The Rugby and Australian games of football
One is astonished on reading some of the articles appearing in the daily press on the subject of 'Australian’, or, as Mr Montagu Arnold calls, and most persons in years gone by called it, 'Melbourne' football. The writers almost with one accord assume that the effort now being made to establish the game here [in Sydney] is the first ever made; some of them assume that the public has only to see the game played to become paralysed by its overpowering brilliance as compared with Rugby.
In this preamble let me state that I enjoy watching the Australian game, admire it, have seen hundreds of games played here and for some years wrote of it regularly in the Referee and Sunday Times. Furthermore, I shall be pleased to see the game established here. But I do not think it will ever affect the popularity of Rugby while the latter game is managed in anything approaching the manner of today, for two reasons; first, and chiefly, because Rugby is an infinitely more attractive and popular game as played here than it was when the Australian game withered away; and, secondly, because a good Rugby match as it is NOW played is more exciting and fascinating; that is, to an onlooker who understands both games. It was not always so, but in its scientific side, Rugby football has made wonderful strides within the last five or six years, while on the other hand, it is questionable if the Melbourne game has really been improved by the changes in the rules that have taken place since the old Waratah, Sydney, East Sydney, and West Sydney clubs became defunct. I am assured by Melbourne friends that it has been improved.
Judged by what one saw on Saturday, I should say not— but it would not be fair to form a decided opinion on one game. One can, of course, pick out a Rugby match or two each week likely to fall a good deal below the standard in brilliance and prettiness of combination. But even in such a match it will be admitted that the defence is infinitely sounder that it was ten years ago in clubs of the same standing. And it is often merely a matter of time for a club that possesses solid defence to develop co-ordinate attacking powers. On the other hand, each week some most dashing and stirring Rugby games can be seen. On each of the last three Saturdays I have had the good fortune to watch a Rugby match that fairly thrilled the people by its brilliance, and kept them is a perputual roar from start to finish. I am told by men who have had every opportunity of judging that Rugby football is NOW more attractively played here than it is in New Zealand—I am told this by New Zealanders themselves. They do not say that we are going to beat them this year—they believe too much in their players to say that—but they DO say that our football is better for the spectator than theirs. And, by way of explanation, they add that probably the difference in styles is traceable to the difference in climates.
×
Left ▼
On Saturday I witnessed the first two quarters of the Fitzroy v. Collingwood and the second half of the Eastern Suburbs v. University matches. In their respective cities these clubs hold a similar position in the football world; both matches were for the premiership. In the advertisements in the press to which Mr A. E. Kewin's name appears it was stated that “the match will constitute a marvellous and brilliant exposition of the Australian game.” It was a prophecy that was not realised; the match did not show the Melbourne game in its most brilliant aspect—I have seen much more brilliant play in the old days of the game in Sydney, when the Northumberland and Waratah teams used to come down from the Northern Districts. And for brilliancy, pace, and exciting of the onlookers, it was outclassed by the Rugby match played on the Agricultural Ground on Saturday. Allowance, of course, must be made for the fact that the game has been altered a bit by wiping out the short mark and substituting a ten-yards kick or punt—changes in the rules which have altered the game as we know It. But there are some old players here who were a wee bit disappointed both with the display and the change in the game itself.
History of Australian game here
Before leaving the subject of the Melbourne game, a brief reference to football history may be found interesting by Referee readers, and possibly, instructive to one or two who are deluding themselves that the game of the Southern States was never before played here. The New South Wales Football Association was established in 1880, and existed for 16 years. Mr Philip Sheridan (then one of the trustees of the Association Cricket Ground) was its president. Mr W. C. Marshall, who was present at the match on Saturday, was Hon. Treasurer, and his brother [T.S. Marshall] for many years was secretary of the Victorian Football League.
The game was first introduced here in 1877 by the famous Waratah Club, originally a powerful Rugby club. It had many old Victorians among its members, and they were anxious to see the game they were used to introduced here. As a result, the Carlton Club of Melbourne and the Waratah Club of Sydney played two matches each at Sydney and Melbourne, one match under Rugby and one under Melbourne rules. Club matches in those times were generally played in the open at Moore Park, and Rugby football was far from being the attractive game it is today, although there were many able players.
In the Cricket Ground pavilion there are photographs of the Carlton and Waratah teams, the former including John Conway and the latter Charles WIlliam Bean, both of whom subsequently became managers of Australian [Cricket] Elevens in England. Mr Beal was Hon. Secretary of the Waratahs.
The Melbourne game was started in the Hunter River District a year or two later, and at one time the Newcastle City Club had a membership of something like 180. In 1882 the then very famous Geelong Club paid a visit to Sydney; in 1883 the South Melbourne Club, and in 1884 the South Adelaide Club came across. The Fitzroy and other clubs, besides the Tasmanians, visited Sydney in later years. In the Northern Districts—Maitland, Newcastle, Wallsend, Lambton, and Hamilton—the game was brilliantly played, and whenever they sent teams down to Sydney the visitors showed far superior combination and skill to their metropolitan opponents.
Played in Queensland, too
The Melbourne game was also introduced into Brisbane, and the Queensland Football Association established. In 1884 intercolonial matches were played at Brisbane, the New South Wales team fulfilling seven engagements during their tour, and defeating Queensland by 7 goals, 10 behinds to 3 goals, 17 behinds. In later years the game was played here chiefly on Moore Park, and on occasions of an inter-provincial or inter-colonial match, on the Association or Agricultural Grounds. The famous Maori Rugby team which went to England in 1888, played a few games in New South Wales under the Melbourne rules. The first English team also played several games in Victoria, but they did not like the game.
In the 1890's Mr W. J. W. Richardson, of the Postal Deportment, was Hon. Secretary of the New South Wales Association, and actually had a team formed at the Sydney University, the very heart of Rugby football in those days, but the game could make no fight against Rugby as the popular game. It was played, and played very ably, too, at St. Ignatius and St. Joseph's Colleges up to six or seven years back. But it then flickered out, and nothing was heard here of the Melbourne game until the present movement. So, you see, we in New South Wales are not the strangers to the Australian game many persons would have us believe we are. Within the last seven years, of course, times have greatly changed. There are more Victorians, South Australians, and Tasmanians living here, there are more enclosed grounds, thanks to the energy and enthusiasm of those who were instrumental in permanently establishing local cricket in Sydney.
But Rugby football has jumped into the hearts of the people; its intercolonial contests are far greater events than those of the southern states, and its internationals are something that can never be realised by the Victorian game. Still, for all that, the latter is a good game, but Rugby is a distinctly good game, and in my opinion the British Association [Soccer] is quite as good as either. The most beautiful and thrilling thing in any kind of football is the swift passing rush of a Rugby match.
Footnotes
Title: The Rugby and Australian games of football
Comments
This article does not contain any comments.
Login to leave a comment.