Talking Footy

Terry wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:33 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:27 pm

Terry wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:21 pm

Wow.....lololololololololololol. It's both sad and hilarious the delusion of these fumblers. FFS fumblers... you lost......move on!!!!!! Leeroy......please ban comment on last years ratings win to RL........it's bogging the whole site down.

I agree last year is over. We won everything bar the tally, and I showed this many times. Pussy keeps arguing it though

" We won everything bar the tally".......lolololololololololololol.......ahhhhhhhhhhhahhh brotherrrrrrrrrrrr......llololololololololololo.......someone ring me a doctor......lololololololololololololllllllllll......'everything bar the tally'.......lolololololololo........ help me pleeeasssseeeeee......lolololololololololol.....this is too much....lolololololololololollololol.

NlolRL wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:41 pm

Terry wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:33 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:27 pm

I agree last year is over. We won everything bar the tally, and I showed this many times. Pussy keeps arguing it though

" We won everything bar the tally".......lolololololololololololol.......ahhhhhhhhhhhahhh brotherrrrrrrrrrrr......llololololololololololo.......someone ring me a doctor......lololololololololololololllllllllll......'everything bar the tally'.......lolololololololo........ help me pleeeasssseeeeee......lolololololololololol.....this is too much....lolololololololololollololol.

either add some value to the forum or dont bother. I'm over reading your childish bullshit

pussycat wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:58 pm

I'm not looking for you to include these matches . But your claims are garbage. You leave out matches that we clearly win and then try to make out these matches are comparable.

I've presented you with the matches and the corresponding dates they were played?


You certainly like to cherry pick! How about we look at the Seasons result for all 200matches. All matches, the high ones and the low ones

AFLcrap1 wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:33 am

How the fuck is that a comparison to what we are discussing .
Are NRL games shown more than AFL games ...no
AFL has more games on TV & more on FTA than RL has .
Yet we get more viewers . Yet somehow in your fucked up world you compare RL to a show being shown a million times V AFL show being shown 10 times
You have lost the fucking plot .
That is the stupidest comparison I've ever seen .especially seeing as AFL has more games shown
You mob just can't deal with RL being the most watched sport in this country .
It has done your heads in

Fred wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:20 am

AFLcrap1 wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:33 am

How the fuck is that a comparison to what we are discussing .
Are NRL games shown more than AFL games ...no
AFL has more games on TV & more on FTA than RL has .
Yet we get more viewers . Yet somehow in your fucked up world you compare RL to a show being shown a million times V AFL show being shown 10 times
You have lost the fucking plot .
That is the stupidest comparison I've ever seen .especially seeing as AFL has more games shown
You mob just can't deal with RL being the most watched sport in this country .
It has done your heads in

I'm agreeing with you aflcrap. I'm just saying cumulative totals are really useless. If nrl has on average more viewers per game then that's great. I just don't think cumulative totals are a good measure. And what is AFL v nrl average as well?
[/quote

I don't know why I bother Fred as I have pointed out many many times this is last years story. But from memory Wookies tables showed that RL was 8mill in front of FB despite having 20+ less games. Simple maths then proves the RL averages were way higher than FB's. RL wins both aggregate and average for 2016. Now for God's sake give up this lost crusade.

NlolRL wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:45 pm

The NRL has more available games for viewing because none of their games overlap. This explains why the AFL rate more per game on average, but lose the cumulative comparison

pussycat wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:59 pm

If that was, And its not why wouldn't the AFL just start one hour earlier and have no overlapping matches?

Terry wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:26 pm

NlolRL wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:45 pm

The NRL has more available games for viewing because none of their games overlap. This explains why the AFL rate more per game on average, but lose the cumulative comparison

What?????????? Straight out lie. RL won aggregate and averages. FFS move on you delusional fool.

NlolRL wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:09 pm

pussycat wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:59 pm

If that was, And its not why wouldn't the AFL just start one hour earlier and have no overlapping matches?

because cumulative ratings are not their only aim. It only really matters to us clowns because we like to stir each other

Terry wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:26 pm

NlolRL wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:45 pm

The NRL has more available games for viewing because none of their games overlap. This explains why the AFL rate more per game on average, but lose the cumulative comparison

What?????????? Straight out lie. RL won aggregate and averages. FFS move on you delusional fool.

Shut up dickhead. For games played in isolation the AFL wins. Thats the truth. I cant help it if you dont like it