New South Wales v Queensland: 130th Anniversary

[kiap]

Wrote this down elsewhere, but thought I'd re-post here for those who may have an interest in the 130 years of Rugby rivalry across the Tweed.

Rugby between New South Wales and Queensland kicked off back in 1882, although the contests were often one-sided in the early years. The Southern Rugby Union (which later became the NSWRU) had been established 8 years earlier in 1874. Queensland had the Queensland Football Association but they played mostly 'Victorian' rules, and only occasionally 'Rugby' rules. The popularity of the Rugby game rose, however, after the first inter-colonial Rugby matches, and the popularity of the Victorian game fell. The Northern Rugby Union (which later became the QRU) was established in 1883 and Rugby became the main game, in an early version of battle of the codes.

History of NSW v Qld:
First match played on the 12th August 1882, Sydney Cricket Ground. NSW def. Qld by 26 - 4.
Last match played on the 23rd April 2011, Lang Park, Brisbane. Qld def. NSW by 19 - 15.

<edit> Team photographs from the first inter-colonial match played in Queensland fifth inter-colonial match. It was played in Brisbane on the 15th of August 1883 Sydney on the 12th July, 1884:

1883 1884 New South Wales Rugby Team (Southern Rugby Union)

1883 1884 Queensland Rugby Team (Northern Rugby Union)


Head to Head:
All time results (1882-2011)
Matches played: 292
NSW won: 187 (64%)
Qld won: 93 (32%)
Drawn: 12 (4%)

Last 50 years (1962*-2011)
Matches played: 93
NSW won: 44 (47%)
Qld won: 46 (50%)
Drawn: 3 (3%)

Professional era (1996-2011)
Matches played: 25
NSW won: 10 (40%)
Qld won: 14 (56%)
Drawn: 1 (4%)

*Matches are from 1963 onwards. New South Wales refused to send a team in 1962 as they did not believe Queensland would be competitive.

 

[kiap]

If there are any errors let me know.

 

[Bruce Ross]

*Matches are from 1963 onwards. New South Wales refused to send a team in 1962 as they did not believe Queensland would be competitive.

Rather than focussing on the 130th Anniversary of interstate competition, would it not make more sense to promote the game as the 50th Anniversary of the Great Slight? I think we have paid the price for our hubris many times since we insulted the northerners. They have long memories.

 

[Hawko]

Rather than focussing on the 130th Anniversary of interstate competition, would it not make more sense to promote the game as the 50th Anniversary of the Great Slight? I think we have paid the price for our hubris many times since we insulted the northerners. They have long memories.

Ten years in a row I believe that we got our arses smacked. I do hope we've learnt our lesson.

 

[suckerforred]

Kiap - Are you sure they are NSWelshmen? They only have 4 stars in their southern cross. An oversight practised by our eastern neighbours.

 

[emuarse]

Kiwis impersonating New South Welshamen 130 years ago? So even back then they went to any levels from the land of the long white cloud to to enhance their playing knowledge.
In fact if you look at the middle player in the middle row he has more than a passing resemblance to Dan Carter.

 

[suckerforred]

Kiwis impersonating New South Welshamen 130 years ago? So even back then they went to any levels from the land of the long white cloud to to enhance their playing knowledge.
In fact if you look at the middle player in the middle row he has more than a passing resemblance to Dan Carter.

You are right Emu. I would also like to point out the bloke on the lefthand end of the middle row. Looks more like a policeman then a coach, (assuming that he is a coach), so do we need to ask which 'colony' they were from? (Not casting aspersions to the kiwi's I know they weren't a penal colony.) Maybe he was the imigration official?

 

[kiap]

Rather than focussing on the 130th Anniversary of interstate competition, would it not make more sense to promote the game as the 50th Anniversary of the Great Slight? I think we have paid the price for our hubris many times since we insulted the northerners. They have long memories.

Yes, I left that little asterisked hook in there. Had actually forgotten about it until reading it again when looking around for some more info yesterday.

Kiap - Are you sure they are NSWelshmen? They only have 4 stars in their southern cross. An oversight practised by our eastern neighbours.

Hehe. Yeah, I wonder when they adopted the Waratah? Their jerseys don't look sky blue at that stage either.

 

[kiap]

Ten years in a row I believe that we got our arses smacked. I do hope we've learnt our lesson.

It's a good one to get the supporters fired up. Actually, they played the next year in 1963 and Qld still lost two and drew one. They did keep it in the memory for a few decades afterwards, though.

It wasn't until 1976 that Queensland started to win consistently against New South Wales. They won 25 and lost 12 in those 20 years before the pro era between 1976-1995.

The longest streak for Qld is 9 wins in a row from 1999 to 2004. The longest streak for NSW is the 13 wins in a row from 1959-1963.

 

[Scarfman]

This is what I love most about following the Tahs in SuperRugby. We have the only two real teams in the compeitions. The rest were invented by Rupert Murdoch's henchmen.

 

[Lindommer]

And where did you find this crap about New South Wales refusing to play Queensland in 1962? Dig a bit deeper and unearth the truth about that incident.

 

[cyclopath]

And where did you find this crap about New South Wales refusing to play Queensland in 1962? Dig a bit deeper and unearth the truth about that incident.

Why not just enlighten us?

 

[Lindommer]

Numerous writers have claimed NSW refused to play Queensland in 1962 because they were too weak. This prompted John Mulford, from the marvellous Australian Rugby Archives, to research the issue. He found the 1962 season was difficult for the ARU to administer as it included an All Black tour, an Australian tour of New Zealand and two Wallaby trials. Because of this demanding schedule, the ARU decided there was no room for the traditional interstate series. "This was not a NSW decision. There is no record of the Queensland delegates protesting at the time, nor is there any record of the 'too weak' assertion," Mulford explains. "The story or myth first surfaced in the 1970s, when Queensland were 'geeing up' their troops. It has been a colourful marketing tool never questioned."

A piece of fiction perpetuated by Queensland rugby supporters, unlike the disgraceful slander of the two Ellas by the Ballymore crowd in 1982. And that wasn't fiction: I was there.

 

[kiap]

At least you're not denying they were brushed.

You're pushing the responsibility for the NSW matches in that year from the NSWRU to the ARU.

There's been a lot written about it, by several authors.

‘Doing it tough’: the very amateur years


The period from 1950 to 1980 was characterized by a sense of ‘business as usual’ with the hegemonic control based in Sydney: NSW dominating on and off the field as it had during the previous 50 years. Its power manifested itself most precipitously in 1962 when NSW refused to play Queensland on the grounds that the northern state players were just not competitive enough: the previous season they had lost heavily to NSW in Brisbane and in both clashes in Sydney. Even more embarrassingly, Queensland had been defeated by the rugby union minnow state of Victoria (14-9).

The NSWRU attempted to justify its decision by citing Queensland’s poor results from 1949 to 1961; they had won just four of the 43 matches played against NSW during this period. Queensland rugby union not only struggled for viability in its rivalry with NSW but also within the state against an energetic rugby league, particularly in Brisbane. By 1959 there were only 16 clubs playing union in the whole of the state. Although the clubs’ support was enthusiastic and their supporters loyal, the QRU was virtually bankrupt.

The QRU had no ground of its own, renting an oval, at a pepper-corn rent, from the Brisbane Grammar School, and it was only the windfalls it received from the Fijian tours in 1952 and 1954 that allowed the QRU to begin to develop the game in the state’s clubs and schools.

 

[Lindommer]

Does Peter Horton attribute his assertion to any sources?

 

[kiap]

Who did John Mulford talk to?

This idea that the schedule was so demanding that there was no room for any interstate match is nonsense. Trials? Eish, do you believe Rudd if he says he doesn't want to be PM?

There was less rugby played by NSW and Australia in 1962 than in the years around it. The All Blacks arrived two weeks before the first test on 26th May. They played three tour matches before the first test (including ones against NSW and Qld), a few more tour games, and then the second test was one week later on the 4th June. That was the ONLY match NSW played for the whole year. Then in August and September the Wallabies toured New Zealand and played 3 tests.

In 1962, Australia played 5 tests, including a tour of New Zealand. NSW played 1 match.

In 1961, Australia played 6 tests, including a tour of South Africa. NSW played 4 matches.
In 1963, Australia played 5 tests, including a tour of South Africa. NSW played 6 matches.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Numerous writers have claimed NSW refused to play Queensland in 1962 because they were too weak. This prompted John Mulford, from the marvellous Australian Rugby Archives, to research the issue. He found the 1962 season was difficult for the ARU to administer as it included an All Black tour, an Australian tour of New Zealand and two Wallaby trials. Because of this demanding schedule, the ARU decided there was no room for the traditional interstate series. "This was not a NSW decision. There is no record of the Queensland delegates protesting at the time, nor is there any record of the 'too weak' assertion," Mulford explains. "The story or myth first surfaced in the 1970s, when Queensland were 'geeing up' their troops. It has been a colourful marketing tool never questioned."

I'm not persuaded that John G Mulford did much research on the issue, Lindommer, and sceptical about what light "the marvellous Australian Rugby Archives" would have thrown on it. In his 300 page book, Guardians of the Game: The History of the New South Wales Rugby Union 1874-2004, he devotes just one sentence to the issue of interstate fixtures in 1962:

New South Wales played no official matches against Queensland in 1962 because of the large number of Wallaby trial matches scheduled prior to the Wallaby squad selection; with the Wallaby trials demanding seven extra games of the players, many were just not able to devote any more time away from jobs, farms and families. (p.128)​

This reads suspiciously like the sort of officialese that Mulford was likely to have found in the minutes of the NSWRU. Why were seven Wallaby trials played that year when virtually all of the triallists would have come from the two states? Presumably because some of those trials were substituted for what were expected to be lopsided interstate matches. In 1959 there were four fixtures between the two states; four again in 1960; and three in 1961. All eleven of these were won by NSW with the scores in the final two being 29-0 and 45-0. (At that time a try was worth just three points)

Mulford claims: "The story or myth first surfaced in the 1970s, ... It has been a colourful marketing tool never questioned." If it was false why was it never questioned, given that "in the 1970s" almost all of the protagonists would have still been alive?

 

[emuarse]

There was less rugby played by NSW and Australia in 1962 than in the years around it.

By not playing Queensland, NSW actually did the Reds forerunners a great favour.
I actually started to play club & other rugby after 1965, and enjoyed the atmosphere at the BGS field at Normandy.
But what I saw in the players & supporters at my young impressionable age was a very real loathing of all things NSW rugby, not least of all the unbelievable bias that went into Wallaby selections at that time: any Queenslander in the Wallabies side was usually a standout player who could not be denied, although Lloyd Graham even missed out there.
This mood in turn instilled a fierce determine in future Qld/Reds teams to annihilate the Blues/Waratahs, a mood which still exists today.
We will not forget turncoat Berrick Barnes's traitorous act, no wonder he is a doubtful starter for Saturday night

 

[Lee Grant]

Meanwhile back with the thread topic:

It was remarkable that this match took place; in fact it was remarkable that Queensland even had a team because rugby was not the most popular football code in Brisbane: Victorian Rules was.

In 1880 four football clubs formed the QFA and the clubs played both football codes against each other, but mainly Victorian Rules.

In 1882 Pring Roberts, a Brisbane rugby identity, challenged the Wallaroo rugby club of Sydney to a match with his club. The Wallaroos passed the matter over to the Southern Union (as the NSWRU was then known). The QFA became involved from the Brisbane end and the proposed club match became a full blown contest between one colony and and another.

It was proposed that the Southern Union and the NSWFA (the Victorian Rules body in Sydney) split the cost of inviting the Queenslanders and that they should play both codes on tour, but the Southern Union gazumped the 'Victorians' by offering to pay all the expenses of the tour provided only rugby was played.

There was an uproar from the Brisbane 'Victorians'. They argued that it couldn't be a Queensland representative team because rugby was a minority sport there. The committee which accepted the offer countered by saying that the Geelong FC had lost money on their Victorian Rules tour to NSW; so it made sense to accept the rugby offer.

Anyway, they went, and played only rugby. They lost the first inter-colonial match played at the Association Ground, now known as the SCG, in front of about 4,000 people, but astounded locals by beating Sydney's strongest club, the Wallaroos.

Aftermath: The good showing of the Queensland side in NSW perked interest in the rugby code up north, and down south the Southern Union got interested in repaying the visit. In 1883 Queensland beat NSW at the Eagle Farm race course in (ahem) a close finish, in front of about 3,000 people. There was bedlam after the game and some of the winning team were carried back to the sheds, shoulder high.

The Brisbane 'Victorians' got their knickers in a knot and formed a new QFA which ruled that their players could not play in any rugby games thereafter. This lead to the creation of the Northern Rugby Union in late 1883 and the start of it's rugby only organisation, which became known later as the QRU. They had a modest start in 1884 with only two teams.

And look at them now.

 

[kiap]

This place has knowledgeable people on rugby so thanks to all the posters here - on all sides of these questions.

Lee, that was good reading mate, so I did some more digging and got the formation date of the NRU as 2 November 1883. It was a bit of a misnomer as they didn't have any clubs at the time and formed the two clubs you mentioned 6 months later.

So those photos I posted at the top are unlikely to be actually from the 1883 match. It was 3 months before the NRU existed. The photos must be from 1885, 7, 9, or 1891. The NRU was renamed as the QRU in 1893.