Battle of the Bridge

[ernie koala]

Its just laziness liz. Couldn't be bothered looking for a moniker, and they stuck with what someone else said. crap.

I don't think it's laziness. The Giants PR dept...namely Sheedy..., with the AFLs help, are trying to carve out some turf for themselves.

I would think their theory is..... "If we keep saying it, eventually people, especially those who aren't Swans supporters, will think of the Swans as Eastern Sydney and GWS as anything West of that.

[undy]

Re: Battle of the Bridge

I used to play for a Sydney based ultimate Frisbee team called Harbour Grudges.... I reckon the Harbour Grudge match isn't bad... once they have beaten us for the first time (for points)

[pirouette]

I love the number of times Josh says "we" in this article. Has definitely bought into our club and its history.

This stood out to me as well when I read the article. Love it!

[Cardinal]

Well let's hope the derby eventually emulates the A-league game tonight as it will rock (whatever the moniker)

[wolftone57]

It is really interesting how this is supposed to be a battle for Sydney. But state wise it is really North v South. We have the North as our zone and they have the South.

[jono2707]

It is really interesting how this is supposed to be a battle for Sydney. But state wise it is really North v South. We have the North as our zone and they have the South.

Please don't start me on that..... Not happy about that divide, Jan....

[liz]

The next one will be called the "derby" according to this, with the Swans distancing themselves from the BOTB moniker.

A Bridge too far for Swans

[Xie Shan]

The next one will be called the "derby" according to this, with the Swans distancing themselves from the BOTB moniker.

A Bridge too far for Swans

Hmm, interesting. At best, I think the whole Battle of the Bridge thing was just a stuff up, at worst, it risks cannibalising the Swans' existing supporter base by shifting the Giants' target market further east than originally intended (refer last week's article in the Inner West Courier).

Building a second Sydney team was never going to be easy, and there will be plenty of mistakes made along the way. Look at what the Swans had to go through before we won our breakthrough flag in 2005. We were unloved for many years and nearly died twice before tasting ultimate success. Maybe the two teams can find a way to co-exist, I'm not sure (I hope they do!) but for that to happen GWS and the AFL need to concentrate on growing the game and attracting support in the areas of Sydney that are not already strong in AFL support. Depending on who you talk to, their success has been mixed so far.

I have included a couple of extracts from the Giants board thread on the 'Battle of the Bridge' on BigFooty which make for some interesting reading.

It's probably too early to call on the evidence so far, but I think the Swans are right to question the "Bridge" moniker and are justified in taking issue with Dave Matthews' comments as it trivialises the work the club has done over the past 30 years to establish itself as Sydney's team.

A GWS supporter in Penrith:

Realistically introducing a second team into Sydney was going to take Sydney supporters away. You can't be the sole team in a large city for 30 years without having a geographic spread of support, including areas like Penrith (my son plays for the Penrith Swans), Campbelltown, as well as the Hills and so on. I have friends locally who have stayed Swans supporters, where I feel more affinity with GWS and was happy to switch allegiance.

GWS could only play at Stadium Australia, Skoda or the SCG. That's the extent of the stadia that are national competition quality. Blacktown is a suburban ground, not a 21st century AFL venue. Lots more rectangular grounds out here.

As for the (I agree, bad) "Battle of the Bridge", it is the Bridge between east and west. it has more significance than the Harbour Bridge in this instance and better than an M4 derby. I don't think it signifies we're going to raid Marrickville and Leichhardt. I think it's Sheeds special s*** stirring, getting publicity and building a rivalry. And judging from the bites, it's working.

From the same GWS supporter:

Fun thing about tonight was the number of AFL supporters on my train getting off at Blacktown, changing to go to Penrith. There were Giants and Swans supporters, including families with both Swans and Giants clad members, and the people on the train who'd not been to the game wanted to know the score.

I've lived in Western Sydney for over a decade and I've gone home from games in footy gear (Swans and Giants) and it's the first time I've been asked about the score by teenagers off to a night of clubbing.

While the Battle of the Bridge has not been really taken to by this Board, it's penetrated the broader community, particularly out west.

From a Swans supporter based in the Inner West:

Western Sydney (and Greater Western Sydney) are defined regions based on regional organisation of 11 (14) councils. The most easterly LGA of this defined region is Auburn.
Western Sydney (WSROC): Auburn - Bankstown - Blacktown - Blue Mountains - Fairfield - Hawkesbury - Hills - Holroyd - Liverpool - Parramatta - Penrith;
Greater Western Sydney: (Western Sydney + Macarthur): Camden - Campbelltown - Wollondilly

Olympic Park is a generic venue. It's considered the geographical centre of the Sydney metropolitan bordering the regions of the the Inner West, the Inner North West (northern banks of the Parramatta River), Canterbury-Bankstown, & Western Sydney.

GWS are encroaching on a region that was not initially targeted as its predominant market. Olympic Park is bordered by Homebush & Homebush West (Strathfield) to its south, & Rhodes & Concord to its east (Canada Bay. These areas are in the Inner West, not Western Sydney or Greater Western Sydney. It's a an area already with healthy AFL participation and support of the Swans.

yet, the heart & territory of Western Sydney is 40-50km in the other direction. A region that will find the Giants just as foreign as they do the Swans. In the meantime, existing support for the AFL in Sydney is simply being split. The pathetic crowd on the weekend is evidence enough that few new supporters are being lured by the current arrangement.

Yes, SYD have very much been a city club. But also, the only viable venue for AFL in the Sydney metropolitan has been at Moore park. As evidenced by the SYD example, where a club are based and host matches is a big determinant of the type of support the organisation will attract. In the case of the Swans, it is predominantly the inner city, inner west, eastern suburbs, lower north shore. this is not to say that there aren't supporters drawn from other areas - the hills is a strong AFL area of Sydney - but because the Swans are based at Moore Park, the majority of support in the Sydney metropolitan come from these areas close to the venue.

The AFL think that Giants supporters will come from all areas of the region because it's telling them that they are a team for Western Sydney. This metropolitan doesn't work like that. It's not Melbourne.

[Bloody Hell]

Sheeds had a bit to say regarding this in the Post Match.

Paraphrasing - The Swans have been here 30 years and have 30,000 supporters. We've been here 1 year and have 10,000 supporters - we are doing something right. This isn't fighting sisters, we're going to war. We will win....WE WILL WIN.

[AnnieH]

Go and crawl back under your rock Sheeds.
If you really want a bridge, I hear the Duck River bridge at Auburn is going cheap.

[Chilcott]

If Sheeds & Co keep firing off little barbs about the Swans to the media, it won't take long at all for the rivalry to build.

Maybe the reaction from the Swans hierachy and supporters, was exactly what Sheeds was hoping for.

[Meg]

If Sheeds & Co keep firing off little barbs about the Swans to the media, it won't take long at all for the rivalry to build.

Maybe the reaction from the Swans hierachy and supporters, was exactly what Sheeds was hoping for.

I agree and that is what is particularly annoying about the attempt to confect a fierce rivalry between GWS and us. We either get sucked in and react to the offensive nonsense they sprout or we have to put up with it and let the media report it as if it is fact without comment. I was not a supporter of the introduction of a second AFL team in Sydney but now that GWS are here I hope they do well (although not at the Swans' expense). Why waste energy hating a fellow Sydney team when there are several interstate teams much higher on the enemy radar? (The Crows and North Melbourne for example.) But it seems as if Sheedy and his ilk will only be satisfied when/if a brawl breaks out on the field or in the stands at a Swans/GWS match - or perhaps he would like to see shop windows smashed by rampaging supporters ? l? soccer hooligans. This attempt to manufacture a rivalry through childish insults is stupid and unnecessary in my opinion.

[alt_mattr]

I think we should embrace "the battle of the bridge" but decide for ourselves which bridge, I suggest the Victoria Bridge in Penrith

Victoria Bridge (Penrith) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Penrith was a part of Sydney before GWS arrived, there is no reason to give up any of our old territory - if they want to be west, let them be west!

[CJK]

Now that we have the traditional 4 points I will struggle to remember GWS exist (and will care even less) until it's time for our next 4 points in round 16

[BillyRayCypress]

Advertising campaign (Battle of the Bulge) thought up by saatchi and saatchi.

Probably would have done better with Rocky and Bulwinkle. Might even be Mike's friends.