Talking Footy

pussycat wrote:

What ? ... the average boosted by the 2 hour delayed game after 10 O'clock. Are you serious?

Is'nt 49, 234( achieved from less matches) better than 46 754?

don't bother talking with ol adumb bum liar
its got pig poop for brains & never tells the truth


great table Wookie
RL winning
good to know ... that'll be 7 straight years

Dave, we are having a serious adult discussion with both sides raising points and counter points ... We don't need your made up facts and this discussion doesn't need name calling. How about you let the adults talk.



Of course I expect either a crying baby pic or a "how about you ....... Put in expletive.

You obviously are reading the wrong table dave

[quote="Phelpsy"

Re nz figures ... It depends on what you are using the figures for re what argument you are positing. If the argument is which is the most popular code in Australia .. Then no, nz figures should not be used. If you are arguing the nrl has an international reach, sure point to the nz ratings as proof. Same if you are arguing which is more popular across the two nations ... Fine. But as the nrls standing in aus .. Nz figures can't be used . Could you imagine a one day game Australia between India and Australia counting the Indian figures. Or rugby union people claiming ratings for South Africa to say ru is more popular in Australia ?[/quote]

It is a plain simple and straight forward argument , Learn to read ! NRL VS AFL - no bits no pieces, no segments no but but esexcuses , all
.

Your analogies are right up there with the stupidest fxxxxn analogy ive ever heard

Really, are you that dumb? Are you really dave? AFL is more popular in this country ... TV ratings in aus have AFL miles ahead. Does every year. Nrl rates more in Australia and nz combined ... Sure .. Have that argument ... Even then it stugles ... If you want to ask which rates better in Australia then you can't use nz figures.

Again by your argument ru would include ratings in South Africa

I thought it was about NRL versus AFL. We have this ongoing debate were the AFL crew only want to compare to the NRL based on what the AFL looks like so no representative football,no regional teams,no NZ etc. of course these various arguments mean handicapping the NRL to various degrees by removing their strengths from the debate.

In late breaking news NRL is not defined by the AFL. It has gone down a different course.

Phelpsy wrote:

Really, are you that dumb? Are you really dave? AFL is more popular in this country ... TV ratings in aus have AFL miles ahead. Does every year. Nrl rates more in Australia and nz combined ... Sure .. Have that argument ... Even then it stugles ... If you want to ask which rates better in Australia then you can't use nz figures.

Based on what? ??????????????????? get your head out the sand.

A live NRL FTA rates higher than a Live AFL game.

A n NRL game on Fox rates higher than an AFL game on Fox

The NRL have 4 matches that draw ratings of over 3.5m , the AFL have 1 (and last year it was 4th in the listy of 5)

All that without mentioning the other 5% or so that nz provides.

Maybe the TV ratings inside of your head have the AFL miles ahead But we live in the real world not your fantasy world.

Look at wookies table ... Stop being selective

And SOO isn't nrl it's rl but not an nrl game.

enarelle wrote:

I thought it was about NRL versus AFL. We have this ongoing debate were the AFL crew only want to compare to the NRL based on what the AFL looks like so no representative football,no regional teams,no NZ etc. of course these various arguments mean handicapping the NRL to various degrees by removing their strengths from the debate.

In late breaking news NRL is not defined by the AFL. It has gone down a different course.

Nope, happy to concede nrl have an international audience. But you can't claim that nrl rates more using nz figures to support an argument that it is therefor more popular than AFL.

Phelpsy wrote:

enarelle wrote:

I thought it was about NRL versus AFL. We have this ongoing debate were the AFL crew only want to compare to the NRL based on what the AFL looks like so no representative football,no regional teams,no NZ etc. of course these various arguments mean handicapping the NRL to various degrees by removing their strengths from the debate.

In late breaking news NRL is not defined by the AFL. It has gone down a different course.

Nope, happy to concede nrl have an international audience. But you can't claim that nrl rates more using nz figures to support an argument that it is therefor more popular than AFL.

The nrl has less games &

Less FTA games
Give us 9 more games overall &

22 more on FTA
& we have the most watched comp

&
Most watched code ( which we already have)

We dont need the kiwis dickwad
We are a more watched sport
End of

Averages dave ... Look it up

Well i am totally comfortable including NZ figures to say NRL is more popular than AFL because NZ is part of the NRL market. They have a franchise there is controlled by the NRL. They are a key market that the NRL made a decision to expand into. It will come down to whether the AFL crew have the fortitude to deal with the NRL not the bits they are comfortable with. The people who watch the Warriors play in NZ are part of the NRL market and viewing audience. They are not discarded because the AFL crew choose to.

Yep, if you want to say more popular in nz AND Australia that's a good argument. You see you need to say where. It's not that hard really.