Why are many Aussies so narrow minded ?

[pennywisealfie]

Some dude calling it "Sokka", another saying that Football isn't "masculine" enough for him.

Looks like the yokels are here! Stick around if you like, we actually talk about a decent sport in here.

 

[strong_latte]

None of your sports talked about in this thread are indigenous.

The idea rugby league in aus is a different sport but soccer around the world is just a different accent of the English game is wrong.

Read the post - the point was that the three traditional Australian codes of football have had their fundamental DNA impacted by Australia, whereas soccer has effectively remained static without any of its adherent nations actually altering the fundamental structure in any way.

This is true; it's not even a point of contention that playing a game a certain way is not the same as your country influencing the rules by which it is played. So how is what I've said "wrong"? The analogy is perfectly apt.

Basically the answer to the thread question is aus sport is a bubble, especially in Sydney. That is not a bad thing, it is just the way it is.

The two posts I quoted give a good example of this.
As soccer gets into this bubble more the locals will wake up to just how stupidly big the sport can be.

Nobody is under any illusion of just how big soccer is internationally. It's all soccer fans ever crap on about... the point is "it's big" isn't a good argument for why Australians should care more about it than they do their traditional sports, and arguing it does demonstrates both arrogance and a fundamental inability to grasp the basic realities of the Australian sports market and just how much more competitive it is than 99% of the world.

If aus actually got the world cup, there would be a lot of very surprised people.
The arguments about stadiums within the NRL community that have been going on for years would end in a second because one guy at Fifa said so...

Let's hope we never get it then. The Soccer World Cup bestows almost zero economic benefits of the host nation, as all the profits go straight to that insanely corrupt organisation. The last thing we need is those filthy turds dictating how stadium policy is organised in Australia.

It's a side issue, but FIFA are another reason I don't like the game - there has never been a more nefarious, amoral and exploitative organisation in the history of origanised sport than FIFA, and their leadership should be tried at the ICJ and given life sentences (or taken out back and shot).

 

[RoosTah]

Stick to the pointless Japan points bud. At least you know the subject.

You just guessed with all the northern hemisphere stuff, and got it badly wrong.
.

Being that you're a Pom and therefore associate watching soccer with average people in your country, you're likely unaware of all the wanky nonsense about being more "cultured and worldly" that fans of the sport carry on with here and therefore can't see the relevance of the Japan and Saudi points. They're a legitimate retort to the delusions of the Aussie soccer fan that, which this thread has shown, can only attribute Australia's disinterest in their game as being the result of a lack of openness. Again, come back to me when countries like Saudi Arabia aren't executing people for apostasy.

As for all the stuff on the northern hemisphere - I'll grant you both WALES and Ireland are increasingly producing much more complete Rugby, but they're not in the class of NZ and England still plays an almost entirely forwards focussed game in both codes.

 

[WireMan]

Being that you're a Pom and therefore associate watching soccer with average people in your country, you're likely unaware of all the wanky nonsense about being more "cultured and worldly" that fans of the sport carry on with here and therefore can't see the relevance of the Japan and Saudi points. They're a legitimate retort to the delusions of the Aussie soccer fan that, which this thread has shown, can only attribute Australia's disinterest in their game as being the result of a lack of openness. Again, come back to me when countries like Saudi Arabia aren't executing people for apostasy.

As for all the stuff on the northern hemisphere - I'll grant you both WALES and Ireland are increasingly producing much more complete Rugby, but they're not in the class of NZ and England still plays an almost entirely forwards focussed game in both codes.

Stop being wrong about northern hemisphere rugby. Seriously, just stop mentioning it. Please.


As for the Japan stuff it is all very interesting but to think that because some xenophobic countries like football means anything at all to do with Aussie culture is a bit of a leap.

 

[Twizzle]

He's not wrong, you should watch it one day.

 

[WireMan]

Read the post - the point was that the three traditional Australian codes of football have had their fundamental DNA impacted by Australia, whereas soccer has effectively remained static without any of its adherent nations actually altering the fundamental structure in any way.

This is true; it's not even a point of contention that playing a game a certain way is not the same as your country influencing the rules by which it is played. So how is what I've said "wrong"? The analogy is perfectly apt.



Nobody is under any illusion of just how big soccer is internationally. It's all soccer fans ever crap on about... the point is "it's big" isn't a good argument for why Australians should care more about it than they do their traditional sports, and arguing it does demonstrates both arrogance and a fundamental inability to grasp the basic realities of the Australian sports market and just how much more competitive it is than 99% of the world.



Let's hope we never get it then. The Soccer World Cup bestows almost zero economic benefits of the host nation, as all the profits go straight to that insanely corrupt organisation. The last thing we need is those filthy turds dictating how stadium policy is organised in Australia.

It's a side issue, but FIFA are another reason I don't like the game - there has never been a more nefarious, amoral and exploitative organisation in the history of origanised sport than FIFA, and their leadership should be tried at the ICJ and given life sentences (or taken out back and shot).

Australia play 3 very limited codes of football. So of course they influence these codes more than any single nation does in football.
However they do no more than any other country that plays the sport.
The NRL rules are not even played at any other level of the sport.
RL is a lot more static than soccer. Soccer fundamentally changes often. 4 years ago it was played the spanish way, now the German way. South america, Holland, France, UK have all influenced football to.

The only sport that is anyway close to what you are saying is Aussie rules.


More competitive than 99% of the world? Don't be silly.

No economic benefits? I was talking about stadiums. There is a big thread about future stadiums for the NRL. I wonder if any league fans would like there stadium to be upgraded like in Portugal, south Africa, Korea or japan.
The rugby codes have failed miserably for years to get decent upgrades, yet if Fifa said Australia instead of Qatar you would all be as giddy as kippers about what was happening in your country now.

 

[RoosTah]

Stop being wrong about northern hemisphere rugby. Seriously, just stop mentioning it. Please.


As for the Japan stuff it is all very interesting but to think that because some xenophobic countries like football means anything at all to do with Aussie culture is a bit of a leap.

You have yet to explain in what way I'm wrong, so no, I won't stop.

As for the culture stuff, the "leap" is the suggestion that our competitive market's failure to embrace soccer has any connection with xenophobia (look at the title of this thread FFS). If there were such a connection, then all countries that play soccer should be more open than Australia. That's demonstrably false, and I'm merely pointing that out.

 

[woodyk2]

Ive tried to watch it,i really have. Its crap,simple. Fun to play absolute shite to watch.

 

[strong_latte]

Australia play 3 very limited codes of football. So of course they influence these codes more than any single nation does in football.
However they do no more than any other country that plays the sport.
The NRL rules are not even played at any other level of the sport.
RL is a lot more static than soccer. Soccer fundamentally changes often. 4 years ago it was played the spanish way, now the German way. South america, Holland, France, UK have all influenced football to.

Accents are what you're talking about here. The game remains utterly unchanged at the fundamental level: the rules. None of these countries have influence the game beyond a merely expression within its static architecture. This is quite different to the three other football codes we play, whose fundament DNA has been altered by our influence.

Why you can't grasp this incredibly simply point is truly bewildering.

More competitive than 99% of the world? Don't be silly.

Point me to a country which has cities analogous to Sydney and Melbourne where there are four codes of football each with top level professional teams. England has a shitload of soccer in London, plus Union and a token failed League team, which it can't support despite having the population of Australia. Basically the city is owned by soccer though, and London would be the closest to us in terms of football code representation.

No economic benefits? I was talking about stadiums. There is a big thread about future stadiums for the NRL. I wonder if any league fans would like there stadium to be upgraded like in Portugal, south Africa, Korea or japan.
The rugby codes have failed miserably for years to get decent upgrades, yet if Fifa said Australia instead of Qatar you would all be as giddy as kippers about what was happening in your country now.

Yes, no economic benefits: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/world-cup-financial-gains-rarely-materialize-for-host-1.2671024

For the record, the AFL have been pretty successful at getting their stadium strategy in place, which means its more about the lobbying capacity of the sport, something which the NRL is now getting much better at, with news that Smith has convinced the NSW government upgrade several grounds.

So no, we don't need the corrupt FIFA scum coming in here and forcing shit down our throats, whilst stealing all our money just to get a decent stadium. Being involved with such utter human filth frankly is unnecessary and wouldn't even be worth it if it was.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Why do most Aussies dislike soccer and call it gay?
Do you think its because of the constant bad sportsmanship and diving/acting?
Or do you think its because most Aussies arnt cultured enough?
I'm also sick of people calling Mediterranean_Descendant ball, as a person of lebanese decent i find that offensive.
When will bogan aussies grow up?

Cheers and go Crystal Palace

That's exactly what it is, plus FIFA are more corrupt than Joe Bjelke Peterson.

 

[WireMan]

Accents are what you're talking about here. The game remains utterly unchanged at the fundamental level: the rules. None of these countries have influence the game beyond a merely expression within its static architecture. This is quite different to the three other football codes we play, whose fundament DNA has been altered by our influence.

Why you can't grasp this incredibly simply point is truly bewildering.



Point me to a country which has cities analogous to Sydney and Melbourne where there are four codes of football each with top level professional teams. England has a shitload of soccer in London, plus Union and a token failed League team, which it can't support despite having the population of Australia. Basically the city is owned by soccer though, and London would be the closest to us in terms of football code representation.



Yes, no economic benefits: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/world-cup-financial-gains-rarely-materialize-for-host-1.2671024

For the record, the AFL have been pretty successful at getting their stadium strategy in place, which means its more about the lobbying capacity of the sport, something which the NRL is now getting much better at, with news that Smith has convinced the NSW government upgrade several grounds.

So no, we don't need the corrupt FIFA scum coming in here and forcing shit down our throats, whilst stealing all our money just to get a decent stadium. Being involved with such utter human filth frankly is unnecessary and wouldn't even be worth it if it was.

Rules change all the time in all sports!
Interpretations of rules also change.

The fact that rugby currently alter rules on a whim to annoy everybody doesn't alter the fact the DNA of rugby league hasn't changed since scrums became uncompetitive. To say that makes rugby league indigenous to aus is flat out wrong.



Afl is the only sport close to what you are describing. I already said that. None of you lot even like the sport!


Not of it explains why people are so narrow minded when it comes to soccer though.

The simple answer is Aus has a chance of glory in rugby and Aussie rules so lots of excuses are used to pretend other more complex reasons.

Hence the hyping of a rugby game Australia cannot lose as the pinnacle of rugby league and the talking down of competitions that may show aus isn't.
Rugby union is struggling as they are not the best and all these annoying comps keep proving this.
Afl speaks for itself, it is most secure as you are the only country that plays it to any level so it has the support base, the stadiums etc.

Australians are insecure about there standing in the world. So they need to always show how they are somehow better than everyone else. This shows through quite obviously in sport.
Its not a bad thing, its just the way it is.

You have yet to explain in what way I'm wrong, so no, I won't stop.

As for the culture stuff, the "leap" is the suggestion that our competitive market's failure to embrace soccer has any connection with xenophobia (look at the title of this thread FFS). If there were such a connection, then all countries that play soccer should be more open than Australia. That's demonstrably false, and I'm merely pointing that out.

Yeah, that's the leap. It is massive and makes no sense.
Japan is xenophobic and supports soccer so the reason many don't like soccer in Aus cannot be xenophobia. Awesome.


Just watch a video of old rugby games, try barbarians vs nz best try ever. Then tell me northern hemisphere rugby has always been forward based. In fact don't. Just stop.

 

[RoosTah]

Yeah, that's the leap. It is massive and makes no sense.
Japan is xenophobic and supports soccer so the reason many don't like soccer in Aus cannot be xenophobia. Awesome.


Just watch a video of old rugby games, try barbarians vs nz best try ever. Then tell me northern hemisphere rugby has always been forward based. In fact don't. Just stop.

I don't know how you can't see the relevance of the Japan and Saudi examples in debunking the soccer biggot's hypothesis that people not liking their sport = xenophobia. If there were causation rather than merely imagined correlation, then it would shine through in the obverse and reverse examples of countries with soccer. It doesn't and so the notion is obviously flawed.

Really? All that crap about the north and you pull the inconsequential shits and giggles Baabaas matches up to support your non existent counter point? You seriously haven't got a clue...

 

[WireMan]

I don't know how you can't see the relevance of the Japan and Saudi examples in debunking the soccer biggot's hypothesis that people not liking their sport = xenophobia. If there were causation rather than merely imagined correlation, then it would shine through in the obverse and reverse examples of countries with soccer. It doesn't and so the notion is obviously flawed.

Really? All that crap about the north and you pull the inconsequential shits and giggles Baabaas matches up to support your non existent counter point? You seriously haven't got a clue...

I can see what you are saying. It is just a massive leap, stupid and irrelevant to the thread.


Really? Yeah. I pull an example of playing style to debunk the myth that exists in your own head about a style of play.
It is clear you have a preconceived notions in your head, and even though we both know you are wrong you won't stop going on about it. So I will.

 

[RoosTah]

So you're comparing my detailed examples of countries where xenophobia and soccer sit side by side (a point which deals with an assumption implicit in the OP's title) with your paper thin "hey the Baabaas like to run the footy heaps - particularly in the amateur era - in their inconsequential games so therefore the North isn't focussed on forwards" leap? lol

Just stop.

 

[strong_latte]

Not of it explains why people are so narrow minded when it comes to soccer though.

The simple answer is Aus has a chance of glory in rugby and Aussie rules so lots of excuses are used to pretend other more complex reasons.

Hence the hyping of a rugby game Australia cannot lose as the pinnacle of rugby league and the talking down of competitions that may show aus isn't.

That is absolute nonsense. If it were about Australia wanting to dominate a sport internationaly, then Kangaroos matches would get the sort of ratings Origin does. It doesn't - people here don't really care about internationals - they care about their clubs teams.

Besides, we have a sport that is internationaly competitive called Rugby Union, and even in the brief era when Australia managed to dominate that sport it still never surpassed either Australian Football or League in popularity, a fact which debunks your notion flat out because it's the most internationally significant of the three traditional sports.

Essentially what you're suggesting is akin to me saying the reason the U.S. doesn't like Rugby Union is because they know they'd be no good at it, which would be garbage.

What soccer bigots like yourself fail to understand is that the situation today hasn't always been the case, and that sport is a lot like religion; it's incredibly tribal and incumbency counts for a lot.

100 years ago, when sports like Rugby League and American and Australian Football were taking hold, soccer wasn't really that big a deal... In fact Australian Football was technically codified before soccer by about 4 years. Basically there was no argument about needing a more "international" game; no such thing as a World Cup and the notion of professionalism in club footy was still in its infancy.

What does that mean? It means the games competed for attention organically without any of the biases and nonsense that you've mentioned. What is different about countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ is that for a variety of reasons OTHER codes of football took off first. This was a time when playing an international series meant spending months on a boat - meaning such matches were almost entirely of novelty value. Club football was all that mattered.

But more importantly, generally speaking these other codes were high contact sports quite distinct from soccer, which created an immediate dichotomy of "tough" football versus "soft" football that frankly didn't exist in most countries (well it did in places like Germany and France etc until League and Union were banned for political reasons).

So going back to the original point: why doesn't Australia like soccer?
Three reasons:
1. History
2. Competition
3. Culture

 

[RoosTah]

^
Exactly. Suggesting that a country not liking soccer = xenophobia or some sort of desire not to compete internationally simply does not hold up to even the mildest scrutiny. History and culture actually does count for quite a bit, and if you go down that path you'd also be suggesting countries like Ireland, India, New Zealand and Canada are all insular and "narrow minded", whilst places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea some how aren't because they like soccer.

 

[Canard]

That is absolute nonsense. If it were about Australia wanting to dominate a sport internationaly, then Kangaroos matches would get the sort of ratings Origin does. It doesn't - people here don't really care about internationals - they care about their clubs teams.

Besides, we have a sport that is internationaly competitive called Rugby Union, and even in the brief era when Australia managed to dominate that sport it still never surpassed either Australian Football or League in popularity, a fact which debunks your notion flat out because it's the most internationally significant of the three traditional sports.

Essentially what you're suggesting is akin to me saying the reason the U.S. doesn't like Rugby Union is because they know they'd be no good at it, which would be garbage.

What soccer bigots like yourself fail to understand is that the situation today hasn't always been the case, and that sport is a lot like religion; it's incredibly tribal and incumbency counts for a lot.

100 years ago, when sports like Rugby League and American and Australian Football were taking hold, soccer wasn't really that big a deal... In fact Australian was technically codified before soccer by about 4 years. Basically there was no argument about needing a more "international" game; no such thing as a World Cup and the notion of professionalism in club footy was still in its infancy.

What does that mean? It means the games competed for attention organically without any of the biases and nonsense that you've mentioned. What is different about countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ is that for a variety of reasons OTHER codes of football took off first. This was a time when playing an international series meant spending months on a boat - meaning such matches were almost entirely of novelty value. Club football was all that mattered.

But more importantly, generally speaking these other codes were high contact sports quite distinct from soccer, which created an immediate dichotomy of "tough" football versus "soft" football that frankly didn't exist in most countries (well it did in places like Germany and France etc until League and Union were banned for political reasons).

So going back to the original point: why doesn't Australia like soccer?
Three reasons:
1. History
2. Competition
3. Culture

This is the most level headed, complete response I have ever seen on this subject.

Great post, and excellent points well made. With no over the top dramatics or abuse.

Do you mind if I use this from now on!

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

The best analogy I can think of is religion .
My religion(Soccer) is better than yours(Insert sport here) .

Once you try our religion you will change .
We will take over . BLAH blah .

Too bad if people are happy with what religion they have .
The cult like thinking of ..we are the biggest .we will take over ,there is no doubt .etc is mind numbingly bizarre .

& yet when anyone dares to argue different ,you are labelled this or that .

Lol just lol .

 

[strong_latte]

This is the most level headed, complete response I have ever seen on this subject.

Great post, and excellent points well made. With no over the top dramatics or abuse.

Do you mind if I use this from now on!

Cheers mate.

And yes, be my guest

 

[WireMan]

So you're comparing my detailed examples of countries where xenophobia and soccer sit side by side (a point which deals with an assumption implicit in the OP's title) with your paper thin "hey the Baabaas like to run the footy heaps - particularly in the amateur era - in their inconsequential games so therefore the North isn't focussed on forwards" leap? lol

Just stop.

Now you are just getting desperate.
It would funny if it were not so sad.

That is absolute nonsense. If it were about Australia wanting to dominate a sport internationaly, then Kangaroos matches would get the sort of ratings Origin does. It doesn't - people here don't really care about internationals - they care about their clubs teams.

Besides, we have a sport that is internationaly competitive called Rugby Union, and even in the brief era when Australia managed to dominate that sport it still never surpassed either Australian Football or League in popularity, a fact which debunks your notion flat out because it's the most internationally significant of the three traditional sports.

Essentially what you're suggesting is akin to me saying the reason the U.S. doesn't like Rugby Union is because they know they'd be no good at it, which would be garbage.

What soccer bigots like yourself fail to understand is that the situation today hasn't always been the case, and that sport is a lot like religion; it's incredibly tribal and incumbency counts for a lot.

100 years ago, when sports like Rugby League and American and Australian Football were taking hold, soccer wasn't really that big a deal... In fact Australian was technically codified before soccer by about 4 years. Basically there was no argument about needing a more "international" game; no such thing as a World Cup and the notion of professionalism in club footy was still in its infancy.

What does that mean? It means the games competed for attention organically without any of the biases and nonsense that you've mentioned. What is different about countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ is that for a variety of reasons OTHER codes of football took off first. This was a time when playing an international series meant spending months on a boat - meaning such matches were almost entirely of novelty value. Club football was all that mattered.

But more importantly, generally speaking these other codes were high contact sports quite distinct from soccer, which created an immediate dichotomy of "tough" football versus "soft" football that frankly didn't exist in most countries (well it did in places like Germany and France etc until League and Union were banned for political reasons).

So going back to the original point: why doesn't Australia like soccer?
Three reasons:
1. History
2. Competition
3. Culture

Great, and the reason you are narrow minded enough to call someone a soccer bigot is?


That was the question that is being asked here and what my quote answered.
Not, why was rugby league the dominant sport in the past.



That was all very interesting by the way.
A lot of the sports were spread by the Navy.
League happened for the same reason in Aus as it did in the UK.