Talking Footy

Terry wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:13 pm

I kinda feel sorry for the poor fumbling denialist's. They have been so brain washed and are so acutely effected by the Stockholm syndrome they really can't comprehend reality. It happens year on year. RL wins the ratings - the fumblers go into meltdown.

I might start a thread, "ask a fumbler if they're ok". I hope ours here are ok. If not PM me and I will do everything I can to help.

Stay strong fumblers.

The lot you dribble on about terry all post on here
http://forums.leagueunlimited.com

When looking at AVERAGES

for the NRL AND AFL>>

NRL HAS 5 exclusive games on FOX per week

what if the AFL had 5 Exclusive FOX games..

there H & A figure would come down dramatically

NlolRL wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:34 pm

your definition of the war doesnt match mine sorry to so Terry. I'm fine with how much the AFL flogged the NRL this year. We saw evidence of it every single round

Any dumb fumbler, could understand that RugbyLeague attracted more ratings than AFL ie. using the time honoured mathematical equation 1+1 = 2 . not but but but nor Friday.

And the fact that they done this playing less matches make's it embarrassing for the AFL.

Shhhh
Don't let facts get in the way of the brainwashed ramblings

pussycat wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:18 pm

NlolRL wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:34 pm

your definition of the war doesnt match mine sorry to so Terry. I'm fine with how much the AFL flogged the NRL this year. We saw evidence of it every single round

Any dumb fumbler, could understand that RugbyLeague attracted more ratings than AFL ie. using the time honoured mathematical equation 1+1 = 2 . not but but but nor Friday.

And the fact that they done this playing less matches make's it embarrassing for the AFL.

cumulative figures means stuff all when we beat you almost every time we go head to head. It's like the consolation prize Well done, you cant outrate us but at least you have more available content

NlolRL wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:12 pm

pussycat wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:18 pm

NlolRL wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:34 pm

your definition of the war doesnt match mine sorry to so Terry. I'm fine with how much the AFL flogged the NRL this year. We saw evidence of it every single round

Any dumb fumbler, could understand that RugbyLeague attracted more ratings than AFL ie. using the time honoured mathematical equation 1+1 = 2 . not but but but nor Friday.

And the fact that they done this playing less matches make's it embarrassing for the AFL.

cumulative figures means stuff all when we beat you almost every time we go head to head. It's like the consolation prize Well done, you cant outrate us but at least you have more available content

The only thing you can see is the negative stuff that affects you., Were you've been wronged or disadvantaged. You cant or refuse to see anything that work in your favour. You have as many advantages , probably more than us and on top of that you have more matches than us. your a hopeless farkin case!

The_Wookie wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:54 am

The other side of the analysis too is that again, the AFL runs for 30% longer and its average ratings are sustained over a longer period of time.

And has a good 40m or unopposed time each match.

A 10m minute injury time out has a far bigger effect on a league match average (and this type of thing is far more common in league). Its barely a blimp on the radar of a 150m game

pussycat wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:30 am

NlolRL wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:12 pm

pussycat wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:18 pm

Any dumb fumbler, could understand that RugbyLeague attracted more ratings than AFL ie. using the time honoured mathematical equation 1+1 = 2 . not but but but nor Friday.

And the fact that they done this playing less matches make's it embarrassing for the AFL.

cumulative figures means stuff all when we beat you almost every time we go head to head. It's like the consolation prize Well done, you cant outrate us but at least you have more available content

The only thing you can see is the negative stuff that affects you., Were you've been wronged or disadvantaged. You cant or refuse to see anything that work in your favour. You have as many advantages , probably more than us and on top of that you have more matches than us. your a hopeless farkin case!

What was our advantage when all 8 of our finals outrated yours?

pussycat wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:44 am

The_Wookie wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:54 am

The other side of the analysis too is that again, the AFL runs for 30% longer and its average ratings are sustained over a longer period of time.

And has a good 40m or unopposed time each match.

A 10m minute injury time out has a far bigger effect on a league match average (and this type of thing is far more common in league). Its barely a blimp on the radar of a 150m game

if you watch 6 hours of NRL on Saturday you are counted as watching 3 games. If I watch 6 hours of AFL I'm only counted as watching 2 games.

That isnt insignificant, it's massive

Oh so now you're breaking it down into time segments
Lol
When I posted that per hour the NRL is worth more than the AFL you lot had a little fit .
But now it suits your agenda ....it's fine .

Lol fumblers & their inability to deal with reality or facts

AFLcrap1 wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:34 pm

Oh so now you're breaking it down into time segments
Lol
When I posted that per hour the NRL is worth more than the AFL you lot had a little fit .
But now it suits your agenda ....it's fine .

Lol fumblers & their inability to deal with reality or facts

only answering pussycat's claim that our longer telecast is somehow a benefit

You cant deny having shorter games is an advantage as far as ratings go. Many people would only be able to watch a limited amount of sport over the weekend due to other interests or commitments. Fact is NRL fans can fit more games into their TV time compared to AFL fans. Of course this means nothing for the sponsors or networks because eyes on TV at any given moment are all that matters. Yet when looking at ratings only this falsely favours the NRL. When it comes to the cumulative ratings they dont take this into account at all, therefore they're completely misleading.

Now, how about one of you tosser fans try and argue this point instead of the usual but but or fishbowl responses.......

Oh my

NlolRL wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:48 pm

AFLcrap1 wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:34 pm

Oh so now you're breaking it down into time segments
Lol
When I posted that per hour the NRL is worth more than the AFL you lot had a little fit .
But now it suits your agenda ....it's fine .

Lol fumblers & their inability to deal with reality or facts

only answering pussycat's claim that our longer telecast is somehow a benefit

You cant deny having shorter games is an advantage as far as ratings go. Many people would only be able to watch a limited amount of sport over the weekend due to other interests or commitments. Fact is NRL fans can fit more games into their TV time compared to AFL fans. Of course this means nothing for the sponsors or networks because eyes on TV at any given moment are all that matters. Yet when looking at ratings only this falsely favours the NRL. When it comes to the cumulative ratings they dont take this into account at all, therefore they're completely misleading.

Now, how about one of you tosser fans try and argue this point instead of the usual but but or fishbowl responses.......

Im not claiming it either way. What I am saying is we have just as many disadvantages and advantages a you do. Its not just one way like you continuously try to make out.

And like I've said before Wall to wall coverage on Saturday and most of Sunday would more than bounce the ledger there.

NlolRL wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:48 pm

AFLcrap1 wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:34 pm

Oh so now you're breaking it down into time segments
Lol
When I posted that per hour the NRL is worth more than the AFL you lot had a little fit .
But now it suits your agenda ....it's fine .

Lol fumblers & their inability to deal with reality or facts

only answering pussycat's claim that our longer telecast is somehow a benefit

You cant deny having shorter games is an advantage as far as ratings go. Many people would only be able to watch a limited amount of sport over the weekend due to other interests or commitments. Fact is NRL fans can fit more games into their TV time compared to AFL fans. Of course this means nothing for the sponsors or networks because eyes on TV at any given moment are all that matters. Yet when looking at ratings only this falsely favours the NRL. When it comes to the cumulative ratings they dont take this into account at all, therefore they're completely misleading.

Now, how about one of you tosser fans try and argue this point instead of the usual but but or fishbowl responses.......

"Shorter games is an advantage as far as ratings go": That's gotta be one of the quotes of the year LOLOlololololololololol. Totally brainless but, but ,but excuse of the whining fumbler.

Maybe fumblehouse should reduce the mess to 15 mintues in total. By your innane waffling that'd be an advantage for ratings Lololololololololol. Make it 10......even better for ratings Lololololololololol. You my friend are truly grasping at straws in your desperation to explain the massive win by Rugby League in this years ratings battle.

And what about this statement: "When it comes to the cumulative ratings they dont take this into account at all, therefore they're completely misleading". More whining like a stuck pig Lolololololololololololololooolol. Cumulative ratings are only misleading when RL wins Lololololololololololol.

Wookies ratings numbers are raw figures of actual viewers. Do you actually get that pal???? RL wins by a massive margin. Everything else you say is a pitiful, sad, lame whining excuse for fumbleballs loss.

There is nothing worse than a bad loser. And yes you're a loser. Pull ya head in pal with ya feeble, lame, whining you're making a fool of yaself.

Actually they're estimates .... just saying