Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

leeroy*NRL* wrote:

Xman wrote:

leeroy*NRL* wrote:

X MAN just to let you know they were all delayed matches.. daylight savings..
and on a sunday..

every sunday game after that is well over 100k
and Games on Thursday / Friday not featuring Broncos avg over 140k
some games hitting between 150 to 180k

well for starters, every Satyrday FTA game into Melbourne is on delay, yet you clowns seem to claim we have 4 live FTA games vs your 3. Delaying the game into the arvo clearly has a massive effect on ratings

Then, you must be blind:
rnd 12 96k
rnd 10 88k
rnd 5 57k

all after daylight savings had finished

But but but

doesn't take away the fact besides those 3 games you mentioned

most games rate over 120k and as high as 180k

your Melbourne delayed game constantly rates near 200k..
and even if you do not have 4 live into Melbourne there is 3
and 4 live into each other state..

a delayed Saturday night game for the NRL would still rate well..

So youve backed down from 'every' to 'most'..........nice work =D>

Yes there is 4 into each state, but like Sydney, Melbourne is our primary market. If the NRL was delayed into Sydney and live into every other state your FTA would rate poorly

yes Every Thursday / Friday game yes
and most sunday are over 100k (in day)

yes Melbourne is your primary market, but getting near all around 200k for afternoon game
on the Saturday is pretty good..

Not letting go the fact (what if ) Sydney had a FTA game on Saturday / night

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman, there is no mention of crowds in that quote. It seems that when ever your faced with anything that shows just how pathetic your sport is you go back to your 'safe place' , crowds are like a safety blanket for you, but when confronted by some thing that matters - safety blanket time.


Yay, the Grand Finals over - Time for the presentation

Lets pick a pretend Australian - Ooh what fun. The dufus medal presentation - that will rate.

This was your comment: The people themselves will watch , in there droves, any match that has a bit of glitz a glamour.

As far as Im concerned any game with a decent crowd is a game watched by people in their droves, and for the AFL this is common. For the NRL this is unusual, and often only finals and SOO

As for me retreating to crowds, well it is part of this thread and a reasonable discussion point. You're the one who sticks to ratings only despite the fact that without a few rep games you code is behind

You know the NRL is the most attended Rugby code of any in the world.
being how popular Union is the world / league to a degree in 4,5 countries

that is pretty good, It proves one thing (its hard to get a good attendance too)

as you miss so much of the game (when you are at the game)

being a considerable amount of play can be at 1 side of the field..

Fri TV #AFL Seven 563k (Mel 448k Ade 116k) 7mate 167k (Syd 42k Bri 25k Per 100k)
Fri STV #AFL #FoxFooty #AFLNorthHawks 398k
= 1128k without regionals! Look at those foxtel ratings

Should be around 1.37m after regionals. Will be higher than any NRL home and away game this year, or probably any year

Xman wrote:

Fri TV #AFL Seven 563k (Mel 448k Ade 116k) 7mate 167k (Syd 42k Bri 25k Per 100k)
Fri STV #AFL #FoxFooty #AFLNorthHawks 398k
= 1128k without regionals! Look at those foxtel ratings



Should be around 1.37m after regionals. Will be higher than any NRL home and away game this year, or probably any year

Or about 1/3 of Wednesday nights match

I think when you have to include a marquee game to try and boost a better tv audience then you are struggling. I think rl home and away ratings also do not compare well witg the SoO ratings. Its like saying ratings are not good as they aee smaller than gf ratings?

Fred wrote:

I think when you have to include a marquee game to try and boost a better tv audience then you are struggling. I think rl home and away ratings also do not compare well witg the SoO ratings. Its like saying ratings are not good as they aee smaller than gf ratings?

What is it with you people. Its a Rugby League match = Rugby league match. 13 players and 4 reserves, it has the same rules as any other Rugby league match. It's the best players, in a way it's a bit like your Friday night matches - only the best players are allowed to play You people are so insecure, constantly trying to undermine this country's premier sporting event at every opportunity with your petty jealosys.

Heres an idea , if you people are so envious of its success why not try and have one - a successful one yourself!

pussycat wrote:

Fred wrote:

I think when you have to include a marquee game to try and boost a better tv audience then you are struggling. I think rl home and away ratings also do not compare well witg the SoO ratings. Its like saying ratings are not good as they aee smaller than gf ratings?

What is it with you people. Its a Rugby League match = Rugby league match. 13 players and 4 reserves, it has the same rules as any other Rugby league match. It's the best players, in a way it's a bit like your Friday night matches - only the best players are allowed to play You people are so insecure, constantly trying to undermine this country's premier sporting event at every opportunity with your petty jealosys.

Heres an idea , if you people are so envious of its success why not try and have one - a successful one yourself!

utter BS

There are only 3 SOO games. Compare that to 23 Friday night games. You need your SOO games because your home and away game is miles behind in crowds and ratings

Our Friday night games show our top 14 clubs, which have around 400 players amongst them. Your SOO shows your top 30 players.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Fred wrote:

I think when you have to include a marquee game to try and boost a better tv audience then you are struggling. I think rl home and away ratings also do not compare well witg the SoO ratings. Its like saying ratings are not good as they aee smaller than gf ratings?

What is it with you people. Its a Rugby League match = Rugby league match. 13 players and 4 reserves, it has the same rules as any other Rugby league match. It's the best players, in a way it's a bit like your Friday night matches - only the best players are allowed to play You people are so insecure, constantly trying to undermine this country's premier sporting event at every opportunity with your petty jealosys.

Heres an idea , if you people are so envious of its success why not try and have one - a successful one yourself!

utter BS

There are only 3 SOO games. Compare that to 23 Friday night games. You need your SOO games because your home and away game is miles behind in crowds and ratings

Our Friday night games show our top 14 clubs, which have around 400 players amongst them. Your SOO shows your top 30 players.

Try looking at the club ratings of our 8 games against your 9 . More than comparable. And then !

AFL is like the ugly kid sitting in the corner at the school dance, The one that nobody wants to dance with.

Thur/Fri night shows just 13 clubs.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Fred wrote:

I think when you have to include a marquee game to try and boost a better tv audience then you are struggling. I think rl home and away ratings also do not compare well witg the SoO ratings. Its like saying ratings are not good as they aee smaller than gf ratings?

What is it with you people. Its a Rugby League match = Rugby league match. 13 players and 4 reserves, it has the same rules as any other Rugby league match. It's the best players, in a way it's a bit like your Friday night matches - only the best players are allowed to play You people are so insecure, constantly trying to undermine this country's premier sporting event at every opportunity with your petty jealosys.

Heres an idea , if you people are so envious of its success why not try and have one - a successful one yourself!

utter BS

There are only 3 SOO games. Compare that to 23 Friday night games. You need your SOO games because your home and away game is miles behind in crowds and ratings

Our Friday night games show our top 14 clubs, which have around 400 players amongst them. Your SOO shows your top 30 players.

Try looking at the club ratings of our 8 games against your 9 . More than comparable. And then !

AFL is like the ugly kid sitting in the corner at the school dance, The one that nobody wants to dance with.

Thur/Fri night shows just 13 clubs.

your but but excuse about 13 clubs is hilarious. The NRL also rarely show their smaller clubs on FN. The Broncos, your largest club by far, dominate FN as they have done for years. Even when your bigger clubs are playing on FN they dont rate above the AFLs better rating games.

As for your rounds rating what ours do, weve discussed this ad nauseum. You have 8 isolated games per round, we only have around 1. Your games are shown in isolation because it helps ratings so dont go telling me its an excuse. Otherwise the NRL wouldnt do it.

And about ugly kids, the NRL drew 7k to the only game in Sydney last night. Could there be uglier than a homeland game drawing so few fans in a round with limited games?

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Fred wrote:

I think when you have to include a marquee game to try and boost a better tv audience then you are struggling. I think rl home and away ratings also do not compare well witg the SoO ratings. Its like saying ratings are not good as they aee smaller than gf ratings?

What is it with you people. Its a Rugby League match = Rugby league match. 13 players and 4 reserves, it has the same rules as any other Rugby league match. It's the best players, in a way it's a bit like your Friday night matches - only the best players are allowed to play You people are so insecure, constantly trying to undermine this country's premier sporting event at every opportunity with your petty jealosys.

Heres an idea , if you people are so envious of its success why not try and have one - a successful one yourself!

utter BS

There are only 3 SOO games. Compare that to 23 Friday night games. You need your SOO games because your home and away game is miles behind in crowds and ratings

Our Friday night games show our top 14 clubs, which have around 400 players amongst them. Your SOO shows your top 30 players.

Try looking at the club ratings of our 8 games against your 9 . More than comparable. And then !

AFL is like the ugly kid sitting in the corner at the school dance, The one that nobody wants to dance with.

Thur/Fri night shows just 13 clubs.

So why not also throw in the gf ratings when comparing? So everytime ratings for a game is mentioned you can say well our grand final will rate more.....

Again, marqee games such as grand finals etc are unique.

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Fred wrote:

I think when you have to include a marquee game to try and boost a better tv audience then you are struggling. I think rl home and away ratings also do not compare well witg the SoO ratings. Its like saying ratings are not good as they aee smaller than gf ratings?

What is it with you people. Its a Rugby League match = Rugby league match. 13 players and 4 reserves, it has the same rules as any other Rugby league match. It's the best players, in a way it's a bit like your Friday night matches - only the best players are allowed to play You people are so insecure, constantly trying to undermine this country's premier sporting event at every opportunity with your petty jealosys.

Heres an idea , if you people are so envious of its success why not try and have one - a successful one yourself!

utter BS

There are only 3 SOO games. Compare that to 23 Friday night games. You need your SOO games because your home and away game is miles behind in crowds and ratings

Our Friday night games show our top 14 clubs, which have around 400 players amongst them. Your SOO shows your top 30 players.

Try looking at the club ratings of our 8 games against your 9 . More than comparable. And then !

AFL is like the ugly kid sitting in the corner at the school dance, The one that nobody wants to dance with.

Thur/Fri night shows just 13 clubs.

your but but excuse about 13 clubs is hilarious. The NRL also rarely show their smaller clubs on FN. The Broncos, your largest club by far, dominate FN as they have done for years. Even when your bigger clubs are playing on FN they dont rate above the AFLs better rating games.

As for your rounds rating what ours do, weve discussed this ad nauseum. You have 8 isolated games per round, we only have around 1. Your games are shown in isolation because it helps ratings so dont go telling me its an excuse. Otherwise the NRL wouldnt do it.

And about ugly kids, the NRL drew 7k to the only game in Sydney last night. Could there be uglier than a homeland game drawing so few fans in a round with limited games?

Your the but but man with the but but excuses , Rugby League need no excuses why would they?

As far as your overlapping theory . The AFL chose to show individual matches into there own state because it gets them better ratings.

The AFL had the option of adding 2 new teams, I don't recall anyone putting a gun to there heads.

You have more matches yet we kick your but, but, but all the way home.


Back to crowds, the old safety blanket ours are up.

pussycat wrote:

Your the but but man with the but but excuses , Rugby League need no excuses why would they?

As far as your overlapping theory . The AFL chose to show individual matches into there own state because it gets them better ratings.

The AFL had the option of adding 2 new teams, I don't recall anyone putting a gun to there heads.

You have more matches yet we kick your but, but, but all the way home.


Back to crowds, the old safety blanket ours are up.

The AFL have LESS games per round because all but 1 are shown at the same time. If you think showing games at the same time increases ratings youre deluded beyond help. As for me resorting back to crowds, its in the thread title you moron! I discuss both crowds and ratings. All you discuss is SOO

Xman wrote:

pussycat wrote:

Your the but but man with the but but excuses , Rugby League need no excuses why would they?

As far as your overlapping theory . The AFL chose to show individual matches into there own state because it gets them better ratings.

The AFL had the option of adding 2 new teams, I don't recall anyone putting a gun to there heads.

You have more matches yet we kick your but, but, but all the way home.


Back to crowds, the old safety blanket ours are up.

The AFL have LESS games per round because all but 1 are shown at the same time. If you think showing games at the same time increases ratings youre deluded beyond help. As for me resorting back to crowds, its in the thread title you moron! I discuss both crowds and ratings. All you discuss is SOO

Xman I really can't understand how you can say the AFL have less games per round. The fact is they don't. They have 9 games and the NRL have 8. To say anything else is just an out and out lie.

Your overlapping games rubbish is just an excuse. The AFL and the broadcasters schedule games to maximise ratings, I mean, why would they do otherwise, as you suggest? If you're so hung up about the scheduling take up a petition to change it and send it off to the powers that be.

And just stop your incessant rantings and outright lying about the number of games per round, you're not fooling anyone!! Well, maybe you're fooling yourself, that would explain a lot.

Darren, showing two games at the same time splits your audience, it doesnt increase it. You want proof? Which game is the AFLs highest rating game for FTA and STV by far? Friday night, the only game shown in isolation, and the only game shown nationally. All other games are shown against other games and not nationally.

Mate, you have what is called a theory or opinion as to why the AFL lags behind the NRL in aggregate and average TV ratings. It is not a fact, it is not a certainty. And like all theories until it is tested it is just that, a theory.

So I would suggest you lobby the AFL and broadcasters to change the game scheduling to test your theory. Until that happens the raw numbers, the facts remain the same.