King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
To save the debate in the "Buddy" Franklin thread, I thought we should have our own thread. I'm not going to degrade the issue by adding a poll, but I think we should have a proper discussion about the 2 sports, the popularity, the sport itself, the teams, the worldwide recognition, etc. Personally I've not seen much of AFL, but the Aussies seem to be pretty up on the sport, and claim that it's better than sliced bread, and the best sport on the planet.
Worldwide Recognition
My point regarding AFL has always stayed consistent. If it was such an amazing sport, how come it's not been brought to England, America, the rest of Europe, Asia, and why's it not big in those countries/continents? People have been visiting Australia for centuries, the sports been legally running since 1877, and if it was such an amazing sport it would have been brought across by people who had seen it abroad and been enthralled by it. I've never seen a non Aussie claiming the sports brilliant.....coincidence? I think not.
Association Football's been running far longer, and has therefore had longer to spread, but lets look at the facts. It's massive across the globe, it's the major sport of countries like Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, England, Scotland, Germany, etc etc etc. There aren't many countries around the world that don't have an association football league. The World Cup, the competition for all the national teams to compete has been running since 1930 and since the invention of the World Cup the poplularity of the sport has risen even more. There were 13 teams in the original World Cup Finals, that's now risen to 32, with qualifying competitions happening across the globe, yet in the time that association football has doubled in World Recognition, AFL is still contained within Australia.
Average Attendances
Another point that's been raised is that of Average Attendances for AFL being much bigger than Football. Let's compare the AFL to the English Premier League. It's not a completely fair comparison though, and Wikipedia has the attendance at 36,076. You look at the AFL, there are 16 teams, but only 185 games played. The Premier League has 20 teams, but 380 games in a season. Then you need to look at the size of stadiums in the AFL. Every single team according to Wikipedia has a stadium that they play at with a maximum attendance of 50'000+. Alot of teams play at massive stadiums like the MCG, Telstra Dome and the ANZ stadium. None of the teams sell those stadiums out regularly though. The champions of the AFL, who you'd expect to have the highest attendance only have 41'436 Season members.
This compares with the premier league, where the biggest stadiums in the league, Arsenal's Emirates and Manchester Uniteds Old Trafford. Man Utd's average attendance so far this season is 75498, when you consider the capacity of the stadium is 76212 it's pretty unbelievable. Then you look at Arsenal, average attendance of 60058, capacity of 60432. Here's the stats for you to look at, you'll notice that the team with the lowest stadium fill percentage is Blackburn Rovers, and even they manage to fill their stadium 70%.
If we in England had the space to build stadiums the size of the MCG, Telstra Dome and the ANZ stadium then the teams would fill them. There just isn't the space for every Premier League team to build a stadium of that size, and the cost in the UK would be far too high, especially considering the current Credit Crunch. You have to look beyond the basic average attendance stats.
Also, even teams that are in big trouble within the premier league, with the fans massively unhappy with the running of the club, and the recent sacking of a manager, this club being Newcastle. They've still maintained a 90% stadium capacity, which proves the popularity of the sport, even if the team are failing to perform, and they're unhappy with the behind the scenes running of the club.
Complexity of the 2 Sports
Certain AFL fans claim that Association Football is inferior because it only lasts for 90 minutes, and that there is no substance to the sport, and it's a massively easy sport to play and a very boring one to play. They then claim that AFL is far better because of the complexity of the sport, but is that a good thing? Clearly not, Cricket's a bloody complicated sport, and the following of the sport is very limited across Europe and America, 2 big powerhouses when it comes to the success of a sport. AFL's a far more complex sport, according to Stevo I think it was who mentioned it in another thread.
A high complexity level is good for the fans that can be bothered to learn the rules, but Football appeals to everyone around the world, as anyone can just pick up or make themselves a football and kit it around and have fun. The professional game is also a massively complex one, with managers desperate to find the tactic suitable to defeat the next team. They study countless video tapes on each team, looking for weaknesses, and ways to beat them. There are thousands of different ways of winning a game of football, from the set piece specialist teams like Stoke and Chelsea, to the stylish flowing football of Manchester United. It's far more complicated than the basics make out.
The Stars of the Game
David Beckham. The most well renowned sportsman on the planet. He's possibly the most recognised man on the planet. He's a massive celebrity, he's a brilliant role model, spends time and money on developing schools for children around the world, and has been rewarded by becoming the most decorated player in the world. I'd bet that the large majority of people in major cities around the world would recognise Beckham, yet ask them about Buddy Franklin and Wayne Carey and they'd be clueless, yet these guys are supposed to be the 2 big names of AFL. Football is a glamourous sport, and it makes stars, the popularity of the sport has grown thanks to guys like Beckham, Pele and Maradona. I honestly can't see Buddy Franklin going down as one of the greatest sportsmen of all-time when he retires.
I hope that you've actually read the following post, and will not just dismiss it with ludicrous claims with no backing up or evidence. I've given my side to the argument, and look forward to reading your replies.
Worldwide Recognition
My point regarding AFL has always stayed consistent. If it was such an amazing sport, how come it's not been brought to England, America, the rest of Europe, Asia, and why's it not big in those countries/continents? People have been visiting Australia for centuries, the sports been legally running since 1877, and if it was such an amazing sport it would have been brought across by people who had seen it abroad and been enthralled by it. I've never seen a non Aussie claiming the sports brilliant.....coincidence? I think not.
Association Football's been running far longer, and has therefore had longer to spread, but lets look at the facts. It's massive across the globe, it's the major sport of countries like Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, England, Scotland, Germany, etc etc etc. There aren't many countries around the world that don't have an association football league. The World Cup, the competition for all the national teams to compete has been running since 1930 and since the invention of the World Cup the poplularity of the sport has risen even more. There were 13 teams in the original World Cup Finals, that's now risen to 32, with qualifying competitions happening across the globe, yet in the time that association football has doubled in World Recognition, AFL is still contained within Australia.
Average Attendances
Another point that's been raised is that of Average Attendances for AFL being much bigger than Football. Let's compare the AFL to the English Premier League. It's not a completely fair comparison though, and Wikipedia has the attendance at 36,076. You look at the AFL, there are 16 teams, but only 185 games played. The Premier League has 20 teams, but 380 games in a season. Then you need to look at the size of stadiums in the AFL. Every single team according to Wikipedia has a stadium that they play at with a maximum attendance of 50'000+. Alot of teams play at massive stadiums like the MCG, Telstra Dome and the ANZ stadium. None of the teams sell those stadiums out regularly though. The champions of the AFL, who you'd expect to have the highest attendance only have 41'436 Season members.
This compares with the premier league, where the biggest stadiums in the league, Arsenal's Emirates and Manchester Uniteds Old Trafford. Man Utd's average attendance so far this season is 75498, when you consider the capacity of the stadium is 76212 it's pretty unbelievable. Then you look at Arsenal, average attendance of 60058, capacity of 60432. Here's the stats for you to look at, you'll notice that the team with the lowest stadium fill percentage is Blackburn Rovers, and even they manage to fill their stadium 70%.
If we in England had the space to build stadiums the size of the MCG, Telstra Dome and the ANZ stadium then the teams would fill them. There just isn't the space for every Premier League team to build a stadium of that size, and the cost in the UK would be far too high, especially considering the current Credit Crunch. You have to look beyond the basic average attendance stats.
Also, even teams that are in big trouble within the premier league, with the fans massively unhappy with the running of the club, and the recent sacking of a manager, this club being Newcastle. They've still maintained a 90% stadium capacity, which proves the popularity of the sport, even if the team are failing to perform, and they're unhappy with the behind the scenes running of the club.
Complexity of the 2 Sports
Certain AFL fans claim that Association Football is inferior because it only lasts for 90 minutes, and that there is no substance to the sport, and it's a massively easy sport to play and a very boring one to play. They then claim that AFL is far better because of the complexity of the sport, but is that a good thing? Clearly not, Cricket's a bloody complicated sport, and the following of the sport is very limited across Europe and America, 2 big powerhouses when it comes to the success of a sport. AFL's a far more complex sport, according to Stevo I think it was who mentioned it in another thread.
A high complexity level is good for the fans that can be bothered to learn the rules, but Football appeals to everyone around the world, as anyone can just pick up or make themselves a football and kit it around and have fun. The professional game is also a massively complex one, with managers desperate to find the tactic suitable to defeat the next team. They study countless video tapes on each team, looking for weaknesses, and ways to beat them. There are thousands of different ways of winning a game of football, from the set piece specialist teams like Stoke and Chelsea, to the stylish flowing football of Manchester United. It's far more complicated than the basics make out.
The Stars of the Game
David Beckham. The most well renowned sportsman on the planet. He's possibly the most recognised man on the planet. He's a massive celebrity, he's a brilliant role model, spends time and money on developing schools for children around the world, and has been rewarded by becoming the most decorated player in the world. I'd bet that the large majority of people in major cities around the world would recognise Beckham, yet ask them about Buddy Franklin and Wayne Carey and they'd be clueless, yet these guys are supposed to be the 2 big names of AFL. Football is a glamourous sport, and it makes stars, the popularity of the sport has grown thanks to guys like Beckham, Pele and Maradona. I honestly can't see Buddy Franklin going down as one of the greatest sportsmen of all-time when he retires.
I hope that you've actually read the following post, and will not just dismiss it with ludicrous claims with no backing up or evidence. I've given my side to the argument, and look forward to reading your replies.