Talking Footy

borgidiom wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Well the old continuing boring line now is. The Eels get more television supporters than the swans. Is this true? I think it probably is just dont know where to look it up. And if it true is then the Eels are more popular than the swans simply because more people are watching them. There's no arguing this really.

As I've said numerous times before, aussie rules as a sport is much more suited to viewing live at the ground. It is simply too big for television. The televised games are basically the reason there are so many nicnames for aussie rules like aerial ping pong and 'like a bunch of seagulls fighting over a chip'. It looks increwdibly messy and is just not that enjoyable on the tele. LEague on the other hand? Well the tv ratings tell the picture there. 4 games over 3 million to AFL's 1.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=23528#
I disagree, there is a big difference between watching something on TV and going to the game and parting with your hard earned cash to support your club. A real fan will pay to watch his team, where as a TV "viewer" is most likely just someone who cant afford to do anything better. A great example of this is when State of Origin the supposedly highest league event in the world lost in TV ratings to Master Chef. There is no way to prove that those 450,000 people watching are parra fans let alone league fans. Most likely just bored poor people.

Dear god, its another Beaussie! Borgy you make massive assumptions here and provide a very narrow perspective of what is a "real fan". Firstly a "real fan" will pay to watch his team eh? Ahh what about those living in regional areas or interstate who do not have the time or money to travel? Secondly you suggest the majority of those watching on tv are "most likely bored people". Ahh helllooooo earth to borgy? I think its time you jump out of your little AFL spaceship, stop reading Beaussie's trumpeting and take a reality check. People tune in to watch the games because they support the team, code and enjoy the game. Your "bored" argument is one of the flimsiest flaccid and foolish I've seen in here at TF. And I've read a lot of AFL 'Warrior', TLPG and Toppers posts!

Clearly you've hit a raw nerve with throwball fans by pointing out their lack of passion and commitment to their clubs borgidiom =D> =D>

King-Eliagh wrote:

borgidiom wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Well the old continuing boring line now is. The Eels get more television supporters than the swans. Is this true? I think it probably is just dont know where to look it up. And if it true is then the Eels are more popular than the swans simply because more people are watching them. There's no arguing this really.

As I've said numerous times before, aussie rules as a sport is much more suited to viewing live at the ground. It is simply too big for television. The televised games are basically the reason there are so many nicnames for aussie rules like aerial ping pong and 'like a bunch of seagulls fighting over a chip'. It looks increwdibly messy and is just not that enjoyable on the tele. LEague on the other hand? Well the tv ratings tell the picture there. 4 games over 3 million to AFL's 1.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=23528#
I disagree, there is a big difference between watching something on TV and going to the game and parting with your hard earned cash to support your club. A real fan will pay to watch his team, where as a TV "viewer" is most likely just someone who cant afford to do anything better. A great example of this is when State of Origin the supposedly highest league event in the world lost in TV ratings to Master Chef. There is no way to prove that those 450,000 people watching are parra fans let alone league fans. Most likely just bored poor people.

Dear god, its another Beaussie! Borgy you make massive assumptions here and provide a very narrow perspective of what is a "real fan". Firstly a "real fan" will pay to watch his team eh? Ahh what about those living in regional areas or interstate who do not have the time or money to travel? Secondly you suggest the majority of those watching on tv are "most likely bored people". Ahh helllooooo earth to borgy? I think its time you jump out of your little AFL spaceship, stop reading Beaussie's trumpeting and take a reality check. People tune in to watch the games because they support the team, code and enjoy the game. Your "bored" argument is one of the flimsiest flaccid and foolish I've seen in here at TF. And I've read a lot of AFL 'Warrior', TLPG and Toppers posts!

bored people ... who STILL .. prefer boredom to AFL

Clearly they don't dopey. How else do you explain the abysmal crowds in the NRL and even SoO. Embarrassing.

RL is boring compared to AFL, Raiderdave. How many times do RL teams score more than 50 points? Rarely. How many times do AFL teams score below 50 points? Not very often. Case proven.

Beaussie wrote:

Clearly they don't dopey. How else do you explain the abysmal crowds in the NRL and even SoO. Embarrassing.

boringanass or whateva his name is said the 450K who watched NRL in Sydney on TV are probably bored people

so
if only 45K watch AFL in Sydney
then 405K bored sydneysiders .. would prefer boredom ...... to AFL

& who could blame em

Topper wrote:

RL is boring compared to AFL, Raiderdave. How many times do RL teams score more than 50 points? Rarely. How many times do AFL teams score below 50 points? Not very often. Case proven.

unlike your game
our game has a bit more intensity then an U12's game of female netball

hence while yours is called giggleball

its a sh.its n giggles tickleathon fit for ladies recovering from a hysterectomy

ours is a sport played by men.

Topper wrote:

RL is boring compared to AFL, Raiderdave. How many times do RL teams score more than 50 points? Rarely. How many times do AFL teams score below 50 points? Not very often. Case proven.

Yep you're right, I guess that's why RL has spread to other countries while the mighty AFL is struggling to move up the hume highway because one is boring and the other is not.

Topper wrote:

RL is boring compared to AFL, Raiderdave. How many times do RL teams score more than 50 points? Rarely. How many times do AFL teams score below 50 points? Not very often. Case proven.

Hi TLPG :D

Yes I've heard him use this pathetic little argument many a time. Sheesh the AFL mob sure are having a shocker in this thread. First tv viewers watching rugby league are all bored and not fans of the code, and now its "AFL's better because they get more points"

Are we in kindergarten here?

Just woeful. Is sport all about getting lots of points now? So I guess several billion soccer fans worldwide are all "bored" too are they? There's things in sport called defense, strategy, skill, technique, athleticism, vision, speed, strength, agility, power, mental toughness, freakish incidents etc etc etc etc. All these are enjoyable to watch whether they are directly associated with "points" or not. Topper me laddie, give yourself an uppercut. Or even better make the statement again that "Rugby League is the biggest league in the world...It would be highly contentious to suggest that AFL is bigger than League"

No AFL people are not having a shocking time in this thread King-Bullshitartist. Why don't you focus on reality that you are a luaghing stock of the AFL supporters as well as a sell out. You claim to follow AFL but continue to attack the code. YOU are a real loser, but that is to be expected considering you have never played a game and are just that bludging undergraduate university feral who bludges off us taxpayers! And I bet you do not even know any Native people but act like the expert on them!

AFL as big as RL world wide aye tipper?

Come back when the AFL can get 2 clubs outside Australia playing in front of 90,000 locals.




Dork!

What the fck is that pic fool? It certainly is not an NRL crowd!

Derrr, you don't say flip.

It's a pic of a RL game in England played at the world famous Wembley stadium.

And it is NOT an NRL game you merkin!

Did I say NRL or RL fuckstique?