SA Footy

Port's one-off Origin stance

By Michelangelo Rucci
July 03, 2007


PORT Adelaide wants State of Origin played next year, but under strict conditions. And then Power recommends the representative game be permanently taken off the AFL agenda.

Port president Greg Boulton yesterday declared Origin had "lost its relevance". He added it had merit next season as part of Australian football's 150th anniversary celebrations.

"With a couple of conditions," said Boulton. "That it be played in the pre-season. And the AFL impose a limit on the number of players taken from any club, say three or four.

"It is important to minimise the risk of injury."

Port also has urged the AFL Commission to have Origin played next year with four teams - South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia and the rest of Australia forming the Allies.

"It's one-off support," said Boulton, whose board met last Monday to ratify the Power's stance. All 16 AFL clubs were given until yesterday to make submissions to the league.

Port's position is similar to Adelaide's. Crows chairman Bill Sanders on Sunday announced his club did not want Origin to resume - not even next year.

However, the Crows - knowing they cannot veto the AFL - will not oppose the AFL Commission's intent to put state football into next year's AFL draw as a tribute to the game's 150th anniversary.

Adelaide also has recommended the Origin series be played pre-season and with a limit on how many players are selected from each club.

Boulton yesterday argued Origin had lost its appeal with the growth of a national club competition.

"Origin is happening every week now," said Boulton. "It lost appeal years and years ago."

Boulton also questioned the oft-stated support Origin has among AFL players and the football public.

"It is not the position of the majority of the players in the AFL that they want Origin to return," said Boulton. "It is among the high-profile players. But speaking to our players, as a collective, there is no big push for Origin. There is not the support beyond the high-profile players.

"And asking the public if they want Origin in isolation is a meaningless question. Ask our supporters would they rather watch Origin or Port Adelaide play Fremantle in round 22 to decide which club plays in the AFL finals and I'd imagine club football would take precedence over state games.

"With a national AFL, the public is getting a battle of state pride every week."

The AFL in the next month will plan its program for next season. It is expected to announce Origin is to return in the pre-season - perhaps in the week between the NAB Cup final and the premiership season starting.

The format and which teams play remains questionable.



Here's a new one - how about you ASK THE PEOPLE first!!!

You area aware the AFL asked all clubs to respond to a simple question,the clubs,not the people.This was Port Adelaide's response,so where is the problem?

My issue is that the community are rarely consulted about these sorts of issues. I must admit that that information hasn't filtered over west yet (the isolation theory!) but the AFL should listen to both the clubs and the people before they decide what they will do with Origin in 2008 and beyond.

The "State v State" point raised is the purest form of rubbish as we all know that every side is a blend of intrastate and interstate players - of course Boulton really means state-BASED sides not State OF ORIGIN sides, but he wants what is best for his own little plot and not particularly everyone else in the country.

Pheeeeww!!!

The Crows have the same position on this issue as the Power according to 5AA last night - thank god the Power copped it here first

Now I have put the Crows in it but someone was bound to say something ....

this a great opportunity to for the AFL to say too bad to the clubs and not just conform, of course the clubs are going to say that are they ar ethinking from a financial perspective as they are million dollar businesses these days...

why bother even playing it if it's going to be a mickey mouse preseason game with "only 3 or 4 players" from each club.

"we get state of origin every week".

If a club were to only supply 3 or 4 players for SOR, but 3 states wanted 2 (or more) players from that club, which state would miss out?
To impose restrictions on player numbers from each club would make the whole tournament a farce.

I agree totally with Adelaide and Ports view on State of Origin. Play a 1 off game next year and then shelve it as I dont give a stuff about it anymore.

Ian wrote:To impose restrictions on player numbers from each club would make the whole tournament a farce.

IIRC, from time-to-time, this has been a policy in state matches in years gone by...

Magpiespower wrote:

Ian wrote:To impose restrictions on player numbers from each club would make the whole tournament a farce.

IIRC, from time-to-time, this has been a policy in state matches in years gone by...

I thought it was more along the lines of clubs making players "unavailable due to injury" stopping them from playing.

Magpiespower wrote:

Ian wrote:To impose restrictions on player numbers from each club would make the whole tournament a farce.

IIRC, from time-to-time, this has been a policy in state matches in years gone by...

In the very early days of SOO there were quotas. I think at some stage Victoria had to pick at least 1 player from each club. I also recall that SA could select no more than 2 players from any VFL club.

IIRC by the mid 80s all those restrictions were removed.

The problem that the Crows and Power have is that, as we have seen from various SA SOO hypothetical sides selected this year, anything from 15-18 players will come from their 2 clubs. This would be a higher % of players from one team than the other AFL clubs except for West Coast and Freo also in the same boat.

BTW, can any NRL fans out there tell us if all NRL players come from eiether QLD or NSW or do they have rules to 'allocate' any players that didn't come from those states (if any)???????

Back in the 80s, I think we had four on the bench and there were two players from 10 clubs and one from the other two ... though there was no issues with that. I'd be happy with that, BUT the landscape has changed as people have mentioned and there are 16 national league sides to choose from and not 8-10 from their local league (and in the case of SA/WA, players from the VFL).

A quota of 2 per club for each state side is fair, though SA-based SA players may be miffed at being deliberately excluded/not being given the option to play or not through quotas.

saintal wrote:why bother even playing it if it's going to be a mickey mouse preseason game with "only 3 or 4 players" from each club.

"we get state of origin every week".

have to agree with this post we don't need state of origin it is old news time to move on.

The "State of Origin every week" argument is B.S.

Every side is a blend of intrastate and interstate players - teams are state-BASED sides not State OF ORIGIN sides.

But just like in the media, why let the facts obscure personal opinions.

Living in WA and having visited Victoria recently, the groundswell for SOO is very high so it is pretty much a certainty for 2008.

Personally, I wouldn't want to see it disappear forever after the 150 year celebrations. Many of us have grown up with the concept, as well asseeing how successful Rugby League has made it after running with the then-NFL's idea and how good ours could really be.

I wouldn't want to see it overdone as has been the way in the past, maybe one game per state every two years on a rota, e.g. SA-Vic & WA-Allies in 2010, WA-SA & Vic-Allies in 2012 and Vic-WA & SA-Allies in 2014. Either that or play one match every 2 years (the 4 teams play once every 4 years), meaning that the matches are treated with more respect due to their infrequency.

Benchwarmer wrote:The "State of Origin every week" argument is B.S.

Every side is a blend of intrastate and interstate players - teams are state-BASED sides not State OF ORIGIN sides.

But just like in the media, why let the facts obscure personal opinions.

Calm down benchy. There was a big smilie after that comment so I'd suggest that your Microsoft Sarcasm Detector may not be operational. Please consult your nearest sense of humour technician.

regards,

REB

Fun day at work - my mobile has carked it and there's more work than I'd like (i.e. there's some to do! LOL).

I'm back on the planet again

Benchwarmer wrote:Back in the 80s, I think we had four on the bench and there were two players from 10 clubs and one from the other two ... though there was no issues with that. I'd be happy with that, BUT the landscape has changed as people have mentioned and there are 16 national league sides to choose from and not 8-10 from their local league (and in the case of SA/WA, players from the VFL).

A quota of 2 per club for each state side is fair, though SA-based SA players may be miffed at being deliberately excluded/not being given the option to play or not through quotas.

One thing I didn't realise until hearing Cornesy say it recently was that in the pre-Crows days there was an informal rule the selectors followed that 1/2 the SA SOO side had to come from the SANFL (or no more than half from the VFL) and, thinking back, that's what happened. It wasn't a rule set down by the VFL - just a philosophy by the SA selectors by the sounds. Interesting to put that in context of how well we did against the Vics in that era.

Bring back SOO. As a Blue Bagger living in SA, was nothing better then watching Sticks & Braddles (to name a couple) pull on theat State Jumper and allow myself unbridled state passion for the afternoon!
Would love to see Gibbs in a few years time get the opportunity as well...