1895

[Midlands hobo]

One for the history buffs. I recently watched the netflix show the English game. Now in hate football but I like history and it was ok. However I got thinking,

It shows how football lost out to professionalism in the north in the 1870s-1880s and the toffs didn't like it. Does anyone know if there a book or study or film anything that has explored if this loss to the public schoolboys guided their cohorts later decision to ban players and lose the north. 

It just rang in my head how similar the stories between FA and RFU were but how differently they ended and would be great to read anything that examined a behind the scenes 

[doc]

Tony Collins, Historian. Google it.

[Midlands hobo]

27 minutes ago, doc said:

Tony Collins, Historian. Google it.

Perfect thanks.

[OriginalMrC]

Tony Collins also does a great podcast about the history of football (of all kinds). 

[EggFace]

1 hour ago, Midlands hobo said:

Perfect thanks.

http://www.rugbyreloaded.com/

plus you get his Podcast on Spotify plus his books are good as are Australian Sean Fagan.

WHAT IF.

Edited December 12, 2023 by EggFace

[Blind side johnny]

On 12/12/2023 at 17:10, Midlands hobo said:

One for the history buffs. I recently watched the netflix show the English game. Now in hate football but I like history and it was ok. However I got thinking,

It shows how football lost out to professionalism in the north in the 1870s-1880s and the toffs didn't like it. Does anyone know if there a book or study or film anything that has explored if this loss to the public schoolboys guided their cohorts later decision to ban players and lose the north. 

It just rang in my head how similar the stories between FA and RFU were but how differently they ended and would be great to read anything that examined a behind the scenes 

The development and growth of football in the North was the single factor behind the breakaway of clubs in 1895. Tony Collins numerous books analyse this perfectly for me.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Blind side johnny

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

Of the various books by Tony Collins, I think How football began would be your best starting point, MH.

It is interesting that you say "football lost out to professionalism..."  I would argue that it developed greatly due to professionalism.  Incidentally, to this day, in the make-up of the Premier League and EFL, you can still see the early dominance of the north-west (and maybe the West Midlands too). 

I used How football began extensively when researching for, and presenting, a talk I gave earlier this year as part of the fundraising for a project at my village church; I called the presentation Play up, play up and play the game.  I explored the organisation and codification of team sports in the second half of the 19th century.  The only football point on which I wasn't persuaded by Tony's reasoning in How football began, was his suggestion that, whereas hurling was a well established Irish pastime which the newly formed GAA (founded 1884) simply codified, Gaelic football was a contrived creation to satisfy the growing Irish distaste - at least in some quarters - for English pastimes.  Dr Croke, the Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, in his memorable letter accepting an invitation to be one of the fledgling GAA's first patrons, mentioned "football-kicking, according to Irish rules" as a pursuit in danger of disappearing in the face of foreign imports.  Unless Dr Croke simply made that up, there must have been something by way of an Irish type of football for the GAA to codify.

I agree with BSJ about the impetus that football's development in the north gave to the Northern Union breakaway.

[Griff]

5 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

The only football point on which I wasn't persuaded by Tony's reasoning in How football began, was his suggestion that, whereas hurling was a well established Irish pastime which the newly formed GAA (founded 1884) simply codified, Gaelic football was a contrived creation to satisfy the growing Irish distaste - at least in some quarters - for English pastimes.  Dr Croke, the Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, in his memorable letter accepting an invitation to be one of the fledgling GAA's first patrons, mentioned "football-kicking, according to Irish rules" as a pursuit in danger of disappearing in the face of foreign imports.  Unless Dr Croke simply made that up, there must have been something by way of an Irish type of football for the GAA to codify.

Yeah - but when did Dr Croke say that?  Before or after gaelic football was invented?

Let's not forget also that the GAA was formed partly to cover athletics, which was Maurice Davin's interest, as the Irish AAA didn't allow Irish people to be members.  Sounds crazy but the English folk in Dublin Castle didn't want to mix socially with what they regarded as riff-raff.  And they certainly didn't want to be beaten by them.

Something similar happened with the RFU and NU split.   The RFU weren't all that bothered.  The Northern players were better, their leaving meant that the upper class players could enjoy themselves more, playing against their social equals.

[Midlands hobo]

23 minutes ago, Griff said:

 

Something similar happened with the RFU and NU split.   The RFU weren't all that bothered.  The Northern players were better, their leaving meant that the upper class players could enjoy themselves more, playing against their social equals.

Which is exactly why I'm wondering that the FA didn't hold out in the same way as the RFU. Did the decade after the FA going pro cause the RFU such great pain as never again did a non pro team win the FA cup? Essentially the RFU toffs and the FA toffs were likely the same/related/close friend's of each other I mean how many posh schoolboys can they churn out a year. So why the change of heart.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

38 minutes ago, Griff said:

Yeah - but when did Dr Croke say that?  Before or after gaelic football was invented?

Let's not forget also that the GAA was formed partly to cover athletics, which was Maurice Davin's interest, as the Irish AAA didn't allow Irish people to be members.  Sounds crazy but the English folk in Dublin Castle didn't want to mix socially with what they regarded as riff-raff.  And they certainly didn't want to be beaten by them.

Something similar happened with the RFU and NU split.   The RFU weren't all that bothered.  The Northern players were better, their leaving meant that the upper class players could enjoy themselves more, playing against their social equals.

Dr Croke wrote that on 18th December, 1884, which was just 57 days after the GAA was founded.  So, clearly he was alluding to what already existed when the GAA was established.  The sentence in his letter from which I quoted lists no fewer than eleven pastimes, namely ball-playing, hurling, football-kicking according to Irish rules, 'casting', leaping in various ways, wrestling, handy-grips, top-pegging, leap-frog, rounders and tip-in-the-hat!  Self evidently, not all were revived!

[iffleyox]

22 minutes ago, Midlands hobo said:

Which is exactly why I'm wondering that the FA didn't hold out in the same way as the RFU. Did the decade after the FA going pro cause the RFU such great pain as never again did a non pro team win the FA cup? Essentially the RFU toffs and the FA toffs were likely the same/related/close friend's of each other I mean how many posh schoolboys can they churn out a year. So why the change of heart.

That’s the point, RFU aren’t ‘toffs’ (horrible word by the way - what’s the lower class equivalent? ####?)

Eton, Harrow etc were and are association football schools. They play a bit of rugby but the main focus is the 11 a side code. The real elite were hunting, shooting, fishing and a bit of football while they controlled it, after which they lost interest. 
 

rugby - the clue’s in the name of the school - was always deeply middle class, and taken most seriously by the aspirational lower middle and middle middle. 
 

the whole thing - before during and since 1895 - amounts to the narcissism of small differences. RFU guarded its position because it was worried about sliding back down the social scale. The ‘toffs’ didn’t really give a monkeys, which is why, when it came down to it, they didn’t fight harder to keep association football in their pocket.

the enemy of RL, is not the top of the social tree, it’s historically been the middle, and anyone on a lower rung who wanted to climb socially 

[iffleyox]

Put another way, there have always been northern based Old Etonians lurking on RL terraces. The ‘elite’ are not and have never been RL’s enemies. It was the wannabes that had an interest in keeping it down. That misunderstanding is common, and has probably done damage over the decades.

Tony Collins will give chapter and verse.

[gingerjon]

13 hours ago, Midlands hobo said:

Which is exactly why I'm wondering that the FA didn't hold out in the same way as the RFU.

The creation of the Amateur Football Alliance, the proliferation of southern amateur leagues (distinct from professional leagues like the Southern League) and the emergence of the FA Amateur Cup ...

[Griff]

16 hours ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Dr Croke wrote that on 18th December, 1884, which was just 57 days after the GAA was founded.  So, clearly he was alluding to what already existed when the GAA was established.  The sentence in his letter from which I quoted lists no fewer than eleven pastimes, namely ball-playing, hurling, football-kicking according to Irish rules, 'casting', leaping in various ways, wrestling, handy-grips, top-pegging, leap-frog, rounders and tip-in-the-hat!  Self evidently, not all were revived!

Dunno mate.  I wasn't there.  And documentary evidence is poor.  But, judging from what happened on the big island, it may well be that Gaelic Football was codified by the GAA as a compromise of half a dozen or more sets of local rules in the same way that the laws of soccer and rugby developed over the years.   We must also recognise that the world in the late nineteenth century was very different than it is today.  Travelling more than ten miles from your home was a big event to most folk and, inevitably, there'd be local variations.

What is certain is that there's a relationship between hurling and football.   The GAA Official Guide has sections on "Laws applicable to Hurling",  "Laws applicable to Football" and "Laws applicable to Hurling and Football".

[Big Picture]

On 13/12/2023 at 20:48, iffleyox said:

That’s the point, RFU aren’t ‘toffs’ (horrible word by the way - what’s the lower class equivalent? ####?)

Eton, Harrow etc were and are association football schools. They play a bit of rugby but the main focus is the 11 a side code. The real elite were hunting, shooting, fishing and a bit of football while they controlled it, after which they lost interest. 
 

rugby - the clue’s in the name of the school - was always deeply middle class, and taken most seriously by the aspirational lower middle and middle middle. 
 

the whole thing - before during and since 1895 - amounts to the narcissism of small differences. RFU guarded its position because it was worried about sliding back down the social scale. The ‘toffs’ didn’t really give a monkeys, which is why, when it came down to it, they didn’t fight harder to keep association football in their pocket.

the enemy of RL, is not the top of the social tree, it’s historically been the middle, and anyone on a lower rung who wanted to climb socially 

By what strange standard can a school like Rugby School (where the upper class sent their sons to be educated) ever be considered "middle class"???  That's bizarre to say the least.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Big Picture

[iffleyox]

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

By what strange standard can a school like Rugby School (where the upper class sent their sons to be educated) ever be considered "middle class"???  That's bizarre to say the least.

Until about 40 years ago, if you went away to boarding school you were the son of a doctor, small town solicitor, vicar etc. it’s only in the facilities arms race since about 1980 that it’s gone out of the reach of mere mortals.

The ‘upper class’ went to Eton, Harrow, or had a tutor at home.

the whole point of the public schools was that they were affordable by the middle class. Hence the period in the 50s and 60s when you probably got a better education in a state school (with better facilities) and the public schools were famously Spartan. Rugby was good, but it had the sons of farmers, vicars, and trade in its ranks.

If the government had!’t closed most of the grammars in the late 60s and early 70s, by now they’d probably have killed off or absorbed most of the private sector by outcompeting them to the point where all you were paying for was the cache…

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by iffleyox

[Futtocks]

29 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

Until about 40 years ago, if you went away to boarding school you were the son of a doctor, small town solicitor, vicar etc. it’s only in the facilities arms race since about 1980 that it’s gone out of the reach of mere mortals.

The ‘upper class’ went to Eton, Harrow, or had a tutor at home.

the whole point of the public schools was that they were affordable by the middle class. Hence the period in the 50s and 60s when you probably got a better education in a state school (with better facilities) and the public schools were famously Spartan. Rugby was good, but it had the sons of farmers, vicars, and trade in its ranks.

If the government had!’t closed most of the grammars in the late 60s and early 70s, by now they’d probably have killed off or absorbed most of the private sector by outcompeting them to the point where all you were paying for was the cache…

Plus there are many minor fee-paying schools (who aren't high-profile like Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Charterhouse, Stowe, etc.) still scattered across the country. Still charging a fairly hefty amount per annum, but not top whack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_schools_in_England 

These would be where the majority of the aspirational middle-classes' kids would go. They would traditionally have Rugby Union as the Autumn term main sport in pretty much every case.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Futtocks

[iffleyox]

38 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Plus there are many minor fee-paying schools (who aren't high-profile like Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Charterhouse, Stowe, etc.) still scattered across the country. Still charging a fairly hefty amount per annum, but not top whack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_schools_in_England 

These would be where the majority of the aspirational middle-classes' kids would go. They would traditionally have Rugby Union as the Autumn term main sport in pretty much every case.

Yes, with the anomaly that as I noted the smartest schools (Eton, Harrow) preferred soccer

[Futtocks]

12 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

Yes, with the anomaly that as I noted the smartest schools (Eton, Harrow) preferred soccer

Although Eton do have the Wall Game, which makes even Northern Hemisphere Rugby Union look free-flowing and unencumbered by rules.

[EggFace]

On 14/12/2023 at 12:11, Griff said:

Dunno mate.  I wasn't there.  And documentary evidence is poor.  But, judging from what happened on the big island, it may well be that Gaelic Football was codified by the GAA as a compromise of half a dozen or more sets of local rules in the same way that the laws of soccer and rugby developed over the years.   We must also recognise that the world in the late nineteenth century was very different than it is today.  Travelling more than ten miles from your home was a big event to most folk and, inevitably, there'd be local variations.

What is certain is that there's a relationship between hurling and football.   The GAA Official Guide has sections on "Laws applicable to Hurling",  "Laws applicable to Football" and "Laws applicable to Hurling and Football".

If only the Northern Union split happend 10 earlier then we have had some deal with the GAA playing this new Rugby North.

Edited December 19, 2023 by EggFace

[Griff]

5 minutes ago, EggFace said:

If only the Northern Union split happend 10 earlier then we have had some deal with the GAA playing this new Rugby North.

Doubt it. Their issues were very different to ours. We just wanted to pay players. They wanted shut of the British. And they still don't pay players.

[Futtocks]

42 minutes ago, Griff said:

Doubt it. Their issues were very different to ours. We just wanted to pay players. They wanted shut of the British. And they still don't pay players.

I've never really looked into GAA in any detail. This non-paid ethos they have; is it honestly amateur, or are the top players actually making a fortune under the counter like their pre-1995 RU equivalents?

[Hopping Mad]

On 14/12/2023 at 08:31, gingerjon said:

The creation of the Amateur Football Alliance, the proliferation of southern amateur leagues (distinct from professional leagues like the Southern League) and the emergence of the FA Amateur Cup ...

I was at a non-league football match on Tyneside earlier this season. Got talking to the elderly chap next to me. Turned out he'd been on West Brom's books at the same time as Bobby Robson and Don Howe. He injured a knee, Gazza-style, which finished his pro career. Went off to play for Crook Town, ostensibly amateur. In the late Fifties, he was paid £15-a-game at Crook. When Crook won the FA Amateur (so-called) Cup, in 1959, he said each player received a £250 bonus.

[Griff]

43 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

I've never really looked into GAA in any detail. This non-paid ethos they have; is it honestly amateur, or are the top players actually making a fortune under the counter like their pre-1995 RU equivalents?

No idea really.  I don't think the GAA pay them because they're always complaining about how they're treated but I'm sure there are a lot of players with good time off from their jobs.

It's fair to say that only the very pinnacles of the games get decent crowds.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Griff

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Futtocks said:

Although Eton do have the Wall Game, which makes even Northern Hemisphere Rugby Union look free-flowing and unencumbered by rules.