Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

Mal wrote:

RL is behind in aggregate but in front on averages. I would say by the end of the season with adding in SOO and internationals RL will be well in front on both measures.

Now over to you Caitlan X......Man to bring in the spin and lies. Dill........LOLOLOLOL

isnt what you just said spin? You just ignore the lead the AFL has over the NRL.

Sure, your SOO games will rate highest, just like the olympics dominate ratings on the odd occasion theyre on. But league v league the AFL smashes the NRL in crowds, ratings, memberships and revenue

Again you repeat the myth , were well ahead . You make out 6 rounds = 6 rounds , but no mention of the fact that your 6 rounds contain 24 + abit more FTA games , while weve played just 18.
But moving to the real world , we've played 10 rounds (30m) you've played 8 rounds (32m) . And were comfortably ahead , Throw in the test and the gap stats to get embarrassing. These figures are'nt showing SOO , if they were we be you ,
and is on every years

Rugby League generates more viewers and more viewers means more popular!

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

Mal wrote:

RL is behind in aggregate but in front on averages. I would say by the end of the season with adding in SOO and internationals RL will be well in front on both measures.

Now over to you Caitlan X......Man to bring in the spin and lies. Dill........LOLOLOLOL

isnt what you just said spin? You just ignore the lead the AFL has over the NRL.

Sure, your SOO games will rate highest, just like the olympics dominate ratings on the odd occasion theyre on. But league v league the AFL smashes the NRL in crowds, ratings, memberships and revenue

Again you repeat the myth , were well ahead . You make out 6 rounds = 6 rounds , but no mention of the fact that your 6 rounds contain 24 + abit more FTA games , while weve played just 18.
But moving to the real world , we've played 10 rounds (30m) you've played 8 rounds (32m) . And were comfortably ahead , Throw in the test and the gap stats to get embarrassing. These figures are showing SOO , if they were we be you , and its on every years

Rugby League generates more viewers and more viewers means more popular!

Our 4th game on FTA is delayed into Melbourne, our biggest market. Youre also ignoring that our games arent shown nationwide other than FN.

I was referring to the best rating games where we must have 5 of the top 6 by now. As I said, well ahead

We have the top game and the majority of ones that follow on FTA. We have the top rating game and most of the ones that follow on Fox. Regardless of the spin & cherry picking you use you wont change facts.

Would you like the AFL to remove Perth? ??? As I've said we all have our but but excuses, some just don't need to use them.

Our Averages are better than your - our aggregates are better than yours.

pussycat wrote:

We have the top game and the majority of ones that follow on FTA. We have the top rating game and most of the ones that follow on Fox. Regardless of the spin & cherry picking you use you wont change facts.

Would you like the AFL to remove Perth? ??? As I've said we all have our but but excuses, some just don't need to use them.

Our Averages are better than your - our aggregates are better than yours.

the NRL havent got a single home and away game over 1.3m, and never do. We have 5 of the top 6 home and away games this year. We lead Foxtel ratings on FN by close to 80k

You have 1 international at 1.3m, the only game involving Australia on the weekend. If you cant get a single game involving your entire market to get over 1.3m your internationals mean nothing

pussycat wrote:

We have the top game and the majority of ones that follow on FTA. We have the top rating game and most of the ones that follow on Fox. Regardless of the spin & cherry picking you use you wont change facts.

Would you like the AFL to remove Perth? ??? As I've said we all have our but but excuses, some just don't need to use them.

Our Averages are better than your - our aggregates are better than yours.

=D> =D>

That is a factually correct statement, some of these fumblers struggle with Facts..

eelofwest wrote:

pussycat wrote:

We have the top game and the majority of ones that follow on FTA. We have the top rating game and most of the ones that follow on Fox. Regardless of the spin & cherry picking you use you wont change facts.

Would you like the AFL to remove Perth? ??? As I've said we all have our but but excuses, some just don't need to use them.

Our Averages are better than your - our aggregates are better than yours.

=D> =D>

That is a factually correct statement, some of these fumblers struggle with Facts..

its also an irrelevant statement when only one of our games is shown nationally on FTA

Then try comparing average rounds Even with the AFL trying to maximise there rating by showing matches into there own state it still

pussycat wrote:

Then try comparing average rounds Even with the AFL trying to maximise there rating by showing matches into there own state it still

what about actually comparing games under similar cirumstances. Our code's rounds arent comparable in any way but FNs are

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Then try comparing average rounds Even with the AFL trying to maximise there rating by showing matches into there own state it still

what about actually comparing games under similar cirumstances. Our code's rounds arent comparable in any way but FNs are

You are just a lying dill Caitlan X......Man. The only reason you don't want to compare is because rabble ball is behind. You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts ya dill.

Coming from a liar like you thats a bit rich. I couldnt care less if you want to compare averages or totals or because they just arent comparable. FNs are the perfect comparison with the same conditions, and your code is getting its arse handed to it

If you want to cherry pick XMan


Thursday = 1.27m with NZ 1.3m....RL
Friday = 1.35m with NZ 1.5m.....RL
Saturday = =D> well done XMan....AFL
Sunday = 960k .... Rugby League
Monday = 350k.... Rugby League

And Wednesday week 3.5m

pussycat wrote:

If you want to cherry pick XMan


Thursday = 1.27m with NZ 1.3m....RL
Friday = 1.35m with NZ 1.5m.....RL
Saturday = =D> well done XMan....AFL
Sunday = 960k .... Rugby League
Monday = 350k.... Rugby League

And Wednesday week 3.5m

How desperate can you get

Is Thursday comparable? No. We've had 1 game, you've had 10
Is Friday night comparable? Yes. Both codes have a game each round shown in isolation, shown nationally, plus on on Fox
Is Saturday comparable? No. We have FTA games but you dont. Do you see me comparing our FTA ratings to your fox ratings? No
Is Sunday comparable? No. none of our games are shown nationally. I could combine our games, which we'd win, but that again isnt comparable.
Is Monday comparable? No. Weve had 1 FTA game which got over 1m audience, but you only have games on Fox so its pointless

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

If you want to cherry pick XMan


Thursday = 1.27m with NZ 1.3m....RL
Friday = 1.35m with NZ 1.5m.....RL
Saturday = =D> well done XMan....AFL
Sunday = 960k .... Rugby League
Monday = 350k.... Rugby League

And Wednesday week 3.5m

How desperate can you get

Is Thursday comparable? No. We've had 1 game, you've had 10
Is Friday night comparable? Yes. Both codes have a game each round shown in isolation, shown nationally, plus on on Fox
Is Saturday comparable? No. We have FTA games but you dont. Do you see me comparing our FTA ratings to your fox ratings? No
Is Sunday comparable? No. none of our games are shown nationally. I could combine our games, which we'd win, but that again isnt comparable.
Is Monday comparable? No. Weve had 1 FTA game which got over 1m audience, but you only have games on Fox so its pointless

What I see is you compare one match only - Friday Night . A night in which you excluded more than a quarter of your sides. Any side that doesn't rate doesn't play. Even they you come up short because we have a match that attracted 1.35m . Oh No but, but, but, that doesn't but, but, but, that's not fare but but but we cant match that number so it shoud'nt count but but but ] :-+ :-+

Caitlan X.......Man has put up the white flag, he's thrown in the towel, he's vacated the battle.............he no longer wants to compare because it's just not fair......and why isn't it fair..........because RL wins!!!!!!!

What a sook..........get back in the crib ya baby!!!!!!

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

If you want to cherry pick XMan


Thursday = 1.27m with NZ 1.3m....RL
Friday = 1.35m with NZ 1.5m.....RL
Saturday = =D> well done XMan....AFL
Sunday = 960k .... Rugby League
Monday = 350k.... Rugby League

And Wednesday week 3.5m

How desperate can you get

Is Thursday comparable? No. We've had 1 game, you've had 10
Is Friday night comparable? Yes. Both codes have a game each round shown in isolation, shown nationally, plus on on Fox
Is Saturday comparable? No. We have FTA games but you dont. Do you see me comparing our FTA ratings to your fox ratings? No
Is Sunday comparable? No. none of our games are shown nationally. I could combine our games, which we'd win, but that again isnt comparable.
Is Monday comparable? No. Weve had 1 FTA game which got over 1m audience, but you only have games on Fox so its pointless

What I see is you compare one match only - Friday Night . A night in which you excluded more than a quarter of your sides. Any side that doesn't rate doesn't play. Even they you come up short because we have a match that attracted 1.35m . Oh No but, but, but, that doesn't but, but, but, that's not fare but but but we cant match that number so it shoud'nt count but but but ] :-+ :-+

what a daft comment!!

Your code also plays its biggest clubs on FN, like last friday when 1 played 2 in a GF replay. The game went down to the wire yet the AFL still kicked its but by 200k

Whats your excuse for that?

These have been our FNs this year:
Rnd 1: 14th v 12th
Rnd 2: 11th v 14th
Rnd 3: 10th v 17th
Rnd 4: 6th v 14th
Rnd 5: 7th v 8th
Rnd 6: 1st v 5th
Rnd 7: 2nd v 8th
Rnd 8: 4th v 7th

These have been your FNs this year starting rnd 4 to correspond with our rnd 1:
Rnd 4: 2nd (Broncos) v 3rd
Rnd 5: 10th v 2nd (Broncos)
Rnd 6: 11th v 15th
Rnd 7: 3rd v 15th
Rnd 8: 5th v 10th
Rnd 9: 5th v 6th
Rnd 10: 6th v 9th
Rnd 11: 2nd (Broncos) v 3rd

They are very comparable, if not in favour of the NRL. So your excuse is utter BS