the rules, phraseology, organisation, ethos etc etc. It was just adapted to new conditions and evolved from there, like English culture generally. Are you seriously denying that the young colony of Victoria was obsessed with England? They called it Victoria ffs. Melbourne prided itself on being a jewel in the empire's crown. And there are countless references to the Australian game being an "English game". Distinct - like Australians themselves - yet English in origin. Again, no one called it an Irish game. No one. Ever. Until the early years had receded far enough into the past that people could begin to conjure origin myths.

 

[RedV3x]

J. B. Thompson, one of the four original rule framers, wanted a game that looked something like soccer. He was dismayed in not getting his way, and for years protested against the rugby-like ball handling and tackling.

What utter b.s. Throwing has always been banned. They originally used a round ball. Tackling was also banned.

Find a quote then, .

FFS just LOOK at the rules.

Greatly simplified, not "completely unlike"

Utter b.s. The new game didn't have off-side, tackling and throwing - the pillars of yugby.

Does that explain the lack of Irishmen in early player lists?

They were too busy working to send money back to Ireland perhaps.

Jhere are countless references to the Australian game being an "English game".

So why wasn't it accepted by the English ? Why didn't rugby pick up on the new rules if it was so similar ?

 

[RedV3x]

No code of football had yet to gain broad acceptance, well, anywhere,

So soccer and rugby had no influence then.

 

[RedV3x]

He wrote the following in 1896:

"Victorian footballers and supporters of our game are apt to speak scoffingly of that played under Rugby rules, and to compare it, of course unfavorably, with the more scientific Victorian game. The present generation of footballers is doubtless unaware that we are entirely indebted to Rugby for the introduction of football to Victoria, and that although the two games are now widely divergent, it must be conceded that the matrix of the Victorian game was Rugby."

Australian Football is indebted presently to Gaelic and Rugby clubs that boost our game overseas.
Matrix means "cultural, social, or political environment in which something develops".
Means jack about the game itself.

 

[RedV3x]

People have attempted to forensically look at the creation of Australian Football by searching for statements and accounts.
The written word is desirable but not complete as it open to bias, interpretation and omission.

Let's then look at the profile for creation.
A commitee determines the need for a new game, not any old game, but a new game.
Like a jury they take all their experiences as input to the new game.
First off, rugby was probably rejected because of the off-side, tackling and complex rules.
Soccer was probably rejected because of the prohibition on the use of hands.
The simplicity of soccer must have appealed and by removing a one-only restriction would have been seen as an easy fix.
Having determined that hands could be used then the method of ball movement would then have to be addressed.
At some point kick and catch must have been accepted as the desired procedure.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about Marngrook to have occurred w.r.t. kicking and catching.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about Gaelic Football to have occurred w.r.t. ball movement.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about soccer to have occurred w.r.t. not taking the ball off the ground and lack of tackling.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about rugby to have occurred w.r.t. not wanting tackling, off-side and throwing.

The elephant in the room is cricket. We are told that the desire for a new game came out of the need to keep cricketers fit in winter.
The question that begs asking is "why didn't they simply play an existing sport".
Cricket is a gentlemen's sport so you'd think they'd just play rugby, but no, they desired a new sport. Why ?
Rugby would have been seen as a negative because of the emphasis on tackling and resulting injuries.
Soccer would have been seen as a negative because of the emphasis on feet only.
The new game would have been seen as positive because it had an emphasis on catching - a major part of cricket.
It is no accident that the firts teams were 22 players-a-side.

Since the very first creation of Australian Football came from cricketers then it is no surprise
to find a lack of official Irish representation but obviously there was knowledge of the irish games.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Good discussion boys, will put my 2 cents on later - flat chat ATM

 

[RedV3x]

The game was considered an off shoot of English sporting culture thriving and evolving in a new land.

Can you support that statement ?

The Irish migrated to Victoria in vast numbers. They were the largest immigrant group after the English from 1854 to World War I. By 1871, when the community numbered 100,468, more than one in four Victorians was born in Ireland.

The Irish famine of the 1840s caused large numbers of people to migrate due to poverty and difficult living conditions. They worked in Victoria as whalers, fishermen and farm hands and in townships as labourers and factory workers. A few became property owners and professionals.

Between 1850 and 1890 most Irish arrivals to Victoria came as assisted immigrants many escaping cultural repression in Ireland. In contrast to many other groups, they came in equal numbers of men and women. Many sought their fortunes on the goldfields.

https://museumvictoria.com.au/origins/history.aspx?pid=30

 

[SpareTowel]

Good discussion boys, will put my 2 cents on later - flat chat ATM

Glad someone thinks so. I look forward to your input but will stop contributing, at least for a while since I can't foresee this going anywhere.

I'll leave with this from 1926, the one time any pioneer commented on an alleged connection between Australian football and Gaelic football:

"I was speaking to the father of the game (Mr. H. C. A. Harrison) last Saturday, and the news that our code somewhat resembled the Irish one rather surprised him. The desire of Mr. Harrison and his cousin T. W. Wills was to improve upon Rugby, and that they succeeded is a matter of history."

 

[Garlic muncher]

Glad someone thinks so. I look forward to your input but will stop contributing, at least for a while since I can't foresee this going anywhere.

I'll leave with this from 1926, the one time any pioneer commented on an alleged connection between Australian football and Gaelic football:

"I was speaking to the father of the game (Mr. H. C. A. Harrison) last Saturday, and the news that our code somewhat resembled the Irish one rather surprised him. The desire of Mr. Harrison and his cousin T. W. Wills was to improve upon Rugby, and that they succeeded is a matter of history."

Not surprised he was surprised, IMO the Irish based the codification of Gaelic football on some laws of Australian football, after the codification of Gaelic football the games were similar, although the game was based on earlier rules of AF and then of course travelled its own evolutionary path.

 

[The_Wookie]

People have attempted to forensically look at the creation of Australian Football by searching for statements and accounts.
The written word is desirable but not complete as it open to bias, interpretation and omission.

Guesswork and assumption is even worse - see Marngrook - something about which Wills wrote absolutely nothing about and never apparently mentioned to anyone who did write stuff, even though they took the time to note that he was a proponent of rugby rules - or not. The entire Marngrook myth is based on the fact that he knew some aboriginals growing up, and that someone else may have seen aboriginals play a game with a possum skin. Somehow this is cobbled together.

Soccer was probably rejected because of the prohibition on the use of hands.
The simplicity of soccer must have appealed and by removing a one-only restriction would have been seen as an easy fix.
Having determined that hands could be used then the method of ball movement would then have to be addressed.
At some point kick and catch must have been accepted as the desired procedure.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about Marngrook to have occurred w.r.t. kicking and catching.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about Gaelic Football to have occurred w.r.t. ball movement.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about soccer to have occurred w.r.t. not taking the ball off the ground and lack of tackling.
It is quite reasonable for discussion about rugby to have occurred w.r.t. not wanting tackling, off-side and throwing.

Neither soccer nor gaelic football had a proper set of rules until 1863 and 1878 respectively. What is known is that various private school rules were discussed. There is literally no evidence that Marngrook had any part to play - and oddly enough for the AFL, its one of those areas that the official history is definitive about. The mark was introduced to the game in 1860. The bounce while running was introduced in 1866 - thanks to Geelong rules mostly, evidently Geelong had its own set of rules and their players were forever interpreting the rules in their way.

The new game would have been seen as positive because it had an emphasis on catching - a major part of cricket.

Thats quite the long bow.

It is no accident that the firts teams were 22 players-a-side.

Thats because they werent. 22 a side didnt come into place for more than a century. Third interchange wasnt introduced until 1994 and the fourth wasnt introduced until 1998.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Guesswork and assumption is even worse - see Marngrook - something about which Wills wrote absolutely nothing about and never apparently mentioned to anyone who did write stuff, even though they took the time to note that he was a proponent of rugby rules - or not. The entire Marngrook myth is based on the fact that he knew some aboriginals growing up, and that someone else may have seen aboriginals play a game with a possum skin. Somehow this is cobbled together.

.

That is simply not true, ..... Lawton Wills-Cooke, a great-nephew of Tom Wills -- widely regarded as the founding father of the game -- has told of a family story relating to Wills playing football with Aboriginal children at Ararat in country Victoria.

The 88-year-old revealed to long-time Wills chronicler Martin Flanagan that his grandfather Horace told Wills-Cooke's mother Rene that great-uncle Tom played a form of football with local Aboriginal children.
Horace was Wills's brother.
The story has been re-told in the family down the years.


Probably no references to marngrook in trove so therefore .....

No references to shinboners on trove before 1935 - do you believe the nickname just started then ?.

 

[RedV3x]

The entire Marngrook myth is based on the fact that he knew some aboriginals growing up.

He knew them well. He knew their language. It would be strange that he didn't know Marngrook.
We cannot attribute to what degree what influence had on the game. There are more questions than answers.
For Marngrook, it simply was not fashionable to mention anything about aboriginals.
For soccer, there is no explanation why rules are almost identical.
For Gaelic, there is no explanation why the game was apparently so similar.
For rugby, there is no explanation from all these supposed rugby people why the rules were nothing like rugby.

From what I am learning football games were in their infancy so Australian Football didn't come from anything it was simply invented.

 

[RedV3x]

That is simply not true, ..... Lawton Wills-Cooke, a great-nephew of Tom Wills -- widely regarded as the founding father of the game -- has told of a family story relating to Wills playing football with Aboriginal children at Ararat in country Victoria.

The 88-year-old revealed to long-time Wills chronicler Martin Flanagan that his grandfather Horace told Wills-Cooke's mother Rene that great-uncle Tom played a form of football with local Aboriginal children.
Horace was Wills's brother.
The story has been re-told in the family down the years.


Probably no references to marngrook in trove so therefore .....

No references to shinboners on trove before 1935 - do you believe the nickname just started then ?.

Something like that can be seen to be mentioned in the family environment. The fact that it wasn't reported in the public arena is quite understandable and it would be quite reasonable for Wills to distance himself from any aboriginal associations in the company of gentry by simply not mentioning it.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Something like that can be seen to be mentioned in the family environment. The fact that it wasn't reported in the public arena is quite understandable and it would be quite reasonable for Wills to distance himself from any aboriginal associations in the company of gentry by simply not mentioning it.

Of course, as someone else has pointed out .... approach the question regarding Tom Wills and Marngrook from another direction. To say Tom Wills was not influenced by his early years growing up with aboriginal children is a far fetched proposition. Inevitably it would have influenced his behaviours and attitudes in later life both conciously and subconciously in whatever he did.

 

[The_Wookie]

That is simply not true, ..... Lawton Wills-Cooke, a great-nephew of Tom Wills -- widely regarded as the founding father of the game -- has told of a family story relating to Wills playing football with Aboriginal children at Ararat in country Victoria.

The 88-year-old revealed to long-time Wills chronicler Martin Flanagan that his grandfather Horace told Wills-Cooke's mother Rene that great-uncle Tom played a form of football with local Aboriginal children.
Horace was Wills's brother.
The story has been re-told in the family down the years.


Probably no references to marngrook in trove so therefore .....

No references to shinboners on trove before 1935 - do you believe the nickname just started then ?.

Actually im referring to the official AFL history book The Australian Game of Football - since 1858 which devotes an entire page to the "marngrook myth". Wills evidently failed to bring it up with his contemporaries who never saw fit to mention it.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Actually im referring to the official AFL history book The Australian Game of Football - since 1858 which devotes an entire page to the "marngrook myth". Wills evidently failed to bring it up with his contemporaries who never saw fit to mention it.

I don't have dates in front of me but i suspect the book was written before this info became public.

And TBH considering how aboriginals were treated and viewed i am not surprised that anyone except his family and maybe close friends knew.

It is common knowledge he played with local aboriginals, i bet they weren't sitting around knitting.

 

[The_Wookie]

Something like that can be seen to be mentioned in the family environment. The fact that it wasn't reported in the public arena is quite understandable and it would be quite reasonable for Wills to distance himself from any aboriginal associations in the company of gentry by simply not mentioning it.

Given he coached an Aboriginal cricket side, and was definitely associated with aboriginals for some time in public, this is borderline ridiculous.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Just amazing how people can claim that Wills was not influenced by Aboriginal games, Marngrook was not codified, it was no doubt played under a variety of rules amongst different tribes, it may have been played different every time it was played, who doesnt remember as kids kicking a footy or playing cricket and just makeing your own rules up with mates as you go along, it is just a matter of what % he was influenced by Aboriginal culture as he was influenced by his time at Rugby, his time living in Victoria, his time living in Collingwood, by the people he met, the jobs he did, the pubs he drank ate etc etc etc.

Just because there is no WRITTEN word affiliating him to Marngrook, does not mean it did not happen.