Talking Footy

Would you say Union is more popular in Australia that either code based on adding in South African ratings... Of course not.

Would you say the soccer is more popular this year by referring to the World Cup ratings across the world when the Aussies play?

Do the ratings for home and away in England make it the most popular show in Australia ? No

Meltdown..Waaaaaaa .Waaaaaaaaaaaa.

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Meltdown..Waaaaaaa .Waaaaaaaaaaaa.

Ha ha ha - no response again AFL Crap - Did Dave teach that response in the psych ward? Did he say - "hey, when they make a good point just say waaaaa waaaa waaaaa" They hate that and you look really clever.

And if that doesn't work put a picture up of a baby crying - I'm sure Dave has a substantial collection of these he could email you. Anyway - it's a good deflection from the actual topic.

The_Wookie wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

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

Maybe Dave, but theres also a distinct probably that the Average viewership will go down if more matches are available as people get more picky about which teams they watch when they have choice.

maybe

maybe not

Phelpsy wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Meltdown..Waaaaaaa .Waaaaaaaaaaaa.

Ha ha ha - no response again AFL Crap - Did Dave teach that response in the psych ward? Did he say - "hey, when they make a good point just say waaaaa waaaa waaaaa" They hate that and you look really clever.

And if that doesn't work put a picture up of a baby crying - I'm sure Dave has a substantial collection of these he could email you. Anyway - it's a good deflection from the actual topic.

:_<> :_<> :_<>

bubble boy chuckin a tanty
VFLcrap can't help it if you can't tell that 49.3 Million is more then 46.7 million dickhead :_<> :_<>

alight from your bubble every now & then & join us in the real world
you won't get hurt
promise

Phelpsy wrote:

Averages dave ... Look it up

totals dickhead
look it up

Pfffft .. We kick arse at both ...

You do realise how ratings worn don't you. ? lol or do you need me to lesson you on statistics.

Phelps eye you seem confused by the makeup/demographics of the NRL. Your analogies to World Cup soccer or international cricket does not correlate to the NRL position in NZ. In either the soccer or the cricket situation does Australian cricket/soccer control the situation. In the case of the NZ Warriors they hold a franchise licence at the approval of the NRL,they abide by its directions and draw. Their junior teams are also part of the NRL again at the approval of the NRL. The NRL are not just showing a few games in NZ because they like rugby league. They are in the NRL.

Again if the AFL crew want to define debate as only Australia then they are not competing with the NRL but only part of it.

Then the FFA are the same as the NRL ie they have a NZ market presence and support base. I cannot see how this changes the debate. Just because the AFL does not have a Formal NZ presence does not invalidate those codes that do. Everyone else is not determined by what the AFL does or does not do.

Sorry but another incorrect analogy as Australian Rugby does not control the NZ or SA franchises. This is a confederation of teams.

There seems to be a high level of ignorance within the AFL crew with regards the other football codes and how they are structured and what their markets are. Only the islands of Australia seem important.

AFL fans can do whatever they like but it seems a direct comparison with the NRL is not one of them. The NRL will likely put a second team into NZ and or PNG down the track and they won't count either I guess.

The absurdity of the AFL approach is shown by the fact that the NZ Warriors have twice made the NRL grand final but under AFL "rules" the tv ratings of the majority of their fan base would be ruled in eligible. These phantom supporters would remain in the shadows.

Good thing the NRL does.

So answer this, are you saying that rl is more popular in nz based on ratings from Australian viewers? Seriously ?

I can see a nz person saying, yeah but rl rates better than Union just look at these figures so is more popular ?

Typical pettiness and insecurity shown by the AFL and its mushroom suppoters. This topic has always been about NRL v AFL . So I guess this is somewhat of an admission coming from the AFL that they cant compete with the total NRL. Well guess what , The NRL, (despite there averages being dragged down by not having the Warriors home audience not being counted,) rate higher on FTA and on PTV. They have 4 of the top 5 highest rating football ( programs on Australian) TV (last year one, two and three) they also have around 7 of the top rating programs on PTV. ie.It's still A total arse kicking.