Code dead?
Having devoted the last blog to the rather modest trappings of the Australian Prime Ministership, I watched over the weekend as a Black Hawk military helicopter flew low over Sydney harbour, hovered in the bowl of the city's Olympic stadium and then dipped its nose to salute Kevin Rudd, who was perched in the stands.
'The Black Hawk will bow to the Prime Minister' were the words of the Vegas-style master of ceremonies, as he described this mid-air manoeuvre, a phrase which got some rather quizzical looks from the fans seated close to me.
The dramatic entrance of the helicopter, which dropped a rugby ball from the skies, was all part of the pre-game build-up to the NRL Grand Final, pitting the Melbourne Storm and Parramatta Eels, the climax of the Australian rugby league season.
For the second time in three years, Melbourne won the trophy, which speaks of the fast-changing geography of Australian winter sports. Had someone predicted 20 years ago that a Victorian team would achieve such dominance in what was then an alien sport, the men in white coats would have come crashing through the doors.
Now it is the Melbourne Storm, the men in purple acrylic, who are doing the gate-crashing. They have become the powerhouse team in a New South Wales and Queensland-dominated sport.
Indeed, 85% of the people playing rugby league live in New South Wales, which has 10 professional teams, and Queensland, which has three. For Melbourne, Victoria's sole professional outfit, to win the Grand Final is akin to the Dallas Stars winning ice hockey's Stanley Cup in 1999. Just as there ain't much snow in Texas, there isn't much rugby league in Victoria.
Still, for all its success, the Melbourne Storm does not enjoy much of a hometown following, which speaks of the dominance of Aussie Rules Football in the country's second city. In 2008, the Storm's average attendance was 12,474, which is miniscule in sports-barmy Melbourne. Still, the NRL lives in hope that Victorians will eventually embrace the game.
At the moment all the Australian winter teams are seeking to expand their geographical footprint. Aussie Rules Football is looking to set up expansion teams in western Sydney and Queensland's Gold Coast. Rugby Union is setting up a franchise in Melbourne, which will compete in an expanded Super 14 competition. The NRL is eyeing up the Central Coast of New South Wales and further sites in Queensland (soccer in Australia, remember, is a mainly summer sport).
This begs a number of questions, both large and small. Are there enough Antipodean animals left for the new teams to be named after? Is the market big enough to absorb this fast-paced level of growth? And, ultimately, will one of the winter codes wither or, even, die?
As the full-house at this weekend's Grand Final showed, rugby league is the most resilient of sports. The phrase 'annus horribilis' does not even begin to describe the nightmare season which the game has had off the field, from sex scandals to alleged corruption scandals, from domestic violence to the kind of behaviour that would make members of even the most uproarious American frat house avert their eyes (the Sydney Roosters forward Nate Myles was suspended for six weeks for defecating in a hotel corridor).
For all that, the on-field product has rarely, if ever, been better. Big hits and great tries, which is what rugby is all about.
Aussie Rules appears to go from strength to strength, and although I missed the Geelong/St Kilda clash in the grand final at the MCG, I heard it was a thriller. Of all the codes, it is the one which can look to expand with the greatest confidence, even if most of its profits still come from Victoria, its fiefdom and home. Remarkably, AFL is the fourth most well-attended sport in the world, with an average attendance of over 38,000. Only American football, cricket's Indian Premier League and the German Bundesliga boast higher average crowds (the English premier league is fifth on the list).
Confessedly, I am a rugby union man, a product of where I was born (Bristol) rather than where I went to school. I cannot ever imagine altering my long-held view that, when played at its highest and most flamboyant level, rugby union is the most entertaining and stirring winter game. But the problem facing rugby union in Australia, as in the rest of the world, is that it is rarely played at the highest and most flamboyant level. It has become a kick-fest rather than a try-fest, which is testing the patience of even its more die-hard fans.
This season's Super 14 was dismal, as was most of the Tri-nations series between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Experimental laws designed to make the game more expansive and exciting have been ditched in the higher echelons of the game, and the quality of play has suffered as a result. Often this season, I have found myself watching rugby league matches and enjoying them far more than rugby union, which I know from friends and fellow fans is a fairly common experience.
My hunch is that Australia will be able to sustain all three codes at the present highly-professional, highly-sponsored and highly-renumerated level. Others are not so sure. So if one code dies at the professional level, which one will it be?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~51~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
If one of the winter codes dies - which, frankly, is unlikely, as they all have their own niches and won't be mortally threatened by each other's expansion plans - it will be rugby union, no question. The Super 14 attracts nothing but yawns from Australian sports fans and languishes largely unwatched on cable TV; ratings for international tests (supposedly the pinnacle of the game in this country) have plunged to the extent that they struggle to beat weekend afternoon sitcom repeats; the attempt to set up a national club competition a couple of years back died after one season, having attracted a number of three-digit crowds; and, as you state, the northern hemisphere geniuses who run the game decided to kill off the southern hemisphere's attempt to learn from league and adapt the sport to make it appealing to viewers, the people who actually fund the whole enterprise. The amusing part is that the head of the ARU said last year at the height of the league-is-dying hysteria that union would soon destroy league in New South Wales. Fat chance of that ever happening.
Complain about this comment
Correction, Triangulum: Adapt the sport to make it appealing to Australian viewers bred on League and Aussie Rules.
Everywhere else in the world, Rugby Union is going from strength to strength. Record attendances, increased take-up of the game at youth level, fantastic continental competitions. Using the ELVs to turn union into league was a terrible, terrible idea and I'm delighted that it was crushed after two years of trials.
If Australian domestic rugby union is so poor that no-one wants to watch it, the problem is with Australia, not with rugby union. The Tri-nations is a poorly designed competion because the teams get bored playing each other so much, hopefully the addition of Argentina might give it a stiff kick up the backside.
Complain about this comment
Rules of a sport don't determine how it is played as much as the style and approach of the competitors so the ELVs line of the article is pretty weak. Surely interest at grass routes in any sport is created at the highest level by success, and by their high standards in most sports the Australian rugby union team have not been successful of late, hence a lack of interest. Perhaps changing the super 14 to smaller groups in stead of a league would improve the product as more would be riding on every game?
I would expect union to survive in Australia simply because at the moment it is a bigger game on the world stage than the other two which means there should (in theorry) be bigger sums of money involved from TV etc. Rugby league is still a game for Australia and the North of England and Aussie Rules doesn't leave Australia bar the odd mixed rules clash with Gaelic football.
Complain about this comment
Corrections to Andy and matmat69.
The ELVs tried to make rugby union more like Rugby League. They failed because they made union neither one nor the other. However, that they were attempted showed that the ARU recognized that Rugby League is by far the superior sport for entertainment. Indeed, the changes in the past 15 years in rugby union have all come from League, tacitly acknowledging the same.
Partial agreement with Andy and matmat69.
The ELVs do show something about Australian sporting tastes. They show a more open, positive and constructive attitude to their sports. See Nick's comment about a try-fest rather than a kick-fest. However, R.L. and limited-overs cricket are the only sports where Australia's champion at the moment, which probably reflects on the quality of player and coaching they are currently able to get, relative to other international rivals (and face it, RL and cricket don't provide much width of rivalry). Now they have let Argentina into their comfy coterie, I am looking forward to the Pumas enlivening the scene.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Patricroft,
New Zealand are the World Champs of Rugby League
The ELVs made union more of a 'kick-fest' not less.
Complain about this comment
"However, R.L. and limited-overs cricket are the only sports where Australia's champion at the moment"
New Zealand are the current RL World Champions.
Complain about this comment
Patricroft_13:
"However, R.L. and limited-overs cricket are the only sports where Australia's champion at the moment"
Not true - I distinctly remember flying from Sweden out to Aus to watch the recent Rugby League World Cup. Which included sitting in Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium to see New Zealand win the tournament!
I think Aus have only won one out of the last three tournaments (World Cup or Tri Series thingy).
Complain about this comment
AFL deserves to die. It's a sport which even the Australians fail to comprehend, and has no international value at all. It's commonly mistaken for rugby so why not scrap the game and follow rugby instead.
Complain about this comment
Apologies to AargBees, gingerjon and stuartdm. I'm so used to the Aussies winning it. They are more likely to win it back than the R.U. version.
And yes stuart, the ELVs produced more kicking, with less thought, and it was worse, which is why it was neither one thing nor another and all the more reason to scrap them.
Best of luck to NZ in the champions Trophy too.
Complain about this comment
"Are there enough Antipodean animals left for the new teams to be named after"?
Beyond the Kangaroos of the AFL and the Super 14 Qld Reds who sport a rather angry little koala, the three codes have largely ignored our native fauna. Which means we still have platypus, echidna, wombat, possum, cassowary, quokka, emu, dingo, bilby........(maybe a bilby would be a push). Most of our cuddly fellas fall a little short in the 'induce fear/awe' department.
Better to spill the claret in the name of a Storm, Force, Raider, Power, Dragon, Demon, Bomber, ..... Rabbitoh.
Complain about this comment
Re #8 - as Nick points out, AFL is the 4th most watched code in the world (on spectator numbers), so I think the other codes have to worry more about dying out before it does!
I watched the recent AFL grand final after being out of the country for a few years. It is such an athletic game, I much prefer it to football and rugby.
Complain about this comment
Ever since Johnny Wilkinson kicked England to the World Cup, I've found Union boring. As an expat I only watch it so I can enjoy seeing Australia... well, sometimes beat the other team.
In my opinion, AFL is here to stay! Union will stay! and League will disappear..... if Melbourne Storm keep on winning it ;)
As for team names, I disagree with the marketing boys. Port Power is the stupidest team name around and Melbourne Storm isn't much better. Then mixing colours like purple, tourquis, blue and black with a white or yellow lightning bolt, are they serious? fashion designed by footballers. I don't know Melbourne Storm's song (because ironically, I'm a Victorian) but it's got to be better than Port Power's, doesn't it?... Can anyone tell I hate PP?
With competition for the code in new areas, I think it could come down to marketing. Basketball was big in Australia only when Jordan was playing. That guy was a God for Nike and the NBL. He was marketed well, hyped up to be a legend and that sort of press and exposure, I believe, will be the only way the expansion of these new teams will survive.
The cassowary, dingo or one of our super deadly snakes all intimidate me more than a Melbourne Storm. Then again I'd rather see a Melbourne Storm (game) over another game of Union.
Complain about this comment
# 10
"Better to spill the claret in the name of a Storm, Force, Raider, Power, Dragon, Demon, Bomber, ..... Rabbitoh."
You forgot that most intimidating of errrr, flowers, the Waratah.
The only thing that's dangerous about the Waratah is getting caught picking one!
Complain about this comment
All credibility gone.
"Confessedly, I am a rugby union man, a product of where I was born (Bristol) rather than where I went to school."
"Nick was born in Bristol in 1968 and was educated at Churchill College, Cambridge where he read history, and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he did a PhD"
Says it all really.
Complain about this comment
As an English League fan working in Rugby mad NZ, I was very amused to read last Monday's New Zealand Herald sports supplement. The headline read 'How to do avoid feeling bogged down watching Rugby?' answer 'The NRL'.
The NRL Final Series this year has been outstanding, so much so, that All Blacks mad Rugby fans have been switching over their TV's at the end of the Tri Nations with ever increasing haste. Thank God for the 2 hour time difference, you can watch both code's prime time games @ 7.30pm!
Complain about this comment
I an neither a football nor a cricket fan. Tennis is my sport of choice. However I must note that there is no way AFL or ARL will ever die in Australia, and in fact both are growing slowly on the international scene. Both are Australian games. The ARL was a breakaway from Union, started I believe with the greats like Dally Messenger, after who the cup is named, and the AFL was a game derived from Irish football, combined with an aboriginal game they played where a ball made of kangaroo skin stuffed with grass was deftly passed from player to player by foot. If the ball touched the ground, that person was out.
And it might also be interesting to note that both soccer and Union are very poorly followed by most generational Aussies. For fear of having my post rejected I'll leave it up to the reader to determine why this is so.
Complain about this comment
I can see all codes losing the odd team here or there, but none of them dying out.
Agree entirely that the majority (not all) of Union matches are mind-numbingly boring. Ridiculous numbers of penalties and kicks. RU seems incapable of improving itself. Whereas RLeague reviews rules with all coaches every off-season, and changes them, with the hard objective of improving the spectacle for supporters. That clearly works, RU doesn't even try. e.g: 3 points for a kick in RU is a joke, and obviously destroying many games for spectators.
I don't think AFL's 2nd Sydney team will go well, one team in Syd is saturation point. Ditto for RL's Melbourne Storm - who are an artificial team in a way, only kept alive by owner News Ltd tipping in a bottomless bucket of money.
I think the professional sport in most trouble, is one you didn't mention, Soccer. Strangely, it has the most public participants of any sport in Oz. Yet at professional level, that comp is again approaching deaths door (it's the only one that has totally busted before too). I think the reason is, like RU, soccer is too often just dead boring to watch... almost no scoring, silly penalties for slightest of contacts, made worse by international matches full of cheats faking dives to get penalties. Apologies to UK readers, but that's how it is...
Complain about this comment
I am sure I will not be the only person to correct Petesyc's claim that League is an "Australian game." Rugby League was established in England in 1895. The Australian Rugby League was establised in 1908. The fact 20,000 plus Socceroo fans have already booked tickets for next years World Cup and the authorities are bidding to host the 2018 event would suggest soccer is more popular in Australia than he presumes too. As for Union - I have no idea why the marketing men haven't been able to sell it as successfully as their AFL and NRL counterparts. I would however venture to suggest that it has more to do with the quality of the product on offer than it's origin.
Complain about this comment
Been in OZ over 3 years and I am sorry, I just do not get the basket ball scoring competition that is AFL.
It amazes me to see (I have been to a few games) winning fans cheer their team frenetically for scoring when there is 5 minutes to go and they are 80 points up. Now scoring to go 3-1 up in football (soccer for my Australian neighbours), is worthy of celebrating. Going 4-1 up is equally worthy as this defines a drubbing margin. 5-1 or 6-1 and the response is more muted and begins to tend to mocking of the opposition fans' misfortune.
The problem AFL has is (from what I have learnt since being here) is that the fans actually want heavy contested physical encounters, and yet, the governing body is trying to make it a professional sport. With people needing it as a job and an income, they are keen to take out the career damaging or ending injuries and as such are removing the very elements the fans want to see! It seems most of the game is played on the floor, on your knees, diving in head first to move the ball, the game seems to break down. Why they call it footy when the ball is in hand more often than on the end of a foot, also dumbfounds me.
I still love my football. I go into jet lag mode whenever a big tournament is on (roll on the World Cup), and I can't see this changing.
All other sports (cricket aside) in Australia reflect only a passing interest. Even the A-League is near impossible to watch. Small pitch on big oval and English second division standards of play. I'm expecting Pele to get an 'international guest player' contract anytime soon. Perhaps they can't afford him until he has a zimmer frame and he drops his terms?
The problem is, if Australia really wants to be taken seriously in the World of ball sports, Football (OK again Soccer!) is the way to go.
I am just dying for Australia and England to be drawn in the same World Cup groups when the draw is made next year. I believe the Sport in Australia will rally for the exposure with the (old enemy/ashes associated) rivalry.
Australia loves beating other nations (particularly the old country) at sports (they still talk proud chestedly about the friendly when they beat us, "with two whole teams against us too!") and yet they stick to a game (AFL) that is going no where that in order to have any form of international arm to it has to be recoded and reworked with odd strange goals and rules so the Irish can give them a game.
Sorry in full rant mode now.
Perhaps allowing Australia to have the World cup would be a great start, especially as it was invented as a Winter game, and yet the pinnacle competition seems perpetually to be played at the peak of summer. No wonder England has only won it once. I recall Germany in 2006 was too hot for them when the pressure started to tell and players began to fatigue. An Antipodean World Cup would make all those northern European teams a better chance of winning because, that's how they play their games. Try sticking Brazil or Argentina into a World Cup run between January and February in England and see how many tournaments they win wearing all in one woolly body suits, which is the reverse senario.
Complain about this comment
The ELVs were initiated by the IRB after an expensive and long running investigation they commisioned into the popularity of the game, particularly it's ability to appeal to new markets. The findings were that the games was slow and defensive, and becoming more so. One of the findings was that on average the ball was in in proffesional rugby less than half of the 80 minutes the game goes for. The ELVs were developed by a group of ex-players and officals, majority Northern Hemisphere. The expirement was voted into existance by a majority of IRB members (NH members dominate the IRB).
The ELVs saw no increase in kicking as a percentage at all. They saw more kicks as a numerical figure, just as there were more runs, more tackles, more scrums, more line-outs, basically more of everything, except penalties, and time spent walking around not playing rugby.
The irony is that the SH is years ahead of the NH in terms of proffesionalism, and has gone through the halycon days of a sudden rise in popularity, boosted by a couple world cups in the region. We are now entering the faze where novelty no longer fills stadiums, and people are slowly realising the problems the game faces as a spectacle, the same problems the IRB identified with the help of independant, highly paid auditors in 2003/04/05.
Why in union does the ref have so much sway over the outcome, to the point the essentially determine the victor in many games based one ssentially debatable calls?
Why are the rules so ambiguous and easily misinterpreted, with several interpretations for many rules, and no consistency between referees?
Why are teams rewarded for not running the ball, not passing and instead just kicking the ball downfield and bashing the bloke who catches it (This is South africa's game plan - kick-chase-bash - and they've become the best team in the world at it. As Jake White said "South Africa is the only team that can win the game without the ball)?
Why do teams not run the ball for fear of giving away penalties and losing possesion?
Why are the most succesful teams the least ambitious, least adventurous and most negative?
These are questions without good answers.
In regards to any of the winter sports dying, that won't happen.
Each sport has a niche. AFL is the game of the masses for everyone outside NSW and QLD, while NRL is the same within NSW and QLD.
Union is a game mostly for people who attended private schools or move in certain gentrified circles, while rugby league suprters and AFL supporters will support the Wallabies and go to the odd S14 game.
Football is the growth sport, highest participation levels, massive following in the migrant communities (and the second and third generation families from countries like Itlay, Greece, the Balkans and bascially any mainland European, Asian, African or South American country), a properly international sport for which Australia finally has a national team to be proud and loads of investment from the richest men in Australia.
When you've got Frank Lowy and Clive Plamer (two richest men in Australia) teaming up in something, you'd better pay attention.
Complain about this comment
Repeat after me:
AFL is not a sport, it's a league
AFL is not a sport, it's a league
AFL is not a sport, it's a league
etc
I believe that there is room for all winter sports at a modest level, with one or two dominating, and many people participating in a variety of sports at grassroots level, rather than just consuming.
There's no reason why we have to follow the UK model of Soccer Uber Alles.
BTW Joe, Australian football has deep roots in every state, even NSW and Queensland. The scoring system is neither here nor there, since it's the same for both teams, but it means that a close match like the last GF is genuinely close, throughout the game, and that a two or three goal lead with minutes to go is no guarantee of victory.
Australian football predates EPL - sorry, Association Football - - which didn't even get round to banning handling until a decade or so after Australian football was established.
Show me a recent champion team in any code of football that's older than Geelong, which won the last AFL Grand Final. You can't , because there isn't one
The lack of international expansion is neither here nor there either - it's hardly an issue with American football, baseball, Gaelic football or Rugby League, all of which still manage to be followed strongly in their heartlands.
International matches in these codes are a periodic distraction from regular business of club matches, and I have to say that many English EPL - sorry, football - supporters tell me that they follow club rather than country too. Of course they could be just hedging against disappointment. (Funny how a player who was playing in hot sunny Manchester at the time managed to edge them out last time though)
The international argument is a bit of a red herring - repeated Rugby World Cup success hardly translated into increased popularity of RU in Australia. Maybe it makes sense from a UK-centric worldview, but not in Australia
A soccer World Cup in Australia would conflict badly with the existing winter sports, and would be partly played in warmer climes anyway.
But it's bound to happen one day, and bring it on. It will be fun
Complain about this comment
Re John_Stone's comment. I went searching because I thought you were incorrect, but you were correct. I was led to believe, from some articles I had read, that the Northern League of England was one code, but the Australin, or actually NSW Rugby code I referred to, was the one that is commonly played now. I can't find proof of this, so I stand corrected.
As to the soccer comment, most of the supporters of that sport are ex British Australians. As I have said on previous occasion we have an average of 100,000 Brits migrate to our shores per year over the past 12 years, so 20,000 is actually a poor number considering.
Most Aussies go for either ARL, and that is mostly on the northern East Coast, and the AFL which is the southern coast, although that is changing rapidly as AFL moves into ARL territory, and visa versa. I like soccer, as did my son who played in his school days, but most of his fellow players we ex Brits.
Complain about this comment
I have to say that a lot of Australians from non-rugby states (like all of them except Qld and NSW) were talking to me about the NRL grand final, so that sport at least is picking up some respect and support outside its heartland.
These same people don't know or care much about RU , even when the national team is playing, so I wouldn't overestimate the "international" factor.
Having said that, I believe the A-League was beating NRL attendances at one point, and some weeks the combined NRL attendance wouldn't fill the MCG
But I still think there's room for all - AFL and A-League support aren't mutually exclusive for example
Complain about this comment
Why are you Aussies complaining? Would you prefer to live in the UK?
Because if you saw our sporting culture for just five seconds, you'd sooner hop on a plane and fly straight back to Brisbane, I'll assure you of that much.
The ONLY sport that receives regular mainstream attention here is football (soccer) - unless Andy Murray's playing at Wimbledon, or Jonny Wilkinson sneezes. Be thankful you live in a country where three sports can vie for mainstream attention and still exist quite prosperously.
Complain about this comment
Talking of codes....Isn't Aussie Rules just a ripped-off version of Gaelic football? aka "Buggerall rules". Just a camp game of men running around in shorts that a three sizes too small! The testicular cancer rates for the ex-players must be horrendous.
Now that I've wound up the faithful, I reckon all three codes are actually under attack from the likes of Basketball. Yes, today's youth have options thanks to SatTV and the lure of NBL can't be underestimated.
p.s. Can't wait to see Argentina join the Super 14+. Great country. Great people. Main problem will be getting players to and from Argentina on time for matches given Aerolineas Argentinas is a notoriously unreliable airline with wildcat strikes and short notice cancellations of flights between Aus/NZ and Buenos Aires (Hope they never get to sponsor their rugby team. AR would be the kiss of death as a sponsor!!!)
Complain about this comment
Re #8 - as Nick points out, AFL is the 4th most watched code in the world (on spectator numbers), so I think the other codes have to worry more about dying out before it does!
-----------
Fourth most watched code of football? I doubt it.
Association, US, US Indoor, Union, League and Gaelic are all probably more watched around the world.
Complain about this comment
Seems the colloqial (SP?) colonial game called AFL is very frightened about the global reach that is Football. The fact that Australia will have featured in 2 consecutive World Cups will and should tell on the pyche of the people. To see their national team competing in a truly World competition in a mass participation sport will entice them to the dark side that is real Football where the ball is in contact with the foot more than it is any other part of the players anatomy.
Bren54, I have heard the AFL was first quote before. The problem is that AFL today is not the Aussie Rules football code that was originally played way back. The rules of the game change significantly every year.
Keep clutching at that claim if it defends your sensibilities against the tsunami that is (in Australia only) 'The World Game', but amazingly everywhere else called football.
With the salary cap, all codes should be safe. Bring in a bill of rights, and the salary cap will be undefendable and will break one or more codes.
Complain about this comment
@Hackerjack
He's talking about live attendance. It helps that the grounds are so big for Aussie Rules, but you can't argue with raw stats.
I think Union will continue on as a professional sport. Perhaps not too well, but I can't see any of the 4 sports dying. It would take some horrible mis-management at a very high level, and I can't see that happening in any of them.
Complain about this comment
Rugby is clearly the weakest of the winter sports in Aussie. AFL & League have always been the mainstays there, and rightly so, they offer the best competitions & most number of fans. Then everybody unites to watch cricket in the summer.
Why is there this perception that if a sport is not big on the world stage, then it isn't worthy of the attention & following it receives in it's own country.
Do we really want football (soccer) to be the only sport talked about?
It's hardly a glowing example of sportsmanship or mateship.
Complain about this comment
As a Scotsman in Sydney for almost 2 years now, I have only just come around to loving the footy / rugby league. Union is our game, lets face it we're useless at all sports with the exception of snooker and only just managed to retain a top 10 spot in union.
League has the big hits, the controversy and the passionate supporters that lack at a union game. I personally can't wait to get my first ticket to a Tigers game next year. Perhaps another year and I'll be seduced by AFL...but not yet. From a novice point of view, how can league be the code that dies? Last super-14 game I attended was at a mostly empty SFS where the Western Force limped to a 7-3 win over the Waratahs, dismal viewing.
On a tangent - No 12, Tronbirk makes a good point about basketball (or lack of) in Australia, how can Sydney, the largest city, not be able to sustain one single team in the NBL?! I know its not big here but come on. Only last night did London Stage Chicago Bulls vs Utah Jazz with all the big stars. Usual story - no money.
Complain about this comment
#27, you just don't get it do you, no aussies care about the lack of international competetion for AFL they just care about watching an entertaining game of football, something soccer is and never will be regarded as in australia (apart from the world cup final), lets face it to the average aussie they would rather watch neighbours on T.V than soccer and thats a pretty sad indictement.
Also since when was aussie rules regarded as a colonial sport and also by the way the biggest participant sport in australia would be surfing +/- other beach related activities, not very colonial either.
Which is amazing considering the flood of poms into this country seeking a better life over the last 200 years.
Complain about this comment
oioioi2,
You are wrong on some many points it's hard to know where to start.
Soccer is, without any possible debate, statistically the highest participation sport in this country, bar none. It has been for many, many years.
I am an Aussie (since when do you speak for all Aussies? You certainly don't speak for me) and I care alot that AFL is not international. Why? Because it makes the sport boring. The same old teams, year after year, never being challenged by other countries, never playing in new or different competitions, and no one else from other countries gives a poo about the game in the slightest, so you don't get that great banter you get with other sports.
Soccer in this country has higher tv ratings than rugby union, and the average attendance is only a few thousand behind the NRL.
I love soccer, and I'm a fifth generation Aussie. Go to an A-League game, see for yourself.
And to be honest I'd rather gouge out my own eyes than watch either AFL or Neighbours, so go figure.
To be fair I'm from Sydney, so I wasn't brought up to love AFL at the expense of all else, like the average person from Victoria, SA or WA. For the most part in Sydney, you follow whatever sport you want, or several. I like league, union and soccer. The only one I would never get into is AFL, mostly because it is a disorganised game of force-ems-back. It's also soft as hell these days, with all the free kicks for pushing, shoving and apparently just hurting another bloke. They spend half the time rolling around on the ground trying to make it look like they're passing the ball when really they're doing their best to kill it and the only real physical stuff is all cheap shots off the ball.
Fair enough if you like AFL, but don't think that for one second it's universally popular across Australia. The majority of my friends would rather watch badminton than a game of AFL.
And the international thing is incredibly significant for football.
It's on a different plane to AFL, in that it's a real, grown up sport, that the world loves.
It engages in ways AFL never could or will, to the point it is bigger than sport. For example Australia's entry into the Asian football confederation will have huge culutural significance for Australia's place in Asia and our engagement with our region.
Meanwhile AFL plays some weird hybrid game against Ireland and no one cares.
Complain about this comment
Brilliant post from Ginger Warrior (Post # 24).
quote:
Why are you Aussies complaining? Would you prefer to live in the UK?
Because if you saw our sporting culture for just five seconds, you'd sooner hop on a plane and fly straight back to Brisbane, I'll assure you of that much.
The ONLY sport that receives regular mainstream attention here is football (soccer) - unless Andy Murray's playing at Wimbledon, or Jonny Wilkinson sneezes. Be thankful you live in a country where three sports can vie for mainstream attention and still exist quite prosperously.
end quote.
Ginger Ninja (a far better name i am sure you'll agree), that's the game, set and match of this forum. I agree.
Complain about this comment
Poster #32.
Fishing is the highest participation sport. then netball. then soccer. then interwebbing.
I'll find the sauce for these stats to give you confidence.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the real reason why visiting poms get so upset at discovering that more Australians support the indigenous game rather than soccer or rugby variants is that they are spectacularly misled by the media, such as the BBC who would rather report 4000 people at some rugby snorefest than 100,000 at the AFL Grand Final.
Sure soccer is the most popular football code in the world. McDonalds is the most popular food chain, and Starbucks for coffee shops - and let's not forget what happened to them in Australia - what do you want , homogenisation? Everything the same as at home, where the "sport" pages feature only soccer?
Complain about this comment
I think that Rugby Union already has died on a local scale Nick. The ARU's attempted Australian Championship was the local competition and it never took off. Super 14 is a different game, it won't die in Aussie as it has the South African & New Zealand teams, it is a separate entity unto itself. League is a NSW/QLD/NZ and British Midlands game only, it is the weakest of the three. AFL is a VIC/SA/WA/TAS game but like Gaellic Footy in Ireland it is held so passionately there that it only needs a local base to survive and it will survive well.
On a personal note, I think you can follow them all - I am a NSW lad who grew up on League and saw my team (The Mighty Bears) thrown out by the suits who run the game. I lost my love of it and today follow the Swannies in AFL, the Tahs in Rugby but more importantly, I am a lover of the round ball game now thanks to life in England and Sydney FC & Chelsea are my teams, go BLUE!!! (And Red & White for AFL)
Complain about this comment
tazitiger80,
"League is a NSW/QLD/NZ and British Midlands game only, it is the weakest of the three."
That's rather woefully ill-informed. The current NRL champs are the Melbourne Storm (from the state of Victoria, as I'm sure you know if your name refers to Tasmania). One of the most illustrious recent histories belongs to the Canberra Raiders (ACT).
So on that basis alone, it's hardly a NSW/QLD/NZ game; that should be modified to NSW/VIC/QLD/ACT/NZ game for the NRL alone. There is a semi-pro team based in Perth who have high hopes of entering the NRL in the near to midterm - they currently play in one of the divisions immediately below, I believe, although there is no automatic promotion and relegation.
While there are a few teams in the British Midlands (Coventry, Birmingham, Leicester, Derby and quite a few university teams, I think - off the top of my head) they are amateur. Pro teams at the level of the Super League exist in Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, London (well, Twickenham), South Wales and Catalan region of the South of France. I think there is semi-pro rugby league in Russia, and the game is something of a national mania in Papua New Guinea, bizarrely enough.
Other (semi pro) teams also exist elsewhere in England (including another London team and Gateshead up in the North East) and France (including Toulouse who hope to be allowed entry to the Super League), with established amateur competitions in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and South Africa (?) for example.
This is just what I have vague recollection of, I'm sure I'll be corrected or my list added to by others.
Your assessment of RL is well wide of the mark, I'm afraid. It exists in pro and semi pro competitions in something like 6 countries and in amateur form in many more. Describing it as the weakest of the three is extremely amusing, even in the context of Aus and NZ alone.
Complain about this comment
AarghBees, how many of the Melbourne Storm players are actually from Melbourne, is there a decent grass-roots development there. I did exclude the ACT as again I don't feel their is any development there. NSW/QLD/NZ are the only major areas of player development. I know of the Western Reds team based out of Perth playing in the lower tier (I believe the NSW Cup?), however I excluded them as they are not in the top tier, ditto for the Russian League you mentioned.
In terms of the UK, all bar 3 teams come from the same small area of midland Britain, just like most of the NRL's team are congregated around Sydney. I can only think of Harlequins, Celtic & Catalans playing out of this area. The fact France's only professional team play out of Perpignan shows how small the game is in France.
Internationally, League's TEST playing teams consist of Aussie, England, France, New Zealand, South Africa and the smaller nations of Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Russia & PNG. Only Aussie, England & NZ (To a lesser extent France) have the chance to win a world title. Yes, there are about 20 affiliated nations but the RL does not have the global capacity that RU has.
At Rugby, any of South Africa, England, Aussie, New Zealand, France, Argentina, Wales, Ireland & Scotland could win the World title and the Union game is played at Test level by nations as varse as Namibia, Uganda, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Pakistan, Japan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Portugal, Samoa & PNG. Globally Union destroys League.
AFL as I said is a local game but the passion of the fans in those 4 states makes AFL like NFL & Gaellic Football where it doesn't need a worldwide audience, I think 70,000 Victorians attending a regular season match is evident of this. And against Football/Soccer the three games stand as minnows globally.
I hope no game ever dies as they all offer something to the fan, like I said in the previous article I was a mad RL fan until the 1990's killed off the team I supported and I gradually lost interest. Another reason why RL is the weaker, until David Gallop arrived, bad management.
Complain about this comment
Interesting article Nick, it's important to have these discussions. Many of the points raised by yourself and other readers are valid, however many are not...
The Melbourne Storm are NOT an accurate representation of league's traditional boundaries extending. Hardly any of it's players are from Victoria and in the world of profesional sport these days location of a club or 'franchise' does not dictate performance. Ironically it has been the Storm's remarkable success that has highlighted what a failure the venture has been. Despite winning 3 premierships and a winning ratio 0f 78% at home the Storm average under 13,000 (highest ave 14,000+, lowest ave 8,000+). This is pathetic. The truth is that the vast majority of Storm supporters are ex-Pat Kiwis who see it as the closest thing to rugby. The Storm lose 5-6 million AUD per year and now that the ARU is finally able to rectify their previous mistake and put a Super Rugby team in Melbourne the news for the Storm is grim. The ARU may still lose out to Port Elizabeth for the 15th Super Rugby team however News Ltd are looking to exit league and as soon as they do the Storm will be near insolvent. There is virtually no grass roots structure for league in Victoria and the Storm as a club is just a facade.
Complain about this comment
One of the comments sought to perpetuate the myth that the A-League is rising in popularity to the extent that the other 3 should shudder. In actual fact A-League attendences are well down this year and are currently just over 10,000. As earlier stated AFL is top of the pops in terms of stadium attendence, next is Super Rugby, then NRL and then A League. The A League consists of terrible players and after the hype and BS* is over people are starting to see that and stop watching.
However Football in Australia isn't really in trouble. Partly because it's never been anything anyway and also because of the Soccaroos particapation in the World Cup. This alllows the whole country to get behind them as the 'Aussie battlers'. However after the hysteria of the World Cup is over generational Australians will go back to AFL and the Rugbys and while traditioanal Aussie soccer fans (Croatian, Serbian, Labanese immigrants etc) will continue to watch in some form. Of course soccer has the greatest participation numbers, if you were a parent would you want your child to be injured in the heavy contact of union, league or to a lesser extent Aussie Rules? Of course not, which is why in Australia and New Zealand the able bodied atheletes play Rugby / Aussie Rules etc and mum's little boys play soccer - simple fact.
Complain about this comment
It's always funny hearing how League and Aussie Rules are 'growing' internationally. Don't make me laugh, last year's League World Cup was the first for a while but why? LACK OF INTEREST. Aussie Rules has it's half assed matches against Ireland but really no one cares. But this doesn't really matter; both sports are great in their own ways and are part of the Australian sporting psyche. They won't die because there is so much behind them. The international aspect does help Rugby and Soccer tho. The A League is absolute rubbish and Super Rugby has become a bit boring and lacks the number of Australian teams to preoduce true tribalism. The Fifa World Cup will revive interest for Australian Soccer. The Rugby World Cup in NZ will do the same for Oz Rugby and so will the 2013 British & Irish Lions Tour when 30-40,000 fans will come down and sell out every major stadium in Australia as they did in 2001.
Out of the 4 mentioned it is Rugby who's administration has fallen behind the most. The ARC was poorly marketed and was a development comp without any of the best players and so was doomed to lose money. The Tri-Nations needs to be restructured and Australia needs to get more out of Super Rugby as it does not have it's own domestic comp. Look around the world and rugby is growing at an incredible rate, it's going gang usters in the NH, the World Cup is massive and with Olympic inclusion this will only accelerate. Union is to League what Football is to Union. In the future the AFL and NRL will exist no mateer what, however their top talent will be drip-fed into Rugby to compete on the global stage.
Complain about this comment
tazitiger:
"AarghBees, how many of the Melbourne Storm players are actually from Melbourne, is there a decent grass-roots development there."
As far as I know, none of the Melbourne 1st team are Victorian, but that tells you more about the relatively young club. Developing a world-class production line takes time.
On the other hand, their under 20s won the Toyota Cup this year, and their under 18s got to the final of the SG Ball competition with a largely Victorian squad - and it's only their first year in the competition:
http://www.melbournestorm.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=16604
It's not been a RL area traditionally; the grassroots scene is comparatively weak when considered alongside other places but that's changing fast. So yes, I think the grassroots seems to be developing fine from what was effectively zero.
I'm sure we'll see them increase their average crowd when they move into the new ground - Olympic Park was very easily the worst ground I saw in Aus on my brief sojourn. Little more than a shed.
"I did exclude the ACT as again I don't feel their is any development there"
See, it just seems that you're arbitrarily excluding things that don't suit your argument. To ignore the Canberra Raiders when discussing Australian RL is quite inexplicable. They're one of the grand names of the past few decades, and although they're relatively weak compared to their pomp they're very much alive and kicking.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure who you're arguing with - everyone knows that RU has a larger global influence than RL, but RL is also utterly incomparable to Australian Rules who have to play a hybrid game against a single nation for their 'real' competition.
Although I did find the idea of SCOTLAND being bracketed with the RU team you mentioned amusing. If Scotland could win the RUWC, then any of England, France, NZ, Australia, PNG or Fiji (perhaps) could win the RLWC (apologies Scotsmen, but I think we both know that was silly).
Describing RL as the weakest of the three in terms of Aus is utterly bizarre, I'm afraid.
sporttruth:
"The truth is that the vast majority of Storm supporters are ex-Pat Kiwis who see it as the closest thing to rugby."
In that case, it's rather strange that these people didn't come out and support the Melbourne RU team in the national comp the ARU formed. But only for one year, as it collapsed after a single season.
"News Ltd are looking to exit league and as soon as they do the Storm will be near insolvent."
News Ltd pulling out of their meddling in the sport is the best possible thing for RL in Aus. News drain money from the game every year to pay some debt or other, and their "partnership" (or whatever it is) is acting to suppress the true value of the TV contract the NRL are entitled to.
The Storm will be absolutely fine, I have no doubts about that.
"There is virtually no grass roots structure for league in Victoria and the Storm as a club is just a facade."
I think we both know that's not true. The grassroots doesn't compare to places like NSW and QLD, but why would it? RL has only had any presence of note in Vic for about 10 years!
Complain about this comment
The A-league is not as bad as people make out, considering it's only five years old.
Over 30,000 people came out on the weekend to watch Melbourne at home against Sydney. Not bad for a regular season game, and alot better than the Storm can do.
Sporttruth, the tv ratings for A-League are better than ever, better than Super 14.
Obviously people are watching.
Your idea that only immigrants enjoy football is ridiculous by the way.
Soccer's popularity in Aus is generational though, but not in the way you're implying.
What the FFA found when they did their research before the launch of the A-League is that the game was much more popular with the younger generation, people in their 20s and teens. These people have been raised playing soccer in record numbers (and they play because they like the game, not because their mums told them to - try coming to my club and telling the hundreds of registered players, of all ages, that they play because their mums wanted them to). These young people have also been raised watching the Premier League, Champions League and World Cup on their tvs and know the game very well. They have a real appreciation for the game, one that isn't really shared by their elders.
The A-League is their chance to watch live professional football, and they're taking that opportunity.
The A-League will probably never outstrip the AFL or NRL in popularity but it's already doing a good job on the S14 and will only get better.
If Australia gets the World Cup, it could send the game into overdrive here.
Complain about this comment
Noe of them will die - despite being English I really enjoy AFL, on the very few occasions we get it over here, RL is a really minor sport only really played by NZ, Aus and 2 counties in England (Yorkshire and Lancs) - I know there are a few other clubs dotted around the world but they are irrelevant.
The reason Aus does not like RU, is very simple, you keep getting beat by the All Blacks.
As for the ELVs I have a major problem with watching RL, basically it is a game of 13 backs, sure some of them are bigger than others and called forwards, but they need no extra skills to be called forwards. RL has eliminated the murky art of forward play (scrums, line outs the break down) in place of a free flowing entertainment - it is basketball with an oval ball. For a RU fan, forward play is one of the prime reasons for rugby, it allows for players of all sorts of sizes and shapes to play. RU is not for the casual spectator, it does require some dedication to understand what is going on.
Now I am not saying RU is perfect - something needs to be done about collapsing the scrum so that we do not has endless resets of the scrum - but a lot of the kick fest is nothing to do with the rules but a very defensive mentality amongst coaches.
Finally rugby 7s is a much better game then RL (and will be in Olympics). Mind you RL players tend to make brilliant rugby 7s players
Complain about this comment
Justin, your idea that the ELVs were about turning the game into League is patently absurd.
In fact, statistically, under the ELVs, there were more scrums, more line-outs, more running, more tackling, more kicks (but not a percentage - an important distinction). More UNION.
But why let facts get in the way of a conservative, reactionary, illogical knee-jerk reaction to rules you clearly don't understand right?
The fact that the majority of the ELVs were ratified into existence also should be ignored, or your theory becomes even more ludicrous.
You assertion that coaches are to blame for the kicking prevelant in union is so laughable I don't know where to start. South africa kicks more than almost any other team, and are currently the undisputed best team in the game. Why? Because chase-kick-bash is the most effective game plan currently in rugby. If you were a real fan, you'd know that.
Complain about this comment
Re # 32's comment: "I care alot that AFL is not international. Why? Because it makes the sport boring."
This supports my theory that a lot of soccer fans are not really that interested with what is happening on the pitch, hence the penchant for distractions like funny costumes, singing and rioting. By contrast, I think Aussie Rules, Rugby and League fans tend to primarily weigh up the action on the field, the structure, skills, strength, courage, and (sometimes) thrilling danger involved in their respective codes in coming to a decision about the overall aesthetic and primal appeal of their games. They don't ask themselves whether their game is watched from the suburbs of Belgrade (I believe they can be quite passionate about the "Beautiful Game" there?) to the slums of Rio before making a judgment about its overall quality and entertainment value. And as poster #35 suggests, popularity doesn't necessarily make something good or right. I think both communism and fascism had quite large followings in their day, and religion still does. Of course, I don't mean to equate soccer with flawed political philosophies or absurdly blind belief in omniscient supreme beings (who without exception mandate some very odd, peculiarly specific codes of conduct), although it is tempting to conclude that they do all have one thing in common - they are not really interested in promoting the well-being of competitors in their spheres of human endeavour, no matter how small by comparison.
Complain about this comment
Well CFCHugh, while I see how you could make that connection, I personally think it's patently wrong.
Obviously there is something very appealing about soccer. Literally billions of people enjoy watching and playing it.
In Australia it is the highest particpation sport bar none.
To suggest I don't really find soccer interesting to watch is patronising in the extreme. I mean are you serious? You think I play football (which isn't cheap) and spend hundreds every year to watch it (live and on tv) without enjoying it? You think the many thousands of other people in this country and the billions in the world who do the same don't enjoy watching and playing the game?
As Clive Palmer pointed out soccer has an appeal that league and AFL don't really have, in that it is far more a game of skills, technique and tactics, and isn't almost solely based on controlled violence and physical strength. This appeals to alot of people.
To be fair, I think AFL is boring anyway, whether or not it is a purely domestic game. I find it a strange and very scrappy game, but that's just my opinion obviously.
In regards to the international aspect, it just means that I enjoy the game all the more. Not only is this game I love to watch and play popular in my country, most of the rest of the world agrees with me and plays and watches to.
This means I can talk to a guy from Belgrade or Rio about the game we both love. It means there's always new teams and challenges for the teams I support to face. It keeps the game interesting, ever changing and allows me to relate to people around the world.
And by the way I'm not having a go at Australian domestic sports. I just find some (usually older) Australians' opinions on soccer strange and almost insitinctivley negative for no apparent reason.
Why do you feel the need to infer soccer is somehow un-Australian?
Why does it bother you if it's a popular sport?
Sure you may not enjoy it, but a hell of a lot of people do, and what's wrong with that?
Complain about this comment
Oh, and yeah, you probably shouldn't have compared soccer to political or religious views.
They have no real correlation and even though you acknowledge that this isn't a logical comparison you then go on to infer that "they do all have one thing in common - they are not really interested in promoting the well-being of competitors in their spheres of human endeavour, no matter how small by comparison"
Which may well apply to religious and political beliefs, but is an absurd observation if applied to soccer. I mean seriously?
Complain about this comment
Re post #48: Yep, seriously, but I mean nothing sinister by that. To clarify, all of the football codes are obviously in the business of self-promotion and, if not expansion, then at least maintaining market share. Obviously that means they don't go about extolling the virtues of the other codes, at least not any more than is strictly necessary to maintain the facade of peaceful co-existence to which their PR people seem to cling. Soccer is a global behemoth compared to the other codes, so we don't have to worry about its continued survival and popularity, but the other codes (except NFL), because of their much more limited supporter bases and finances, have to be very careful to ensure that they don't slowly fade from the scene in the face of increasing competition from lots of other sports. Happily, on the surface at least, the soccer kingpins seem to be content with the level of world domination they have reached, so perhaps they will let the small fry live, but I think it would be absurd to suggest that they have any interst in actively promoting the future well-being of a "a strange and very scrappy game" like AFL. As for the oft-cited but never supported claim that soccer "is far more a game of skills, technique and tactics", I think only an appropriately qualified expert (in sports biomechanics?)could decide this question in an objective way, but I would be surprised if, for example, an Aussie Rules footballer, who is required to master a multi-faceted and -dimensional game (which some people find confusing), to gather and dispose of an oval ball by hand and foot, from low to the ground to high in the air, often at great speed and variable directions, and frequently until threat of a bit of close attention from his/her opponents, did not rank reasonably highly. Not sure where someone whose main responsibilities seem to be to dribble, kick and head a round ball back and forth, back and forth (whilst occasionally falling over with serious, but thankfully short-lived leg injuries) would rank. Perhaps alongside sychronised swimming and badminton?
Complain about this comment
Well, you know, obviously I think there's a little more to soccer than your summation, just as I'm sure you think there's alot more to AFL then my regard for it as a messy, scrappy game of force-ems-back, where guys roll around on the ground pretending to try and pass the ball when really they're doing their best to hold onto it.
But that's fine.
Having said that, I don't begrudge AFL it's place in Australia, or think anyone who watches it doesn't enjoy it, or that it isn't Australian, or some other unfair judgement call.
All four codes have a future in Australia, and all the better.
How boring would it be if it was just rugby, or soccer or AFL?
Complain about this comment
AarghBees
I think i addressed the fact that the ARC was very poorly marketed and was a development comp - pretty hard to get behind that. However seeing it was so poorly concieved it's probably a positive that they had crowds of about 30% of that of the Storm or any at all.
Also it is News Ltd who actually fund the Storm's 5m-6m loss every year so I'd say they would be worried if News pull out unless the NRL gets significantly higher TV revenue and the other clubs are happy to channel some of that to funding the Storm - which they are not. Also with News pulling out there are fewer potential bidders which doesn't do much for contract value.
Another thing; soccer or football is undeniably the world's biggest sport (despite volleyball claiming one in every 6 people in the world play it). There's no dispute there, however I'm sick of people in countries where it isn't that big (e.g. Aus & NZ) moaning that these countries are somehow disadvantaged or are strange because they don't worship the 'world game'. Enjoy decent football matches and don't have anything against it but one of the reasons it's so big is that it is so simple. Yes it is skillful but any idiot can look at it once and understand what's going on - that's the beauty of it. But don't admonish those who follow more complex and intricate sports, people in these countries have their own minds and are perfectly able to judge what they want without being considered 'weird'. There are just as many nations that have national sports other than soccer as those that do and stop banging on about participation JP Wallace you 'soccer mom', the participation in the U.S. is massive as well but the MLS ratings are about the same as the WNBA (WOMENS National Basketball Association).
Complain about this comment
Ok, forget participation (I guess becuase it doesn't fit into your paradigm).
What about the tv ratings being better than rugby union's?
Where does that sit in your close-minded view of Australian sporting popularity?
By the way, dismissing me as a soccer mum, is just a display of patronising ingorance.
I'm in my twenties and I don't have kids. I grew up in the Shire (Cronulla for those who don't know - a place that's known for it's resemblance of 1950s Australia). I grew up playing rugby league and union, and din't take up soccer until I left school. My mum didn't care what sport I played, and just assumed I would want to hurt people, so I ended up playing for Cronulla-Caringabh Rugby League for ten years.
I love rugby league, and union too. I also like boxing, F1, all the American sports, and of course soccer.
It's ok to like all of them equally. Lots and lots of people my age do, most of them in fact.
We grow up with soccer, we know the game inside out. At work all the people my generation follow the Premier League and Champions League religiously, they know the players in England, Spain and Italy as much as they know who plays for the Kangaroos, Wallabies or All-Australians.
What gets me is your strangely defensive reaction to my saying that soccer in Australia is popular, is getting more so and has the backing of some of the countries richest and most powerful people.
These are all facts.
It almost seems like you're scared of soccer or something.
Stop claiming to speak for Australia by the way, no one does, not you or I.
Let's just stick to facts ok, rather than personal judegemnt calls, like soccer is simplistic.
I garuntee if we had a conversation about soccer in depth you would have virtually no idea what i was talking about.
Stop wearing your ignorance like a badge.
Complain about this comment
JPWallace, your reaction is not all that uncommon for soccer fans, who really don't seem to be very receptive to less than rapturous observations about the nature of their sport, the way it is played in some countries (diving), the way its fans behave in others (hooligans and, occasionally, border wars), the way it is managed globally and at lower levels (I don't know why, but I often accidentally think "Sepp Dietrich" instead of "Sepp Blatter", which I would be the first to admit is unfair, because Blatter has been accused of completely different transgressions), or even to the fact that it is soccer to me and countless others, and not football. Actually, the latter is quite a bizarre and amusing obsession with many of the English fans and quite a few Australian fans I have met - they often get quite worked up if you accidentally make a completely non-derisive reference to soccer, insisting it must be called football. I always have to disappoint them though, and have usually managed to extricate myself unscathed. In contrast, my experience is that Aussie Rules fans (except, of course, for the hordes of drunken, racist ones we now know exist amongst us but who are pretty much held in check by the security forces and the media) don't get very worked up when soccer or Rugby fans lambast our sport and call it aerial ping-pong or "a messy, scrappy game of force-ems-back" (whatever that is?) Instead, I think we content ourselves with the knowledge that it is what it is as a spectacle and social phenomenon, that many of the major clubs are still controlled by their supporters (rather than oligarchs whose wealth is of dubious provenance)and that supporters of all persuasions (women even more so than men, I read someone once) and ages mix at games without too many casualties in the stands (probably because they are too transfixed with the prospect of a little bit of legal or harmless biffo taking place on the paddock.) And for the sake of this discussion, I am prepared to assume I don't know much about soccer; but I also don't know much about the Rapture or curling, but still feel I know enough to be confident I don't need to investigate any of them further.
Complain about this comment
Hey mate, look, I've said several times, and I guess I'll have to make the point again, that it's of course fine that you don't like soccer (or football, whatever).
I said I didn't like AFL (by the way force-ems-back is a schoolyard game - must just be in NSW - where you have to kick the footy back and forth and force the other person to move further away), and then said that it didn't mean that I begrudged AFL's popularity or thought it was an interinstically bad game.
The point is that whatever my personal beliefs are, AFL is extremely popular and fair play too.
The same applies to soccer and your views of it.
I notice that you don't critisize rugby or league with the same venom, and I'd defend either of those sports if you did.
There's a strange perception amongst a certain group of Australians (mostly older Aussies) that soccer is un-Australian.
You activley avoid knowing about the game and then wax lyrical about how bad it is. I at least have watched alot of AFL and know the rules, teams and players.
Anyway, whatever. The truth is, as time passes and the older generations fade away, soccer will get more and more popular, as it's core demographic in this country are currently in their 20s and teens.
But it won't mean the end of league, AFL or union.
Everything will be fine.
Complain about this comment
While I realise it is a cultural necessity that Rugby League supporters constantly belittle Rugby Union, it might help neutrals if they occasionally mentioned what exactly it is about League that is so entertaining and superior about that code. Baldly asserting the fact leaves the neutral to wonder whether it isn't simply prejudice and anxiety.
After all, apart from a thirty mile wide corridor of central England and one Australian state, Rugby league virtually doesn't exist. Which would lead one to question its stupendous virtues as a spectacle.
Complain about this comment
I am a Union fan. For so many reasons. But the reason I believe that League will never outlive Union is not to do with the upper levels of the sports, but the grassroots. I don't know how many of you have watched any low level rugby league. It's awful. It essentially consists of two lines of men running at each other, running apart, then running at each other again (a bit like a game I remember in school called Red Rover, or something similar). I find League tedious, pass, run, tackle, kick, jump up and try and grab the ball. There's very little 'open and expansive play'. And as far as the ELV's are concerned, they were brought about by the ARU despite heavy criticism of all of them in the North (though I will say, several of them I agree with whole-heartedly after witnessing their effect).
But aussie rules is a cracking game, though somewhat random at times. The physicality (which people in the north of England claim makes their game better) is mixed with the skills that I feel makes Union a much better game. Therefore my answer would be of the three, League is the least interesting, and the least deserving of attention. But I'm not Australian, and my opinion counts for very little therefore.
Complain about this comment
Mate you're so ingorant it's crazy.
How could the ARU bring in the ELVs?
The IRB is dominated by the voting bloc of Wales, England, Ireland and Scotland, who have eight votes between them.
France, Aus, SA and NZ also have two votes each.
The ELVs were brought in by the IRB (obivously, why would any other rugby nation do what the ARU told them?).
Under the way the voting was structured, the NH had to agree to them or they never would have even been considered.
Most of them were voted into existance, the majority. Again, by the NH unions. The ones that weren't (except the maul rule) weren't even trialled by the north, so they voted them out without even knowing what they did. Frankly that's pathetic.
It had to be that way or they never would have got off the ground.
I mean jesus, do you swallow everything the simplistic portions of the media sell you?
That it's an Australian conspiracy?
How naive are people.
In regards to League, if you don't like it fair enough.
The reason people do is that there's more running, tackling, tries, kicks, passing and just general play. It lacks the set-pieces of union.
Horses for courses mate.
Complain about this comment
The problem for Australian RU is that it’s not really a grassroots sport. It’s for kids from private schools in northern NSW and Queensland. The average Australian sports fan will follow rugby, and football for that matter, if there is an international competition on but not at other times. Since they weren’t really fans in the first place and never themselves played the game they’ll abandon the sport during the tough times. There’ll always be a core of fans and the sport will survive but with the rules the way they are they can’t seriously to expect to attract new ones in a country where there are other alternatives. It’s true that the ARU were strong supporters of the ELV’s but to pretend that they somehow unilaterally invented and imposed them is delusional in the extreme.
Soccer, as in the US, has large participation numbers, as it is seen by the middle classes as a non-violent alternative to Aussie Rules etc. The large playing numbers hide the fact that it is taken seriously by few.
It’s funny how some of the same people who rail against globalization will dismiss all sports other than EPL (since we are naming sports after leagues) on the basis that since they don’t play them they are irrelevant. Vive la difference.
My question is do the English really want Australians to ditch Aussie Rules for the “proper” sports of association football and rugby? Australia has won 2 World Cups in rugby despite having 1/15th the player numbers. Be glad the sports Australians take the most seriously are ones you aren’t really interested in.
Complain about this comment
I am a die hard union fan, and so wouldn't want to see the sport die anywhere.
All the criticism of the NH unions scrapping the majority of the ELV's is misplaced I feel. The reason that the ELV's failed was the downgrading of many offnses from penalties to free kicks. This meant that the attackers were encouraged to run the ball, very good. Unfortunately it meant that defenders could offend and not be punished on the score board. It took some time for players to realise this. The only way to get around it is to educate the ref's in sending players to the bin without 7 otr 8 final warnings.
Rugby Unions and Leagues problem are both the same, it is far easier to teach defence than attack. And until the laws on slowing the ball are cleared up then the defenders will always have the upper hand. If a team lost 2 or 3 players for slowing the ball down the attackers would have a afr better chance of penetrating the first line of defence. And the defenders would be encouraged to defend deeper.
Complain about this comment
League has no problem with defence. The game is enetertaining and open, because it has been designed that way.
You guys do realise league started with exactly the same rules as union right? And that over 100 years of evolving the laws, mostly to reduce the defensive, penalty ridden, kick-fests, the game has become what it is today.
Having said that, it also lost things like scrums, line-outs and mauls, and I enjopy those parts of union.
Falklands, that theory of yours that the ELV free kick rule would result in players giving away too many penalties and that stop attacking play? That never happened. Ever. You might know that if the Northern unions had bothered to actually trial the rules they so stridently condemded.
As a matter of fact all the critisisms of the free-kick ELV were not based on fact. They were based on assumptions which were patently proved false by the south's trials.
There were in fact more tries, more running, more passing, more kicking, more tackles, more scrums, more line-outs, more of everything. The ball was simply in play more, and the incentive was for the attacking team to hang onto the ball and run it. It improved the SH players, it made them more athletic, and more skillful, quicker to execute their skills.
The only thing there was less of was penalties and people not playing the game, just walking from set piece to set piece.
In regards to your theory that what we need to do is start handing out more cards randomly to reduce the number of defenders on the pitch, I think that's a very bad idea.
Can't you see that the ref already has too much say on the outcome of the game?
You want to encourage him to start dishing out cards for small offences just to open up the game more?
That would be horrible to watch, if you happened to be the team getting slughtered by the ref just so spectators can enjoy the game.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS