PDA

View Full Version : Football codes - what is the future?



Pages : [1] 2 3

chesslover
23-01-2004, 11:37 PM
The cricket season is drawing to a close, and the football season will soon be coming. The preseason Wizard Cup will start in AFL, and the Rugby League Sevens start here tommorrow.

There are 4 big football codes in Australia - Australian Rules, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Soccer.

Of these 4 codes, the most popular in terms of viewing audience and spectators in Australia are in order; Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer. Of these 4 codes the most popular WORLD WIDE are; Soccer (the most popular and participative sport by far in the planet), Union, League and AFL.

However in terms of male participation rates in Australia soccer has the most adherents, followed by AFL, and then League (just) over Union. Worldwide it is Soccer (by a huge margin), Union, League and AFL.

More importantly soccer is by far the most popular football sport that females participate in - and none of the other 3 football codes remotely approach the particpaton rates that soccer has over females in Australia and the World.

What does this mean for the future of the football codes in Australia and the World?

Of these 4 football sports, only Australian Rules was invented in Australia (1858), and it is played only in Australia. Australia is the entire focus of the game, and this is it's greatest as well as as it's weakest point. It does not have a market outside Australia, and there is no way an AFL superstar will earn more than a soccer star. However Aussie Rules is a true blue dinky di, aussie sport - and is the number 1 football code by far in terms of popularity and participation in Victoria, WA, SA, Tasmania, Northern Territory. Thanks to the success of the Brisbane Lions, Sydney Swans and Kangaroos, Aussie rules is now poised to challenge Union and League in Queensland, NSW and ACT respectively.

Soccer has never translated it's status as the most popular sport and most played sport on the planet to success in Australia. In Australia the ethnic clubs have prevented soccer from capitalising on it's status as the sport with the highest particpation rates amongst males (cricket is second), and the second highest participation rates amongs females (after netball). The new Frank Lowy reform of soccer, will ensure that SOccer, "the sleeping giant" of australia will awaken, and will be a BIG threat to the other 3 clubs. Soccer superstars in Australia get more money and endorsements world wide than any other sports, and if Australia makes the world cup, Soccer will challenge to be the premier sports in Australia - like it is in almost all countries in the world (with the notable exceptions being USA, Canada and New Zealand)

Union is the second most played football code in the world, and is flush with cash after the Union World Cup. This was the 3rd most watched sports event after the Soccer World Cup, and the Olympics, and flush with funds it is seeking to expand from it's bases outside NSW, Queensland and the ACT. The Super 12 system will be expanded to Super 14/15, and the addition of clubs in Melbourne/ Perth/ Adelaide will form a beachhead against the AFL support there. The international exposure, and Australia's position as a Union Superpower will attract more youngsters and league players to play Union over League

League essentially is played in 5 countries - here, New Zeland, Britain, France and PNG. In New Zealand it is dwarfed by Union, and in England and France by SOccer. Even in Australia,League has a popularity and particpation rate in NSW, Queensland and the ACT - all areas where it is under threat from Union and AFl and soon soccer. The expansion to Perth and Adelaide were failures, and despite expensive attempts to prop up the Melbourne Storm, the latter have not taken root in Victoria

What will happen to the football codes over the years? Most countries have one dominant football code (soccer), or two at the most - not 4 like we have here

1. Aussie Rules will carve a niche market, and will be played all over Australia, with it's popularity undimmed through it's status as "Australia's" game. This is similar to how "American Football" and "Canadian football" are the popular football codes in these 2 countries. However it will lose out to soccer and Union, which have a world wide market, and where geniuine international games and exposure can be obtained

2. Soccer will increase in popularity and media coverage, and the new soccer league in 2005 will be the start of a new era for soccer. Coupled with internatnational exposure, possible World cup qualification, and a non ethnic based professional league, Soccer will leverage it's mass particpation rates into viewer popularity

3. Union will grow in popularity, via the World Cup and the expansion of Super League. The enormous money, and the international exposure will make it attract more people in NSW, Queensland and ACT to Union than League. The best Union players will be paid more and get more endorsements than league players. Over time Union will expand significantly in terms of popularity and participation rates - and this will be mostly at the expense of Rugby League

4. League will decrease in popularity and particpation rates - not only in Australia but aroudn the world. It just does not have the international competitiveness and exposure that Union and Soccer has, and cannot maintain it's competitiveness in realtion to these two sports in attracting sponsorship and players and youngsters. It is currently just in the eastern states of Australia, North England, and Auckland areas of New Zealand, and is dying off in other parts due to Soccer and the growth in Union due to the immense dollars that Union can fund and underwrite through it's Rugby World Cup

Given that League broke away from Union in 1895, and League's rules can be modified back to Union easier than the other codes, there may eventually be a time when League gets absorded back into Union. The grand experiment of League will have failed - not just in Australia, but the world. The war that started in 1895 and 1908 in Australia will have failed. As a League supporter I can see the writing on the wall for my favourite football code

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 12:24 AM
I would rather watch gridiron than any of these.

(though whether gridiron is truly 'football" when they kick the thing so rarely could be questioned.)

ursogr8
24-01-2004, 02:22 PM
Soccer has never translated it's status as the most popular sport and most played sport on the planet to success in Australia. In Australia the ethnic clubs have prevented soccer from capitalising on it's status as the sport with the highest particpation rates amongst males



CL
This is just a theory of yours that ethnic Clubs account for Soccer not drawing the crowds regularly drawn by Australian Rules.
There are many other theories. Try this one >> only in Australia does Soccer have to compete with the crowd-pulling Australian Rules; once an Australian has seen and experienced the continual excitement of Australian Rules he/she has been spoilt for everything else. In other words it is just a straight product comparison; nothing ethnic about the cause at all.

starter

Garvinator
24-01-2004, 02:29 PM
also wouldnt have anything to do with a previous ineffective and poor management group, would it?

chesslover
24-01-2004, 05:05 PM
I would rather watch gridiron than any of these.

(though whether gridiron is truly 'football" when they kick the thing so rarely could be questioned.)

gridiron is football, and was invented in USA, just like Australian Rules was the australian form of football that was nvented in Australia. Canada also has a footballcode invented in canada, called canadian football...

I too like US football, and the specialisation in it. There is a seperate attack team, a seperate defend team, special teams that kick, special teams that return the ball, numerous coaches etc.

Compare that to League, AFL, Soccer or Union...

However the two main reasons that I prefer League to US Football, is that unless you can get Foxtel, you cannot watch these matches live, and to get coverage of these matches in Australia without that is very difficult. Since my partner will not let me "waste" my money on Foxtel, and free to air TV do not show NFL games, I cannto follow it rpound by round to the same extent I can League, AFL, Union or Soccer. Whilst there are US football leagues in Australia, they are very small in terms of partipation and popularlity and qulaity of play

The other thing I do not like US football, is the local factor. Having New England, carolina, Green Bay, San Francisco play just does not have the same emotional attachment as having Parramatta, SOuth Sydney, Canterbury play

chesslover
24-01-2004, 05:21 PM
Soccer has never translated it's status as the most popular sport and most played sport on the planet to success in Australia. In Australia the ethnic clubs have prevented soccer from capitalising on it's status as the sport with the highest particpation rates amongst males



CL
This is just a theory of yours that ethnic Clubs account for Soccer not drawing the crowds regularly drawn by Australian Rules.
There are many other theories. Try this one >> only in Australia does Soccer have to compete with the crowd-pulling Australian Rules; once an Australian has seen and experienced the continual excitement of Australian Rules he/she has been spoilt for everything else. In other words it is just a straight product comparison; nothing ethnic about the cause at all.

starter

1. Not true. It is generally agreed that it is the narrow ethnic base of the clubs that have prevented it becomning more acceptable to the mainstream australian community. Frank Lowy, the Crawford Commission into soccer that the Howard Government initiated, and most mainstream newspapers agree that soccer is well served by non ethnic inclusive all embracing clubs - rather than the ethinic clubs of toiday

When the NSL was set up in 1977, soccer was primarily played by ethnic communities, and it was no surprise that it was ethnic clubs that were the foundation members of the first national soccer league. Teams like Melbourne and Sydney United (for Croatians), South Melbourne and Sydney Olymoic (for greeks) as well as ethnic clubs for Macedonians, Italians (marconi stallions), Serbs, Jews were the norm. These excluded the mainstream australian community as time went on, a fact which was compounded with the VFL going national as teh AFL, and the NSWRL going national as the NRL and the Union going to national super 12 format.

Even today the majority of the existing NSL clubs are ethnic based, and
will not survive the start of the new revamped national soccer league next year as a result of the elimination of the NSL after this seasom and teh birth of a new 10 team professional non ethnic soccer club next year. Teams like Melbourne Knights (Croatians), South Melbourne (Greeks), Sydney United (Croatians), Marconi Stallions (Italians), Sydney Olympic (Greeks) are finished, and it is teams like Perth Glory, Adelaide United, Parramatte Power, Brisbane Strikers that will be in the new league. When that happens and the number 1 particpation rates of soccer is transalated into spectators and viewers, then AFL, Union and League will be in trouble...

2. You are a blind victorian :P

I have watched AFL games, Union games. Soccer games and League games, and prefer league by far. Afterwards I prefer Soccer. There is nothing special about Aussies Rules

Socccer is the most popular sport in the world and is played by more people than any other sports in the world. Even in Australia, more people play soccer than Aussie rules.

If Aussie rules was so good as you claim, it would be the most played sports in Australia, let alone in the world...In fact in NSW League is still king....for now

chesslover
24-01-2004, 05:30 PM
also wouldnt have anything to do with a previous ineffective and poor management group, would it?

True. The poor management has also contributed to the declinne of soccer relative to the other football codes in Australia

However this will all change now. Frank Lowy has taken over the Australian soccer scene now, and there is credible rumours that John O'Neil, who was repsonsible for the rise and rise of Rugby Union in Ayustralia and the World, will be the new CEO of the Australian Soccer.

There will also be a new revamped soccer national league, with the current NSL shut down after this season finishes, and a new Australian Premier League arising. It is intended that this league will have some of our overseas stars in Europe playing here

The new league will have 10 teams - 3 from Sydney, 2 from Melbourne, 1 from Adelaide, 1 from Brisbane, 1 from Perth, and the other 2 from New Zealand/ Regional cities. They will all not be ethnic based, and have to have mass appeal like Perth Glory, Adelaide United, parramatta power and the Northern Spirits. COmpare this to the pitiful league that we have now - 13 teams of which 5 are ethnic based, and 7 based in NSW!

Soccer is certainly on a upswing, and given the great popularity of it world wide, and the huge numbers palying it in Australia, it will only be a matter of time before the changes made result in Soccer repeating it's successes overseas here.

ursogr8
24-01-2004, 07:09 PM
Soccer has never translated it's status as the most popular sport and most played sport on the planet to success in Australia. In Australia the ethnic clubs have prevented soccer from capitalising on it's status as the sport with the highest particpation rates amongst males



CL
This is just a theory of yours that ethnic Clubs account for Soccer not drawing the crowds regularly drawn by Australian Rules.
There are many other theories. Try this one >> only in Australia does Soccer have to compete with the crowd-pulling Australian Rules; once an Australian has seen and experienced the continual excitement of Australian Rules he/she has been spoilt for everything else. In other words it is just a straight product comparison; nothing ethnic about the cause at all.

starter

1. Not true. It is generally agreed that it is the narrow ethnic base of the clubs that have prevented it becomning more acceptable to the mainstream australian community.


CL
Generally accepted I agree. Generally accepted by Soccer Australia.
But then, are they not proven second-runners to every one so far.





........When that happens and the number 1 particpation rates of soccer is transalated into spectators and viewers, then AFL, Union and League will be in trouble...


And my aunty will be my uncle.
And hell will have frozen over.






2. You are a blind victorian :P


No CL.
I am a crowded Victorian. Crowded in a game at Docklands stadium on a wet Saturday afternoon when just 1 game out of 6 for the week-end attracts 53,000 people. Every week.
Crowded at the MCG on a wet Anzac day when a single game attracts 92,000 mid-season.





There is nothing special about Aussies Rules



Nothing special CL?
Except the crowds it attracts.

Try this one on for size.
The largest every crowd in Ireland for any game whatsoever was an Ireland v Australia International Rules played in driving rain. 91,000 people watched the game.







Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and is played by more people

Agreed




than any other sports in the world.

Agreed




Even in Australia, more people play soccer than Aussie rules.

Agreed






If Aussie rules was so good as you claim, it would be the most played sports in Australia,


I didn’t claim it was the best participative sport CL. I said was the most spectated sport in Australia. Pay attention CL.

arosar
24-01-2004, 08:04 PM
Hey CL man. Try not to upset me Mexican mates over their footy OK? I don't much like Aussie Rules - mainly cos I just don't like the way the ball bounces - but I tell ya what, I go crazy whenever I watch the Swans. It's really quite an exciting sport.

Now you blokes check this out: http://www.usfooty.com/usfooty/

BLOODY BRILLIANT eh?

Btw, one thing I like about gridiron is the codes they use for their formations. If you like strategic planning and all that, you'll like gridiron.

AR

chesslover
24-01-2004, 09:44 PM
CL
Generally accepted I agree. Generally accepted by Soccer Australia.
But then, are they not proven second-runners to every one so far.





........When that happens and the number 1 particpation rates of soccer is transalated into spectators and viewers, then AFL, Union and League will be in trouble...


And my aunty will be my uncle.
And hell will have frozen over.

No CL.
I am a crowded Victorian. Crowded in a game at Docklands stadium on a wet Saturday afternoon when just 1 game out of 6 for the week-end attracts 53,000 people. Every week.
Crowded at the MCG on a wet Anzac day when a single game attracts 92,000 mid-season.





There is nothing special about Aussies Rules



Nothing special CL?
Except the crowds it attracts.







Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and is played by more people

Agreed




than any other sports in the world.

Agreed




Even in Australia, more people play soccer than Aussie rules.

Agreed






If Aussie rules was so good as you claim, it would be the most played sports in Australia,


I didn’t claim it was the best participative sport CL. I said was the most spectated sport in Australia. Pay attention CL.

1. Soccer Australia under Lowy will be reforming soccer, and setting up a new soccer league. This will change the way soccer is marketed, will enable professionals to play here, eliminate the ethnic team and enable mass supported clubs to play from next year - with ethnic clubs like Melbourne Knights. Sydney United, Sydney Olympic, marconi and South Melbourne all being eliminated. This will enable more mainstream support from australians for soccer clubs, and enable soccer to take advantage of the particpation rates soccer enjoys among males AND females in Australia, and convert that to speactator and media numbers.

Indeed one of the sad indictments on the previous soccer admins have been that soccer is the most popular sport played by australians, yet so few watch the game at the national league level.

This will all change, and in a couple of years starter, your aunty will become your uncle :P

2. Yes the AFL numbers are very very impressive. Only 2 Rugby League clubs averaged more than 20,000 attendence last year (Brisbane Bronocs and Newcastle) and 5 of the 15 national rugby league clubs averaged less than 10,000....

By contrast the AFL numbers and SUper 12 numbers have been very big

3. But you also have to wonder to what extent has Aussie Rules penatrated the non Aussie Rules heartland - NSW and Queensland

Whilst the Brisbane Lions and the Swans are going great, the viewer numbers and spectators soar, but when they are going bad, there is no dedication and loyalty like followers of Victorian/ SA/ WA clubs - and media viewers and spectator numbers suffer

4. I think that League will lose out in NSW, Queensland and ACT, not to Aussie Rules but eventually to Rugby Union. Already there is talk that League's greatest player, Andrew Johns, will defect to Union, and many youngsters are being tempted to Union by the Rugby World Cup, Super 12 and the huge money that Rugby Union now has

chesslover
24-01-2004, 09:53 PM
Hey CL man. Try not to upset me Mexican mates over their footy OK? I don't much like Aussie Rules - mainly cos I just don't like the way the ball bounces - but I tell ya what, I go crazy whenever I watch the Swans. It's really quite an exciting sport.

Now you blokes check this out: http://www.usfooty.com/usfooty/

BLOODY BRILLIANT eh?

Btw, one thing I like about gridiron is the codes they use for their formations. If you like strategic planning and all that, you'll like gridiron.

AR

there are 8 AFL international federations outside Australia - USA, Britian, Ireland, New Zealand, canada, Denmark, Nauru and Japan. Mind you these are all very weak, and the Sydney Swans second XI can beat them

I like gridiron, but due to the fact that I cannot watch and follwo them as easily as I can do League or AFL, I like League and AFL better than gridiron. Also the fact that the world's best Gridirons teams are in USA (with daylight second and third), whilst the only Aussie Rules competition in the world that matters is here as well as the fact that the best league comp in the world is the NRL, makes me like League (and Aussie Rules) more than Gridiron

If i was in USA, there would be no doubt that gridiron would be my favourite sport.

PHAT
27-01-2004, 10:06 AM
I wanted to vote for "ROLLERBALL".

chesslover
27-01-2004, 07:58 PM
what happend to the poll results?

seems to have been totally stuffed after the move to the new version of the BB? :confused: :confused:

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 08:06 PM
Give me what the poll options were, I can reset it for you if you want.

chesslover
27-01-2004, 08:56 PM
thanks Jeo

question was "what is your favourite football code"

options were

Rugby League
Rugby Union
Soccer - the "world sport"
Aussie Rules - the "Australian" sport
other

The latter was added, to satisfy difficult people like the Grand Poobah, who think that american football is their favourite code :p

ps - I notice not only this, but other polls in the BB all seem to have missing options in other threads as well

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 10:58 PM
Yeah sorry about that. It imported correctly the first time, this time all the data is scrambled.

Poll is fixed.

I voted League.

Alan Shore
02-02-2004, 07:08 AM
I vote for Aussie Rules, my absolute favourite sport to watch (and I played it for seven years too). The fast pace, exceptional ball handling skills, daring aerial leaps and kicking goals from places you wouldn't have thought possible are just some of the components that make it an exhilirating experience.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 02:30 PM
I vote for Aussie Rules, my absolute favourite sport to watch (and I played it for seven years too). The fast pace, exceptional ball handling skills, daring aerial leaps and kicking goals from places you wouldn't have thought possible are just some of the components that make it an exhilirating experience.

The major problem with Aussie rules, especially in relation to Soccer is that it has no market outside Australia. This means that it's salaries, world wide tv exposure and sponsorship market will always be limited when compared to Soccer and Union.

That is fine if AFL only wants to dominate football in Australia - but even that is not aussured. In the biggest market in Australia, Sydney, it is League that is the number 1 sport and the Union probably second.

Whilst Sydney Swans have attracted a lot of fans and coverage, you also need to wonder how many of these arepeople attracted by it's success, and are "geniuine" fans who love the game and will follow it through thick and thin.

Finally Union is flush with money after the World Cup and is looking to expand from NSW/ Queensland/ ACT. It can offer international exposure, a world cup and famr more money and salaries for it's elite players unlike Aussie rules. Soccer too is now reforming itself, and if it can take advantage of the fact that it is the number 1 sport played in australia, it will also soon begin to make inroads in Australia

chesslover
07-02-2004, 07:46 PM
John O'Neill, the man credited with making Rugby Union a powerfull force in Australia and the World, has been signed as the chief of Australian soccer, by Frank Lowy, the second richest man in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854064572.html

Without John O'Neill Union would not have had $45 million in the bank, had the most successful world cup or super 12, and also would not be in a strong position to challenge League in the only areas where it flourishes - NSW and Queensland

However John states that he was the Union chief, he feared soccer most - not league not Aussie Rules, and dreaded the day soccer got "it's act together".

With him in charge (with Lowy)watch the profile, popularity, fans and broadcast of soccer soar over the next 3 years

ursogr8
07-02-2004, 09:27 PM
John O'Neill, the man credited with making Rugby Union a powerfull force in Australia and the World, has been signed as the chief of Australian soccer, by Frank Lowy, the second richest man in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854064572.html

Without John O'Neill Union would not have had $45 million in the bank, had the most successful world cup or super 12, and also would not be in a strong position to challenge League in the only areas where it flourishes - NSW and Queensland

However John states that he was the Union chief, he feared soccer most - not league not Aussie Rules, and dreaded the day soccer got "it's act together".

With him in charge (with Lowy)watch the profile, popularity, fans and broadcast of soccer soar over the next 3 years

Cl

Who originally commented on Rugby and Soccer in the terms
"Love the sizzle, pity about the sausage"?

Says it all really.

starter

chesslover
07-02-2004, 09:44 PM
for you starter, see the odds for each club for winning the flag in 2004, for $1 bet

01 Brisbane $3.10
02 Port Adelaide $5.00
03 Collingwood $6.00
04 Adelaide $11.00
05 Essendon $12.00
06 Sydney $12.00
07 St Kilda $14.00
08 Fremantle $17.00
09 Hawthorn $12.00
10 West Coast $21.00
11 Kangaroos $41.00
12 Richmond $41.00
13 Geelong $61.00
14 Melbourne $91.00
15 Western Bulldogs $101.00
16 Carlton $131.00

Go the Swans....we are currently 6th in betting. Carlton for a once proud club is shocking

There are currently 16 clubs - 9 Melbourne, 1 Geelong, 1 NSW, 1 Brisbane, 2 SA, 2 WA

The only areas without local AFL clubs in Australia are Tasmania, ACT and NT. Given that 9 clubs in Melbourne is too much, why not do a South Melbourne and locate a melbourne club permanently in one of these 3 state/territory that has no AFL clubs

I know the Western Bulldogs play a couple of games in NT, the Kanagroos a couple of games in ACT and the Hawthorn and St Kilda a couple of games in Tasmania - but they are still Melbourne clubs playing about 80% of their games in Melbourne

I think letting tasmania, ACT and NT have their own clubs like NSW and Queensland would be great for the AFL and only help it capture the attention of all fans - and prepare for the inevitable show down against Soccer and to a lesser extent, Rugby Union and League which want to expand to Melbourne and WA/SA

chesslover
07-02-2004, 10:09 PM
This is the approx number of members each AFL club has got. It dwarves the number held by League and Soccer, and Union

Adelaide 46,366
West Coast 34,507
Port Adelaide 33,609
Collingwood 30,159
Essendon 27,500
Carlton 25,372
Fremantle 23,500
Hawthorn 21,000
Brisbane 20,587
Richmond 20,000
Sydney 19,783
Geelong 17,200
St Kilda 17,200
Melbourne 15,105
Kangaroos 13,000
Bulldogs 11,000

No wonder the 2 lowest member clubs are trying to respectively play in ACT and NT, and St Kilda is also weak in members and is trying to go play some matches in Tasmania

But unless these teams actually relocate, I think they will not be successful in winning over their "taget state"

The huge numbers that the interstate teams have got as members, is tribute to the vision to expand by the then VFL and become the AFL

ursogr8
08-02-2004, 07:06 AM
for you starter, see the odds for each club for winning the flag in 2004, for $1 bet

01 Brisbane $3.10
02 Port Adelaide $5.00
03 Collingwood $6.00
04 Adelaide $11.00
05 Essendon $12.00
06 Sydney $12.00
07 St Kilda $14.00
08 Fremantle $17.00
09 Hawthorn $12.00
10 West Coast $21.00
11 Kangaroos $41.00
12 Richmond $41.00
13 Geelong $61.00
14 Melbourne $91.00
15 Western Bulldogs $101.00
16 Carlton $131.00

Go the Swans....we are currently 6th in betting. Carlton for a once proud club is shocking




CL

Put the parish funds on 05 in your list above. When you win and are expanding your charitable tithe, put me on the list.

starter

Garvinator
08-02-2004, 10:24 AM
16 Carlton $131.00
Carlton for a once proud club is shocking
in my opinion carlton are underpriced at $131.00, so i wont be betting on the winning the premeirship at that price :hand:

Alan Shore
12-02-2004, 05:29 PM
Awwww... Carlton are the team I go for!! They'll be back... we still have the record for most premierships won, I'm sure it won't be long before we'll be adding to the tally again :)

chesslover
12-02-2004, 07:30 PM
Awwww... Carlton are the team I go for!! They'll be back... we still have the record for most premierships won, I'm sure it won't be long before we'll be adding to the tally again :)

not correct..sorry

carlton SHARE teh record for most AUSSIE RULES premiership with Essendon. When you consider that this includes VFL and AFL prmeiership, you may then need to include the premierships Port Adelaide won in the SAFL/ AFL, for consistency, in which case Pt Adelaide has won more primerships :p

Alan Shore
12-02-2004, 10:03 PM
While it is true both Carlton and Essendon essentially have won 16, it should be noted that in 1897 and 1924, Essendon did not gain its premierships by winning Grand Finals, but by winning a round robin finals competition during these years. With this in mind, Essendon's tally is reduced to 14, a number which some statisticians claim to be fitting. If you are of the grain that those be counted, then Carlton at the very least have the claim to =1st.

As for Port, you've got to be joking right? :confused:

chesslover
13-02-2004, 12:00 AM
While it is true both Carlton and Essendon essentially have won 16, it should be noted that in 1897 and 1924, Essendon did not gain its premierships by winning Grand Finals, but by winning a round robin finals competition during these years. With this in mind, Essendon's tally is reduced to 14, a number which some statisticians claim to be fitting. If you are of the grain that those be counted, then Carlton at the very least have the claim to =1st.

As for Port, you've got to be joking right? :confused:

HA HA HA!!! If there were any essendon supporters here they might bite!!

The OFFICIAL AFL records state that Essendon and Carlton have won a combined 16 VFL/AFL flags - so Essendon is at least equal to carlton.

However since essendon are more likely to win the flag than carlton in the immediate future, this record of carlton could exist no more. Also bear in mind that Collingwood have 14 and have been in 2 consecutive grand finals, so this means that they too could join Carlton and Essendon on 16 in the immediate future

Also you have to think about mergers as well - in the past there were Fitzroy/ Footscray merger proposals as well as Melbourne/ Hawthorn. If the latter merger happened the combined entitry would have had 21 premierships putting both carlton and Essendon well behind

chesslover
13-02-2004, 12:17 AM
As for Port, you've got to be joking right? :confused:

And as for Port Adelaide I am not joking

In Victoria, there was the VFA in 1877, which then gave birth to the VFL in 1897 when the stronger VFA clubs broke away to form the VFL. Note then that the premierships that these VFL clubs won in the VFA were not counted in the list of official premierships that these clubs have got.

Whilst Victoria had it's VFA and VFL, South Australia and West Australia had their own domestic state comp (just like the VFA and VFL). In the SAFL, which was the senior aussie rule comp in South Asutralia, Port Adeleaide dominated. SImilarly other clubs won in the WAFL in West Australia

The VFL was then one of 3 major independent domestic Aussie Rules comp - together with the SAFL and WAFL. The VFL was just 12 clubs - 11 in Melbourne and 1 in Geelong

In teh 80s the VFL decided that expanding the VFL nationwide was teh way of the future - in an environment where there was competition from a National Rugby league expansion in the quest for national broadcasting and sponsorship rights.

In 1982 VFL expanded from Victoria, when South Melbourne was relocated here and renamed the Sydney Swans. In 1987 the Brisbane bears came into being, and the WAFL commission decided to enter a team from the WAFL, called the West Coast eagles. The SAFL however refused to enter the VFL, as they felt that their competition was at least the equal of the VFL

It is interesting to note that with the entry of the West Coast eagles, and later the Fremantle Dockers, the WAFL has become basically a feeder competiton for these 2 WA clubs

In 1990 the VFL changed it's structure and name to become the AFL -with reps from all states, including WA and SA in it's commission. The AFL was thus a brand new national league that started in 1990. The VFL then became a second tier comp, basically acting as a feeder system to the Melbourne clubs.

In 1991 the SAFL put together a team from the SAFL, called the Adelaide Crows which played for the first time in the new AFL that year. Port Adelaide which has won more state premiership flags than any club (I think almost 30) then joined the AFL in mid 1990s following the merger of Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy. With this the SAFL comp basically became a feeder comp for the 2 SA sides in the AFL - the same role the WAFL and VFL had been reduced to

Thus there are 2 choices available in counting premierships

1.count only the prmierships since 1990 when the new AFL started

2. If you are then going to count the premierships won by the Victorian AFL clubs prior to the formation of the AFL, then it only makes sense that you count the premierships of the SA and WA clubs in the AFL prior to the formation of the AFL.In which case Port Adelaide has won the most premierships

Alan Shore
13-02-2004, 04:41 PM
The problem with your argument that the AFL encompasses all states is that the AFL evolved directly from the VFL - In 1990 the teams were identical to those playing in 1989. Statisticians use the data from the old VFL competition for determining figures - I can accept that, why can't you? I know that might well be nitpicking though, so I'm really not fussed about its importance (or lack of) to the argument.

But what I'd like to know, is how many clubs were in the SAFL? 30 Premierships would be very impressive in a competition of 16 teams, yet if the number is a paltry single digit figure, the number becomes far less impressive.

chesslover
13-02-2004, 04:50 PM
The problem with your argument that the AFL encompasses all states is that the AFL evolved directly from the VFL - In 1990 the teams were identical to those playing in 1989. Statisticians use the data from the old VFL competition for determining figures - I can accept that, why can't you? I know that might well be nitpicking though, so I'm really not fussed about its importance (or lack of) to the argument.

But what I'd like to know, is how many clubs were in the SAFL? 30 Premierships would be very impressive in a competition of 16 teams, yet if the number is a paltry single digit figure, the number becomes far less impressive.

I am not a SANFL follower, but I understand that there areabout 10/11 clubs there - not much different from teh 12 that the VFL had prior to expansion in 1987. In addition the SANFL started in 1877, 20 years before the VFL started in 1897. Also Port Adelaide won 36 premierships!!

If you are using the VFL became AFL arguement, remember that the VFL is still going on and is essentially the second tier comp for Victorian clubs, just like the SANFL is the second tier comp for Adelaide and Port Adelaide and teh WANFL for West Coast and Fremanle..

Another final point is that the VFA started in 1877, with clubs like carlton, essendon, kangaroos included. 1897 the stromg clubs broke away to form the VFL, and this included carlton, essendon etc

If so then why dont you include the VFA premierships that these clubs won, to the VFL/AFL totals?

If you do that then Essendon is the best Victorian club as it had won 4 VFA flags prior to 1897, compared to carlton's 2

Alan Shore
14-02-2004, 12:11 AM
Ah well there you go then.. thanks for the info. As far as shattering illusions go you've done admirably, but I'm still entitled to only count officiality and revel in my club's official success ;)

Go the Blues! (unless it's State of Origin, in which case, Go the Maroons!)

Paul S
19-02-2004, 01:04 PM
Quite an interesting thread. So, FWIW, here are some of my thoughts on the different football codes.

For many years (1972 to 1994), I used to be very keen on the rugby league and attended around 8 or 9 Bulldogs matches a year (for the benefit of you Vics, that's Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and not Footscray/Western Bulldogs!). However at the start of 1995 we had 1) Murdoch's interference (ARL vs Superleague feud), 2) my club changed its name from Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs to Sydney Bulldogs (and eventually to just Bulldogs - sole identity is now just an animal!) and 3) the Bulldogs moved from their home of 60 years (Belmore) to Parramatta (outside the Canterbury-Bankstown district). Due to this (and other reasons) I have not attended a Bulldogs match for almost 10 years (September 1994), although I still have a "soft spot" for the Bulldogs.

I occasionally watch rugby league on TV, but the passion is no longer there (what has taken place over the last 10 years has put paid to that!). A complete mockery of supporters' emotions has taken place with clubs merging (and de-merging!), clubs relocating and clubs changing their name (identity). Imagine being, say a Norths supporter and cheering loudly for Norths in their games against local rivals Manly and then you wake up one day and find Norths and Manly are the same club! What a waste of time attending all those Norths versus Manly games! The same could be said of Wests Tigers (Wests and Balmain).

Probably the worst aspect of what has taken place in recent years was the disgraceful axing of South Sydney (although they have since been re-instated), the club with more history and tradition than any other (three cheers for George Piggins!).

Australian soccer has been disgracefully administered over many years. If soccer was run properly it would be Australia's number one sport. Unlike with rugby league where clubs were (originally) based on their local area, many of Australia's top club soccer teams over the years have been ethnically based, making it hard for people not of a particular national origin to identify with their local team. For instance, Sydney Olympic is probably my local club soccer team, but as I have no Greek heritage I don't feel as though I "belong" there and so have no interest in following Sydney Olympic. I'm sure this has a lot to do with why Australian club soccer crowds are so low. Also the idiotic decision to make soccer a summer sport in Australia leaves a lot to be desired.

I'll admit I don't know much about Aussie Rules, although I occasionally watch it on TV. I saw a Sydney Swans game a few years ago which I found quite interesting (Aussie Rules is a game best seen live than on TV, due to all the player movements that take place off the ball which TV can't capture).

Ever since it turned professional in 1995, Rugby Union seems to be going from strength to strength. OK, Union is less free flowing than League, but it reminds me more off chess than any of the other 4 football codes in that there is a lot of tactics involved.

Each of the four football codes (League, Union, soccer and Aussie Rules) have their good and bad points as far as spectating is concerned. To me none of the four "stand out" as being better than the others (as far as spectating is concerned).

So, in conclusion, here is what I think should happen in an “ideal world” as regards Australia’s 4 main football codes and Australia’s interests are concerned!

Firstly, though, a dishonourable mention should be made of the Australian sports media who are heavily biassed towards League and Aussie Rules at the expense of Soccer and Rugby Union.

We should get rid of Rugby League and Aussie Rules!!! The “international” part of Aussie Rules amounts to a once a year series against Ireland in a hybrid Aussie Rules and Gaelic Football game. The “international” part of Rugby League consists of “Australia” (in reality NSW and Qld), “Great Britain” (in reality the north of England), “France” (in reality a couple of provinces in the south of France), NZ and PNG. Australia should concentrate fully on Soccer (the TRUE international game) and Rugby Union (while not as popular worldwide as Soccer it is nonetheless a truly international game, unlike Rugby League). Australia’s best sporting talent is being wasted on Rugby League and Aussie Rules. Given Australia’s climate (and, more importantly its sporting culture), I have no doubt that Australia would be on a par with Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy etc in soccer if its best sporting talent was not wasted on League and Aussie Rules (and if the Soccer Administration was competent!). Similarly I also have no doubt that Australia would be number one in Rugby Union if its best sporting talent was not wasted on League and Aussie Rules.

ursogr8
19-02-2004, 01:45 PM
Each of the four football codes (League, Union, soccer and Aussie Rules) have their good and bad points as far as spectating is concerned. To me none of the four "stand out" as being better than the others (as far as spectating is concerned).



Hey Paul,

How can you say there is no stand-out on the spectating side after having read posts #8 (and #3)?
Do you want me to get CL to research and report using his wonderful sources of statistics.

Average weekly statistics for Aussie Rules are a stand-out (covering Brisbane, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, as well as Melbourne). Why do people go to Aussie Rules in huge numbers if it is not because it is the stand-out to watch?

starter

Paul S
19-02-2004, 02:02 PM
Hey Paul,

How can you say there is no stand-out on the spectating side after having read posts #8 (and #3)?
Do you want me to get CL to research and report using his wonderful sources of statistics.

Average weekly statistics for Aussie Rules are a stand-out (covering Brisbane, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, as well as Melbourne). Why do people go to Aussie Rules in huge numbers if it is not because it is the stand-out to watch?

starter

Yes, I have read posts 3 and 8 in this thread! What I was referring to in my post was my opinion and not actual crowd numbers at games.

I would suggest that a lot of the reason that attendances are high at AFL games is due to the fact (well, based on my experience anyway, as I mentioned in my post) that AFL is a game that is best seen live rather than on TV. Also don't forget the bias of sports reporters toward AFL and League as mentioned in my post.

Regardless of how many people turn up to watch AFL games, I think that AFL (and Rugby League) is a waste of Australia's best sporting talent for reasons mentioned in my earlier post in this thread.

ursogr8
19-02-2004, 02:58 PM
Yes, I have read posts 3 and 8 in this thread! What I was referring to in my post was my opinion and not actual crowd numbers at games.

I would suggest that a lot of the reason that attendances are high at AFL games is due to the fact (well, based on my experience anyway, as I mentioned in my post) that AFL is a game that is best seen live rather than on TV. Also don't forget the bias of sports reporters toward AFL and League as mentioned in my post.

Regardless of how many people turn up to watch AFL games, I think that AFL (and Rugby League) is a waste of Australia's best sporting talent for reasons mentioned in my earlier post in this thread.

Paul S.

You take some convincing.
What do you reckon is the average crowd figure for Aussie Rules and similar for League?
ChessLover; do you have access to these?

And isn't bias just a reflection of where the populations interests lie? People buy papers because they are interested in Aussie Rules, thus the reporters write stories on Aussie Rules. Hard to call this bias; I think you have the wrong cause-and-effect.

starter

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2004, 04:54 PM
Why do people go to Aussie Rules in huge numbers if it is not because it is the stand-out to watch?

Why do people buy Delta Goodrem records? And how many people watch soccer worldwide compared with Aussie Rules?

Alan Shore
19-02-2004, 05:30 PM
Why do people buy Delta Goodrem records?

You wouldn't be knocking Delta now would you Kev? :eh:


And how many people watch soccer worldwide compared with Aussie Rules?

Because.. they're patzers. But really I think because of lack of exposure of the game. I watched the last 'International Rules' series between Australia and Ireland and it just wasn't the same.. soccer is so big because it is everywhere and people are brought up to be soccer fanatics in so many countries.. but when given the choice (in Australia) it's no wonder soccer is so unpopular, because we'd much rather be watching Aussie Rules!! :)

ursogr8
19-02-2004, 06:51 PM
Why do people buy Delta Goodrem records? And how many people watch soccer worldwide compared with Aussie Rules?

You wait weeks for Kevin to bowl two long hops down the leg-side in the one over, and he does it while I am on the train on the way home. Bruce has already hit the second over the fence...how easy was that Bruce; a long hop at Shane Warne pace.

That only leaves me the first. Should I hit a 4 or a 6?
Kev, 300,000+ attend Aussie Rules most week-ends. Delta is not even close as an analogy.

starter

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2004, 08:27 PM
That only leaves me the first. Should I hit a 4 or a 6?

Hit what you like, it's still out when you tread on your wicket.


Kev, 300,000+ attend Aussie Rules most week-ends. Delta is not even close as an analogy.

You are comparing the general to the specific. Ms Goodrem is but one example of a kind of aural wallpaper that is extremely commercially successful in this country. And in any case, my point was not about absolute support levels, it was about how relative support levels in particular fields do not prove quality.

Bruce's point about market exposure may or may not be right, I'm not sure. I personally find soccer rather dull, largely because it is so low-scoring, but I think the biggest problems soccer would have with market exposure in Australia are (i) Australians expect their team to be world contenders; a sport which no one else can really play at all is even better (ii) soccer is still widely seen as a "wog sport".

eclectic
19-02-2004, 09:13 PM
I was just looking at the poll options and I'm trying to work out if, logically, this is the case:

As Delta Goodrem is to Aussie Rules so Janet Jackson is to Udder, er, Other.

Which football code does suffer the most from having too much "exposure" ?

eclectic

ursogr8
20-02-2004, 07:02 AM
Hit what you like, it's still out when you tread on your wicket.
You are comparing the general to the specific. Ms Goodrem is but one example of a kind of aural wallpaper that is extremely commercially successful in this country.



It was your analogy, not mine. If it is inappropriate then I guess it was a no-ball and a long-hop. :)




And in any case, my point was not about absolute support levels, it was about how relative support levels in particular fields do not prove quality.



The discussion has not been about quality, but rather, superior entertainment. :confused:
So in the absence of any other explaining factors, the 4 codes all have an equal chance of drawing crowds in Aus., and in fact the one that does draw crowds week-in/week-out is Aussie Rules. (And 'alternative explaining factors' does not include PaulS.'s easily refuted
* the newspapers make us do it, and
** the ethnic effect).

Relative support is a legit.measure of entertainment value. Quality is something different, and probably is not a concept that is sensibly applicable to the rough-and-table of any of the 6 or 7 football codes. :)





Bruce's point about market exposure may or may not be right, I'm not sure. I personally find soccer rather dull, largely because it is so low-scoring, but I think the biggest problems soccer would have with market exposure in Australia are (i) Australians expect their team to be world contenders; a sport which no one else can really play at all is even better (ii) soccer is still widely seen as a "wog sport".



Bruce gave you the reason ‘but when given the choice (in Australia) it's no wonder soccer is so unpopular, because we'd much rather be watching Aussie Rules!! ‘ :hand:



Hit what you like, it's still out when you tread on your wicket.



Not off a no-ball long-hop. :clap:

starter

Rincewind
20-02-2004, 09:30 AM
Relative support is a legit.measure of entertainment value. Quality is something different, and probably is not a concept that is sensibly applicable to the rough-and-table of any of the 6 or 7 football codes. :)

If you measure "entertainment value" by popularity then it is only by defining the first as the second and then your argument is circular. By using the term "value" I think you are implying something more, which cannot be measured by head-count. That is a classic argumentum ad populum.

ursogr8
20-02-2004, 10:59 AM
If you measure "entertainment value" by popularity then it is only by defining the first as the second and then your argument is circular. By using the term "value" I think you are implying something more, which cannot be measured by head-count.


Well it looks like my slog off Kevin's no-ball long-hop has been caught by a man in the outer. Still counts for 6 and not out, Baz.

starter

ps

That is a classic argumentum ad populum.


Mind your language Barry; there are juniors who read this board. :eek:

Where is there a moderator when you need one? ;)

pps

It is about time that you and Kevin started to barrack for Australian culture. I regard Paul S (who says he is an 'internationalist'), as a lost cause.

And to finish, here is a little homework for you. The word 'egalitarianism' can only be associated with one code of football in Australia. Please identify. :hmm:

Rincewind
20-02-2004, 12:41 PM
And to finish, here is a little homework for you. The word 'egalitarianism' can only be associated with one code of football in Australia. Please identify. :hmm:

Soccer is the only one that hasn't been corrupted by money. At least, not in this country. ;)

For the record, "Aussie" rules should be called "Victorian" rules and is regarded as little more than a curiosity in NSW and Qld. :eek:

ursogr8
20-02-2004, 02:10 PM
Soccer is the only one that hasn't been corrupted by money. At least, not in this country. ;)


I can recall an interview with Harry Kewell on the (Victorian) Footy Show when he was asked by Garry Lyon about (Kewell's) large earnings "Harry, what can you do with 80,000 quid a week?"

Harry replied in genuine surprise, "What can't you do with 80,000 quid a week". :eek: :eek:

Just a question for you Baz, where were Viduka and Harry K yesterday? I bet they were not looking for
http://sushiref.com/listings/sa/vnzla/

The only way you could argue Kewell and Vudaka are not corrupted by money, is to stipulate Australian money. :uhoh:




For the record, "Aussie" rules should be called "Victorian" rules and is regarded as little more than a curiosity in NSW and Qld. :eek:


If would help you Baz we would rename it Woolly Rules, if that would invoke a bit of support from you. It has a gong to it. :)

As for crowds
I dialled at random into the Brisbane Broncos web-site and found crowds of 13,613 and ‘Broncos vs. Newcastle record crown of 37 166’.
Contrast this with the last two Brisbane Lions home matches sell-outs to capacity at 37,000 each. Must be a lot of curious people. :hmm:

starter

Rincewind
20-02-2004, 03:03 PM
The only way you could argue Kewell and Vudaka are not corrupted by money, is to stipulate Australian money. :uhoh:

I thought I already did! (Read my post again).


As for crowds
I dialled at random into the Brisbane Broncos web-site and found crowds of 13,613 and ‘Broncos vs. Newcastle record crown of 37 166’.
Contrast this with the last two Brisbane Lions home matches sell-outs to capacity at 37,000 each. Must be a lot of curious people. :hmm:

This can be accounted for by large numbers of expatriate Victorians in the northern states. A more interesting area of study would be interstate migration patterns over the last 20 years. ;)

arosar
20-02-2004, 03:09 PM
Look, I personally don't mind aussie rules. Hec, everytime I watch the hopeless Swans I nearly get a bloody cardiac arrest. I must admit it really is an exiciting sport. In the wide world of sports, though, it is practically irrelevant. What's the point if you can't compete with other countries? I mean, let's not be like 'em yanks who call themselves world champs in baseball and they only play amongst themselves the <deleted>! They won't play against the Cubans, for example, cos they know them commies will whoop their <deleted> mate.

And what's that comment above about League being better than Union? <deleted>! League is <deleted>. It's stop-start. Stop-start. Stop-start. There's no idea in league, no plan, no strategy. Even gridiron is better than league. I reckon aussie rules, if they can keep up their momentum, will eventually kill off league in NSW and QLD. Aussies are very parochial people and aussie rules is best for a <deleted> against each other, ya see.

AR

ursogr8
20-02-2004, 03:22 PM
I thought I already did! (Read my post again).



This can be accounted for by large numbers of expatriate Victorians in the northern states. A more interesting area of study would be interstate migration patterns over the last 20 years. ;)

Baz

1 There are two ways to read your post. My point was that HK and MV have been seduced by available money and will not turnout for Aus. To me this meant Aus. soccer has been corrupted.
2 We know there has been steady migration south to north starting with Joh's removal of death duties in that State.
But what has that got to do with low crowds at the Rugby (routine w/e games) in Brisbane?

starter

chesslover
20-02-2004, 05:23 PM
Quite an interesting thread. So, FWIW, here are some of my thoughts on the different football codes.

For many years (1972 to 1994), I used to be very keen on the rugby league and attended around 8 or 9 Bulldogs matches a year (for the benefit of you Vics, that's Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and not Footscray/Western Bulldogs!). However at the start of 1995 we had 1) Murdoch's interference (ARL vs Superleague feud), 2) my club changed its name from Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs to Sydney Bulldogs (and eventually to just Bulldogs - sole identity is now just an animal!) and 3) the Bulldogs moved from their home of 60 years (Belmore) to Parramatta (outside the Canterbury-Bankstown district). Due to this (and other reasons) I have not attended a Bulldogs match for almost 10 years (September 1994), although I still have a "soft spot" for the Bulldogs.

I occasionally watch rugby league on TV, but the passion is no longer there (what has taken place over the last 10 years has put paid to that!). A complete mockery of supporters' emotions has taken place with clubs merging (and de-merging!), clubs relocating and clubs changing their name (identity).

Probably the worst aspect of what has taken place in recent years was the disgraceful axing of South Sydney (although they have since been re-instated), the club with more history and tradition than any other (three cheers for George Piggins!).

Australian soccer has been disgracefully administered over many years. If soccer was run properly it would be Australia's number one sport. Unlike with rugby league where clubs were (originally) based on their local area, many of Australia's top club soccer teams over the years have been ethnically based, making it hard for people not of a particular national origin to identify with their local team. For instance, Sydney Olympic is probably my local club soccer team, but as I have no Greek heritage I don't feel as though I "belong" there and so have no interest in following Sydney Olympic. I'm sure this has a lot to do with why Australian club soccer crowds are so low. Also the idiotic decision to make soccer a summer sport in Australia leaves a lot to be desired.

I'll admit I don't know much about Aussie Rules, although I occasionally watch it on TV. I saw a Sydney Swans game a few years ago which I found quite interesting (Aussie Rules is a game best seen live than on TV, due to all the player movements that take place off the ball which TV can't capture).

Ever since it turned professional in 1995, Rugby Union seems to be going from strength to strength. OK, Union is less free flowing than League, but it reminds me more off chess than any of the other 4 football codes in that there is a lot of tactics involved.

Each of the four football codes (League, Union, soccer and Aussie Rules) have their good and bad points as far as spectating is concerned. To me none of the four "stand out" as being better than the others (as far as spectating is concerned).

So, in conclusion, here is what I think should happen in an “ideal world” as regards Australia’s 4 main football codes and Australia’s interests are concerned!

Firstly, though, a dishonourable mention should be made of the Australian sports media who are heavily biassed towards League and Aussie Rules at the expense of Soccer and Rugby Union.

We should get rid of Rugby League and Aussie Rules!!! The “international” part of Aussie Rules amounts to a once a year series against Ireland in a hybrid Aussie Rules and Gaelic Football game. The “international” part of Rugby League consists of “Australia” (in reality NSW and Qld), “Great Britain” (in reality the north of England), “France” (in reality a couple of provinces in the south of France), NZ and PNG. Australia should concentrate fully on Soccer (the TRUE international game) and Rugby Union (while not as popular worldwide as Soccer it is nonetheless a truly international game, unlike Rugby League). Australia’s best sporting talent is being wasted on Rugby League and Aussie Rules. Given Australia’s climate (and, more importantly its sporting culture), I have no doubt that Australia would be on a par with Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy etc in soccer if its best sporting talent was not wasted on League and Aussie Rules (and if the Soccer Administration was competent!). Similarly I also have no doubt that Australia would be number one in Rugby Union if its best sporting talent was not wasted on League and Aussie Rules.

1. PaulS, very good and thoughful posts. I agree with most of what you state

2. I too do not like going to Soccer, as unlike AFL and League, the teams are "ethnic" and you do feel that you belong. My "local" soccer team is the Marconi Stallions, but unless you are Italian, you do not feel that you belong - unlike as a Sydney Swans or South Sydney fan.

That is why I think that the new non ethnic soccer league will be good. From July there will be a new national soccer league - with 3 teams from Sydney, 2 from melbourne, 1 each from WA, SA, Queensland, NZ and 1 from a regional centre

3. But I think summer soccer is good - as this means that soccer only clashes with cricket. If it is in winter, soccer will clash with League, AFL and Union, and be drowned out in all states


4. Of all the sports I like league the best, but I think the ARL-SUper League was very very bad for Rugby League and it is only now that we are recovering.

in regards to merging and relocation and Non-Sydney teams; I think that League needs to recognise that it is facing genuine national competion in the AFL and Soccer, and international competition in the form of Soccer and Union

We need to expand the League comp - otherwise we will only be in Sydney and die slowly.Now we have teams in Brisbane, Nth Queensland, Newcastle, canberra, Melbourne and New Zealand. Thsi means that we have a lot of the national market and sposnorships and cxan keep the game of League alive.

Otherwise Union which we broke away from will swallow us up,as they are fully cashed up and can offer League players International exposure and sponsorship and increased $$.

5. In regards to the future;

yes agree with your view about soccer. It is the most popular and most played and participated sport on earth, and except for a handful of countries is the number 1 sport in the world. Even in australia more people play soccer non professionally than any other sports - including a lot of females

I however think that the Aussies Rules should be here. It si the only sport invented in Australia, and is truely the "Australian SPort". No other country plays it, and it will always be "our" sport. The popularity of Aussie Rules continues to rise, and the only 2 non traditional Aussie Rules States are NSW and Queensland. In the latter the 3 primerships in a row by the Brisbane Lions has resulted in Aussie Rules challenging League as the number 1 sport there. Even in NSW whenever the Swans are in fine form and are a threat to the primerships, the crowds and interest from Sydney fans ensure that it firmly takes the mantle of NSW number 2 sport

As for League, it is probably the sport most under threat here and internationally. Union after going professional threatens to kill off League allover the world, as League like you pointed out, is only in NSW/Queensland and North England.In NZ, PNG and France it is being slowly wiped out by Union (and Soccer), and even in North England, Soccer is far more popular than League. Even in Australia, League is just in NSW, Nth Queensland and Brisbane (where it is fighting against the enormous popularity of the Brisbane Lions), Canberra (where it is fighting a losing battle against the Union Brumbies, and the Kangaroos), New Zeland (where it is fighting a losing battle against Union) and Melbourne (where enormous millions are needed to make sure that the Melbourne survives in the Aussie Rules heartland). Were it not for the support of Murdoch and News Ltd, League would die in Melbourne and New Zeland, and North England. Starved of these outposts, league will slowly withdraw to it's NSW and Queensland heartland, losing Nth Quuensland/ Brisbane to Union and AFL, losing Canberra to Union and Kanagaroos - till it is is just the Sydney clubs and Newcastle left. The small comp will not be enought to sustain the sposnsorship that Union and a national comp like teh AFl will be getting, and very soon league will have to merge back with Union or die

Thus internationally it will be Soccer very very far ahead, then daylight, and only then sports like Union,basketball, volleyball, cricket etc. After that a long way off will be League and then at teh bottom sports like Aussie Rules

In Australia it is now AFL, League, Union and Soccer. But soon it will be Aussie Rules, Soccer, Union and League - with League being the biggest loser and Union and SOccer being the biggest winners

chesslover
20-02-2004, 05:38 PM
Look, I personally don't mind aussie rules. Hec, everytime I watch the hopeless Swans I nearly get a bloody cardiac arrest. I must admit it really is an exiciting sport. In the wide world of sports, though, it is practically irrelevant. What's the point if you can't compete with other countries? I mean, let's not be like 'em yanks who call themselves world champs in baseball and they only play amongst themselves the <deleted>! They won't play against the Cubans, for example, cos they know them commies will whoop their <deleted> mate.

And what's that comment above about League being better than Union? <deleted>! League is <deleted>. It's stop-start. Stop-start. Stop-start. There's no idea in league, no plan, no strategy. Even gridiron is better than league. I reckon aussie rules, if they can keep up their momentum, will eventually kill off league in NSW and QLD. Aussies are very parochial people and aussie rules is best for a <deleted> against each other, ya see.

AR

1.I agree with you inregards to teh future of League. League is the number 1 sport in just 3 geographical areas - NSW, Queensland, North England and a major sport in another 3 geographical areas - New Zealand, Canberra and PNG.

In NZ, it is in danger of being wiped out by Union, which is why the survival and prospering of the NZ warriors is so important for League. In Canberra,the Union Brumbies and the AFL kanagroos have a bigger average home crowds than the canberra raiders, whilst in PNG it is Union that also threatens to kill League off.

League tried to launch beachheads into AFL territories - the Perth, SA and now Melbourne Knights. In the first two cases we comphrehensivelty lost to AFL and the WA and SA League clubs folded. In Melbourne the Knights are there, and it is vital that they stay and propser agaiunst AFL enemity, as otherwise League will lose all pretentions of a national rugby league comp and be reduced to NSW, Queensland and ACT - with severe implications for sposnorship, broadcasting exposure and player salaries.

Even in the 3 areas where League is number 1, we are losing the battle to Soccer in North England, and the English world cup win is also a blow to the League. The "world club" championship held in North England between Bradford and Penrith was only watched by 18.000 fans - a miserable result. In Queensland the Brisbane Lions are overtaking the League, as will the Union Queensland reds Super 12 team if they ever beome successful in the field.

I think in the end League will merge back with Union

2. Yes, I agree that the biggest problem with AFL is it's biggest strength as well - it is only played in Australia. You cannot represent the country in the world like you can with Soccer, Union and to a far lesser extent League 9where you still can play competitive international matches with New Zealand and England). "International Rules" is the pathetic way that teh AFL can come up with to say they are plkaying "international" Aussie Rules!! :lol:

JGB
20-02-2004, 09:49 PM
I think the future of Football (all codes) looks more promising than chess in Aus at the moment!

Alan Shore
21-02-2004, 12:13 AM
For the record, "Aussie" rules should be called "Victorian" rules and is regarded as little more than a curiosity in NSW and Qld. :eek:

Excuse me son, but I believe it's been the Brisbane Lions who have won the last three AFL Premierships - club membership exceeds 20,000 and the home games are almost a guaranteed sellout. As for the Swans, thanks to their remarkable season last year under Paul Roos, the SCG venue became too small to hold the fans, with their last game at Telstra Stadium seeing over 70,000 pack the seats to watch. :hand:

And even you should know, although I know QLD is the best and everyone is moving up here, your migration explanation can only be seen as a joke :)

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2004, 12:33 AM
It was your analogy, not mine. If it is inappropriate then I guess it was a no-ball and a long-hop. :)

It was meant to illustrate a general principle, and it does. If I need to re-word it to replace "Delta Goodrem" with the generic scene of mainstream Aus pop then so be it.


The discussion has not been about quality, but rather, superior entertainment. :confused:

Delta Goodrem is not superior entertainment either. :lol:
My point is that high audience numbers do not necessarily equate to something having innately superior crowd-drawing features for the future. If they are not due to "quality" or "superior entertainment" (which in sport are rather closer to the same thing than in something like music) then they may just be down to social factors.

That said, if I had to, I'd probably watch Aussie Rules on TV rather than the other main Australian codes. Aussie Rules is dynamic, fast-flowing and physically spectacular, although the random element of the high turnover rate doesn't appeal to me at all.


So in the absence of any other explaining factors, the 4 codes all have an equal chance of drawing crowds in Aus., and in fact the one that does draw crowds week-in/week-out is Aussie Rules. (And 'alternative explaining factors' does not include PaulS.'s easily refuted
* the newspapers make us do it, and
** the ethnic effect).

These are easily disputed but not so easily refuted. Paul also suggests that soccer would have made bigger inroads with better management.


Relative support is a legit.measure of entertainment value.

As Barry points out, this is circular. To make it otherwise you would need to test a person's reactions irrespective of their cultural conditioning, which would be very difficult.


It is about time that you and Kevin started to barrack for Australian culture. I regard Paul S (who says he is an 'internationalist'), as a lost cause.

Can I be one of those too? :eek:


And to finish, here is a little homework for you. The word 'egalitarianism' can only be associated with one code of football in Australia. Please identify.

Aaah, would that be the one where loser clubs are given favourable draft picks to increase their competitiveness and hobble the winners even though the names of the clubs are now more or less meaningless as a result, but the same team still wins flag after flag after flag?

One of my fellow Hobart chess players is so footy-mad he'll go to Launceston for the weekend just to see a meaningless footy match at some ground he's never been to before. Yet he's turned his back on the AFL because he hates the way it's been "corporatised" and "rigged".

chesslover
21-02-2004, 05:06 PM
This is the official home ground averages for the National Rugby League - the number 1 rugby league comp in the planet by far

Brisbane - 24,000
Newcastle - 18,000
Penrith - 18,000
Sydney Bulldogs - 18,000
New Zealand Warriors - 17,000
Sydney Roosters - 16,000
North Queensland - 15,000
Canberra - 13,000
St George illawarra - 13,000
Cronulla - 13,000
Parramatta - 11,000
manly - 10,000
Melbourne - 10,000
South Sydney - 9,000
Wests Tigers - 9,000

The representative crowds for the toughest and best rugby league comp in the world - the 3 state of Origin matches - was a whopping aggregate of 184,000 people, which was an average attendence of about 61,000 a match

In the international scene however for the Aust vs New Zealand matches, only a totalof 52,000 saw the two matches here and in New Zeland - a partly average attendence of 26,000

The "world club cup challenge" between Penrith panthers and Bradford was also only watched by 18,000 people in North England

chesslover
21-02-2004, 05:16 PM
These are the official home crowd averages for the AFL clubs - the only major Aussie Rules comp in the planet

Collingwood - 50,000
Adelaide - 45,000
Essendon - 44,000
West Coast - 38,000
Richmond - 36,000
Sydney Swans - 33,000
Brisbane - 32,000
Port Adelaide - 32,000
Fremantle - 31,000
Hawthorn - 30,000
Kanagroos - 29,000
St Kilda - 29,000
Melbourne - 28,000
Carlton - 27,000
Geelong - 26,000
Western Bulldogs - 25,000

The international Aussie Rules matches (which are not really Aussie Rules, as it is modified rules to ensure that ireland can play) had an aggregate crowd of 102,000 for the 2 matches in Australia - an average crowd of 51,000

chesslover
21-02-2004, 05:58 PM
head to head of AFL vs Rugby League is intersting;

NSW
In the League "heartland" of NSW, the 10 NRL clubs have an aggregate of 135,000 home ground crowd in total - an average of about 13,000 a game

By contrast the Sydney Swans average 32,000 a home game - a figure boosted by the fact that in the latter season a couple of games were played in the Telstra Stadium. This year the Swans will play 3 matches at Telstra Stadium

However given that more people in aggregate watch League in the 10 NRL clubs that than the sole AFL club here, it is a win for League in terms of crowds


QUEENSLAND

The two Queensland based NRL clubs, Brisbane Broncos and Nth Queensland, together pull about 39,000 together every home ground - an average of about 20,000 a match

The Brisbane Lions pull an average of 32,000 for their home matches

But given that the League clubs are more geographically dispersed (Brisbane and Nth Queensland), and that together they pull more people than the AFL Lions, and there is more upside for the Leafue club (Brisbane lions have won 3 premierships whilst Broncos and Nth Queensland are experiencing a drought), I would say League wins in Queensland too

Rugby League 2 - Aussie Rules 0


ACT

The Canberra Raiders pull in about 13,000 people a home match

The Kanagroos played just 2 matches in Canberra - and drew an average home crowd of 12,000

Given the fact that the Canberra Raiders play all their hoem matches in canberra, whilst the kanagroos just play 2 or 3 there, and the total aggregate attendence is more for teh Raiders, I would say that League in terms of crowd popularity wins in ACT too

Rugby League 3 - Aussie Rules

VICTORIA

The Melbourne Knights only draw a crowd of 10,000 per each home game in the AUssie Rules heartland - still better than the crowds drawn by 2 Sydney NRL teams

The 10 AUssie Rules teams together draw about 324,000 - an average of 32,000 a game. A margin that is more than the margin the NSW NRL clubs attendence is more than the Sydney Swans

League 3 - Aussie Rules 1

WESTERN AUSTRALIA/ SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The 2 AFL WA teams, and the 2 AFL SA teams together draw 146,000 in home crowds - about 37,000 on average

League tried to establish a Rugby league team in WA and SA, in teh mid 1990s but they both failed. League will never try again to conquer these AFL heartland states, and will probably try to maintain as it's only Aussie Rules frontier beachhead - the Melbourne Storm

League 3 - Aussie Rules 3

TASMANIA/ NORTHERN TERRITORY

the Western Bulldogs plkay in Darwin for teh first time plast year, and will play 1 or 2 AFL games there every year.

Hawthorn and St Kilda both play 2 games each year in tasmania, and the agrregate crowds for the 68,000 - an average of 17,000

League is non existent here, and will never have a NRL team here - so League 3: Aussie Rules 5

NEW ZEALAND

the NZ warriors drew 18,000 a game here and League has made abachhead into Rugby Union heartland here.

Aussie Rules of course is not a presence in New Zealand, and is just confined to Australia

League 4 - Aussie Rules 5

INTERNATIONAL

even if you count the "international Rules"match against Inreland as Aussie Rules, league has far more coverage internationally as a result of the tests vs New Zealand, Great Britain and the State of Origin

Thus in terms of a final score; League 5 - Aussie Rules 5

There is no surprises - the League has won in their heartlands of NSW, Queensland and ACT, but is under threat in Queensland and ACT. If the Kangaroos were to play fulltime in ACT, and the Brisbane Lions continue to flourish then the League may well be in threat in these 2 places. However our League heartland in NSW is safe from Aussie Rules

In the Aussie Rules hearland, league has fought and lost in WA and SA, and will never do that again. SImilalry we will never have a NRL team in NT or Tasmania. Currently the only League team in an Aussie Rules heartland remains, the Melbourne Storm. So far it is costing News Corp and the ARL a lot of money and concessions to support the Melbourne Storm, but it is criticval for us to do so. Otherwise all pretensions of a national game will be gone, and we will suffer in terms of sponsorship, broadcast rights and player salaries.

League has also made a beachhead into overseas territory - by taking on New Zealand in in it's Rugby Union heartland. It has been more successful rthan the foray into the AFL heartland - but this could be more as a result of the NZ success in the comp, and the deep pockets of it's owner. Once again it is important that League succeeds in NZ, as otherwise we will be just a local comp restricted to NSW, ACT and Queensland, and ready to be picked off by the AFL and Union. The bets form of defense is attack!!!

However AFL has been more successful in expanding throughout Australia with AFL. There are just 3 states/territory where it is not the number 1 sport - NSW, Queensland and ACT. If the Brisbane Lions continue to flourish, and the Kanagroos relocate to Canberra, it is very likely that AFL will be the premier code in these 2 states. That just leaves NSW!!!

ursogr8
21-02-2004, 09:24 PM
head to head of AFL vs Rugby League is intersting;

NSW
In the League "heartland" of NSW, the 10 NRL clubs have an aggregate of 135,000 home ground crowd in total - an average of about 13,000 a game

By contrast the Sydney Swans average 32,000 a home game - a figure boosted by the fact that in the latter season a couple of games were played in the Telstra Stadium. This year the Swans will play 3 matches at Telstra Stadium

However given that more people in aggregate watch League in the 10 NRL clubs that than the sole AFL club here, it is a win for League in terms of crowds


QUEENSLAND

The two Queensland based NRL clubs, Brisbane Broncos and Nth Queensland, together pull about 39,000 together every home ground - an average of about 20,000 a match

The Brisbane Lions pull an average of 32,000 for their home matches

But given that the League clubs are more geographically dispersed (Brisbane and Nth Queensland), and that together they pull more people than the AFL Lions, and there is more upside for the Leafue club (Brisbane lions have won 3 premierships whilst Broncos and Nth Queensland are experiencing a drought), I would say League wins in Queensland too

Rugby League 2 - Aussie Rules 0


ACT

The Canberra Raiders pull in about 13,000 people a home match

The Kanagroos played just 2 matches in Canberra - and drew an average home crowd of 12,000

Given the fact that the Canberra Raiders play all their hoem matches in canberra, whilst the kanagroos just play 2 or 3 there, and the total aggregate attendence is more for teh Raiders, I would say that League in terms of crowd popularity wins in ACT too


Rugby League 3 - Aussie Rules

VICTORIA

The Melbourne Knights only draw a crowd of 10,000 per each home game in the AUssie Rules heartland - still better than the crowds drawn by 2 Sydney NRL teams

The 10 AUssie Rules teams together draw about 324,000 - an average of 32,000 a game. A margin that is more than the margin the NSW NRL clubs attendence is more than the Sydney Swans

League 3 - Aussie Rules 1

WESTERN AUSTRALIA/ SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The 2 AFL WA teams, and the 2 AFL SA teams together draw 146,000 in home crowds - about 37,000 on average

League tried to establish a Rugby league team in WA and SA, in teh mid 1990s but they both failed. League will never try again to conquer these AFL heartland states, and will probably try to maintain as it's only Aussie Rules frontier beachhead - the Melbourne Storm

League 3 - Aussie Rules 3

TASMANIA/ NORTHERN TERRITORY

the Western Bulldogs plkay in Darwin for teh first time plast year, and will play 1 or 2 AFL games there every year.

Hawthorn and St Kilda both play 2 games each year in tasmania, and the agrregate crowds for the 68,000 - an average of 17,000

League is non existent here, and will never have a NRL team here - so League 3: Aussie Rules 5

NEW ZEALAND

the NZ warriors drew 18,000 a game here and League has made abachhead into Rugby Union heartland here.

Aussie Rules of course is not a presence in New Zealand, and is just confined to Australia

League 4 - Aussie Rules 5

INTERNATIONAL

even if you count the "international Rules"match against Inreland as Aussie Rules, league has far more coverage internationally as a result of the tests vs New Zealand, Great Britain and the State of Origin

Thus in terms of a final score; League 5 - Aussie Rules 5

There is no surprises - the League has won in their heartlands of NSW, Queensland and ACT, but is under threat in Queensland and ACT. If the Kangaroos were to play fulltime in ACT, and the Brisbane Lions continue to flourish then the League may well be in threat in these 2 places. However our League heartland in NSW is safe from Aussie Rules

In the Aussie Rules hearland, league has fought and lost in WA and SA, and will never do that again. SImilalry we will never have a NRL team in NT or Tasmania. Currently the only League team in an Aussie Rules heartland remains, the Melbourne Storm. So far it is costing News Corp and the ARL a lot of money and concessions to support the Melbourne Storm, but it is criticval for us to do so. Otherwise all pretensions of a national game will be gone, and we will suffer in terms of sponsorship, broadcast rights and player salaries.

League has also made a beachhead into overseas territory - by taking on New Zealand in in it's Rugby Union heartland. It has been more successful rthan the foray into the AFL heartland - but this could be more as a result of the NZ success in the comp, and the deep pockets of it's owner. Once again it is important that League succeeds in NZ, as otherwise we will be just a local comp restricted to NSW, ACT and Queensland, and ready to be picked off by the AFL and Union. The bets form of defense is attack!!!


However AFL has been more successful in expanding throughout Australia with AFL. There are just 3 states/territory where it is not the number 1 sport - NSW, Queensland and ACT. If the Brisbane Lions continue to flourish, and the Kanagroos relocate to Canberra, it is very likely that AFL will be the premier code in these 2 states. That just leaves NSW!!!




Whew CL, you obviously enjoyed yourself with this opus. Well done, and thanks.

And how well you have searched for views of the data that give any credence at all to League.

The one comparison-statistic that you did not address is that on the basis of your posts the best supported home league average was Brisbane Broncos 24,000 (in a 1 team town), whereas the WORST supported Aussie Rules team is Bulldogs with 25,000 in a 10-team town. In other words, the worst Rules beats the best League even where the competition is most intense.
Have I read it correctly?
And if I have, then I demand (make that request, I don’t want him offside disengaged) that Barry please explain; and anyone else who wants to help him.

starter

Alan Shore
23-02-2004, 02:56 AM
Well well well, it seems Carlton has answered its critics! In today's pre-season game:

Carlton 150 d. Sydney Swans 48 :owned:

A massive 102 point victory! Carlton may yet be an outside chance for that premiership flag this year :)

Garvinator
23-02-2004, 10:34 AM
Well well well, it seems Carlton has answered its critics! In today's pre-season game:

Carlton 150 d. Sydney Swans 48 :owned:

A massive 102 point victory! Carlton may yet be an outside chance for that premiership flag this year :)
save your money, bet on the bunnies to win the wooden spoon in the nrl :whistle:

chesslover
23-02-2004, 10:06 PM
[QUOTE=chesslover]

Whew CL, you obviously enjoyed yourself with this opus. Well done, and thanks.

And how well you have searched for views of the data that give any credence at all to League.

The one comparison-statistic that you did not address is that on the basis of your posts the best supported home league average was Brisbane Broncos 24,000 (in a 1 team town), whereas the WORST supported Aussie Rules team is Bulldogs with 25,000 in a 10-team town. In other words, the worst Rules beats the best League even where the competition is most intense.
Have I read it correctly?
And if I have, then I demand (make that request, I don’t want him offside disengaged) that Barry please explain; and anyone else who wants to help him.

starter

In relation to the disparity in crowds, I can think of maybe the following reasons

1. Rugby League has historically at it's most successful only attracted average crowds in the 15,000 ranges - even in the days of the then NSWRL, the expanded national league and now NRL. AFL by contrast has attracted far more crowds. I do not know the reason why - maybe AFL is a more exciting sport to watch on the ground than League?

2.Also remember that most of the AFL and League games are televised - either on free TV or Pay TV. They are also on Radio. Maybe League is a better game for television and radio than AFL, and hence people do not feel a need to go to the matches to watch live games

3. The markets that league operates in - NSW, ACT, Quuensland, New Zealand and Melbourne - are "crowded" markets. They are very competitive and sporting fans in the "League heartlands" of NSW, ACT and Queensland have the choice of elite League, AFL, Soccer and Union to choose from.

New Zealand is Rugby Union Country and the NZ warriorshave to compete against the Super 12 Union sides, whilst Victoria is "Aussie rules heartland" and the Melbourne Storm have to compete against the AFL teams

By contrast except for NSW, Queensland and ACT, all the states that the other AFL teams are in are Aussie Rules heartland. There is no sporting alternative to Aussie Rules in WA, SA, Tasmania, NT and Victoria.

Even in NSW and Queensland, there are just 1 AFL teams there, and you can argue that their success on field that has contributed to the rise of their home crowds. Remember the days when the Brisbane Bears were getting smashed, and the Swans were last? they could not even give away tickets.

ursogr8
24-02-2004, 07:12 AM
In relation to the disparity in crowds, I can think of maybe the following reasons

1. Rugby League has historically at it's most successful only attracted average crowds in the 15,000 ranges - even in the days of the then NSWRL, the expanded national league and now NRL. AFL by contrast has attracted far more crowds. I do not know the reason why - maybe AFL is a more exciting sport to watch on the ground than League?

You got it in one CL.




2.Also remember that most of the AFL and League games are televised - either on free TV or Pay TV. They are also on Radio. Maybe League is a better game for television and radio than AFL, and hence people do not feel a need to go to the matches to watch live games

Get you stats books out and look at TV watching figures then. You will still find Aussie Rules is the most watched.





2. The markets that league operates in - NSW, ACT, Quuensland, New Zealand and Melbourne - are "crowded" markets. They are very competitive and sporting fans in the "League heartlands" of NSW, ACT and Queensland have the choice of elite League, AFL, Soccer and Union to choose from.

CL
Just go back to your own figures and look at Western Bulldogs in a 10-team market. They are the worst performed in that market. Yet their performance is superior to the best performed League anywhere!


starter

ursogr8
24-02-2004, 02:01 PM
Aussie Rules is dynamic, fast-flowing and physically spectacular, although the random element of the high turnover rate doesn't appeal to me at all.



Given your high skill level in three activities that are rules-driven and structured, viz

* chess
** mathematics
*** taxonomies

then it is not surprising that you are less taken with the frenetic randomness of Aussie Rules.

ursogr8
27-02-2004, 09:48 AM
Look, I personally don't mind aussie rules. Hec, everytime I watch the hopeless Swans I nearly get a bloody cardiac arrest. I must admit it really is an exiciting sport. In the wide world of sports, though, it is practically irrelevant. What's the point if you can't compete with other countries? I mean, let's not be like 'em yanks who call themselves world champs in baseball and they only play amongst themselves the <deleted>! They won't play against the Cubans, for example, cos they know them commies will whoop their <deleted> mate.

And what's that comment above about League being better than Union? <deleted>! League is <deleted>. It's stop-start. Stop-start. Stop-start. There's no idea in league, no plan, no strategy. Even gridiron is better than league. I reckon aussie rules, if they can keep up their momentum, will eventually kill off league in NSW and QLD. Aussies are very parochial people and aussie rules is best for a <deleted> against each other, ya see.

AR

I noticed this letter to the editor of a non-Sydney daily >

"...I have come to see that Aussie Rules football provides the social oil in its native habitats that Sydney lacks. Few in Sydney care about Rugby League. But as an icebreaker between strangers in Adelaide, Darwin, Melbourne, Hobart, and Deniliquin, AFL is unmatched.
It is not just a game -- it is how it enables people to talk to each other where otherwise they wouldn't. To be able to take part in the great conversation of Australian football should be the cause for thanks and joy -- even for sullen Sydneysiders".

Sydneysiders must be glad when it becomes cricket season and they can converse with the rest of Aus.

Paul S
27-02-2004, 11:42 PM
I noticed this letter to the editor of a non-Sydney daily >

"...I have come to see that Aussie Rules football provides the social oil in its native habitats that Sydney lacks. Few in Sydney care about Rugby League. But as an icebreaker between strangers in Adelaide, Darwin, Melbourne, Hobart, and Deniliquin, AFL is unmatched.
It is not just a game -- it is how it enables people to talk to each other where otherwise they wouldn't. To be able to take part in the great conversation of Australian football should be the cause for thanks and joy -- even for sullen Sydneysiders".

Sydneysiders must be glad when it becomes cricket season and they can converse with the rest of Aus.

In Sydney before 1995, Rugby League used to be an icebreaker (topic of conversation) between people who otherwise had nothing in common.
For example, before 1995 at my workplace people would often talk about the football (league) and you would often notice peoples' moods on a Monday would be better/worse depending if their team won/lost on the weekend. Nowadays at my workplace league is only mentioned about a quarter of the time compared with pre-1995. I would say that this is typical of what has happened at many other workplaces in Sydney.

In 1995 we had the bitter Superleague versus ARL fued, which lasted for about 3 years and caused massive damage to the game. During this time there was endless rubbish in the media which turned many people off. Even after the Superleague versus ARL fued was settled, as a direct (and indirect) result of this upheaval:
1) 6 clubs merged into 3 (Manly-Norths, Wests-Balmain and St. George-Illawrrra).
2) South Sydney (the club with more history than any other) was removed (in a disgraceful manner) from the competition (but was re-instated after 2 years and a costly court process).

Is it any wonder that a lot of Sydneysiders lost interest in League? Is it any wonder that (in general) Sydneysiders' passion for League has been greatly diminished? (BTW, I am one of these people - see my post earlier in this thread).

If the same thing had happened to AFL (Superleague versus ARL type feud), then I am sure that a lot of Melburnians would lose interest in AFL.

Paul S
28-02-2004, 01:17 PM
Just a few points to add to my last post in this thread.

From what I remember the crowds for the Sydney Swans have increased a lot since 1995 (although there has been a bit of a dip over the last year or two).

Rugby Union crowds (and interest) in Sydney have increased a lot since 1995.

If Australian soccer was run in a reasonably competent manner, then I am sure that soccer crowds in Sydney would also have increased during the post 1995 period (who had the dumb idea to make soccer a summer sport?).

I guess the point I am trying to make is that if the AFL had been subjected to the same damage as league was during 1995 to 1997, then AFL crowd atendances (and public interest) in places like Melbourne would have decreased significantly (as has been the case in Sydney with League).

chesslover
28-02-2004, 05:45 PM
I noticed this letter to the editor of a non-Sydney daily >

"...I have come to see that Aussie Rules football provides the social oil in its native habitats that Sydney lacks. Few in Sydney care about Rugby League. But as an icebreaker between strangers in Adelaide, Darwin, Melbourne, Hobart, and Deniliquin, AFL is unmatched.
It is not just a game -- it is how it enables people to talk to each other where otherwise they wouldn't. To be able to take part in the great conversation of Australian football should be the cause for thanks and joy -- even for sullen Sydneysiders".

Sydneysiders must be glad when it becomes cricket season and they can converse with the rest of Aus.

yes, but think about this...

League is still the number 1 sport in NSW in Winter - by any measures. When you look at the TOTAL crowds for League games, the media coverage, the amount of spectators, the sponsors our number 1 sport in NSW is League.

Also we can talk about League to people in Queensland and ACT, as League is still the number 1 winter sport (albeit not to the same extent as in NSW) in these 2 states. Sure we cannot talk to people in Tasmania, SA, WA, Darwin and Victoria - but is that such a big loss :p :p

The other thing you need to think about is that if you are an AFL fan, you can only talk to people in Australia. We League fans however, can talk to people in England, New Zeland and PNG.

Mind you on the same score, the sport to be as stated in earlier threads is Soccer, as except for US, Canada and New Zealand, a soccer fan can find social conversation pretty much anywhere in the world.

chesslover
28-02-2004, 06:14 PM
In Sydney before 1995, Rugby League used to be an icebreaker (topic of conversation) between people who otherwise had nothing in common.

In 1995 we had the bitter Superleague versus ARL fued, which lasted for about 3 years and caused massive damage to the game. During this time there was endless rubbish in the media which turned many people off. Even after the Superleague versus ARL fued was settled, as a direct (and indirect) result of this upheaval:
1) 6 clubs merged into 3 (Manly-Norths, Wests-Balmain and St. George-Illawrrra).
2) South Sydney (the club with more history than any other) was removed (in a disgraceful manner) from the competition (but was re-instated after 2 years and a costly court process).

Is it any wonder that a lot of Sydneysiders lost interest in League? Is it any wonder that (in general) Sydneysiders' passion for League has been greatly diminished? (BTW, I am one of these people - see my post earlier in this thread).

If the same thing had happened to AFL (Superleague versus ARL type feud), then I am sure that a lot of Melburnians would lose interest in AFL.

What you state is true enough, and most League people will agree with you

However last year, the crowds, interest, intensity and media and sponsorship level was all up, and there was general consensus that the game of League has finally recovered from the SuperLeague war.

I think League is the number 1 sport in the world (after chess). It is the most physical and toughest sport - with players having 80 minutes to attack, tackle, run, pass and having no protection. Any person who watches League, will know that Union, SOccer and AFL (and much less the American Football teams with their protective padding) are no match to League when it comes to toughness.

In relation to the mergers, I think that HAD to happen. Thr fact remains that League is fighting an international war and a domestic war with Soccer and Union (internationally) and in addition AFL (domestically) for fans, money, media attention and sponsorship dollars.

In the international arena, except for North England (where league is second to soccer), New Zeland (where we are second to Union) and PNG, League has pretty well lost the battle internationally. It remains to be seen how long Nortgh England remains a League heartland, especially with Soccer dominating the attention, and England's win of the Union World Cup.This makes it very very important that we save the league game in Australia, and New Zeland. Otherwise League will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Indeed most people would have agreed that in a national comp there was far too many teams in Sydney. Indeed prior to the 1988 expansion of the League comp to Brisbane and Newcastle - all clubs except Canberra and Illawarra were in the Greater Sydney Area.

The biggest blessing that I think came out of the Super league war was the realisation that we had to become more professional, and expand to survive as a viable sport in Australia. The Super league war saw a couple of the overcrowded Sydney teams merge or be kicked out (wests/balmain, St George/Illawarra merged and Norths were kicked out joining Newtown in oblivion land) and a renewed commitment to the national comp vision and an alliance with News Ltd.

Currently there are 15 teams in the NRL - 9 in metropolitian Sydney (South Sydney, St George Illawarra, Wests Tigers, Sydney Roosters, Sydney Bulldogs, Parramatta, Penrith, Cronulla, manly), 1 in regional NSW (newcastle), 2 in Queensland (Brisbane, Nth Queensland), 1 in ACT (canberra), 1 in Victoria (melbourne) and 1 in New zealand (Auckland).

Looking at this it is obvious that there are still too many Sydney teams.

The expansion out of Syndey has been painful and expensive and League has learnt that WA and SA are forever lost to AFL. However the expansion to ACT in the form of the Canberra Raiders, has probably saved league from AFL and Union there, and the expansion to Brisbane and Nth Queensland has also saved League in Queensland from converting to AFL. In New Zealand the expasion as a result of the NZ warriors has saved League from being overwhelmed by Rugby Union. Indeed the only place that we have lost a lot of money and not found any gains of the current expansion has been in Victoria, where the Melbourne Storm just cannot get the Victorian media and public interested. Were it not for News ltd, League would have abandoned Melbourne (like it did to SA and WA), and we would just be confined to NSW, ACT and Queensland (and New Zeland). It is because of the NRL that League is still a strong sport in Australia and New Zealand, where everywhere else internationally it has been overwhelmed by Soccer and Union (except Nth England).

There is also confirmation that in 2006 there will be a 16th League team added to the elite competiton. The NRL chief said the ARL and News Ltd will make the decision on which is the 16th by July this year. There are 3 candidates - Central Coast in NSW, Gold Coast in Queensland and Wellington in New Zealand. I wish that a Syndey club would relocate to one of these 3 areas or merge, so that 2 of these areas can have teams in the world's number 1 League comp as that will be for the greater good of the game

chesslover
28-02-2004, 08:16 PM
this is the news by the NRL regarding the 16th league team


http://www.nrl.com.au/news.cfm?ArticleID=7921

Central Coast is the favourite so far as it is backed by John Singleton who has decided to underwrite the consortium.

If a Sydney club decides to merge/relocate (or if the League abandons Melbourne to the AFL) then we may get another team in the Gold Coast, as thjat is backed by Phil Gould.

The wild card is a second team in New Zealand in Wellington to counterbalance Auckland. As the SA and WA expasnions has shown, the rivalries between Adelaide and Port Adelaide and West Coast and Fremantle generate a lot of gain for the sport - so if there was another team in NZ it would be good for the game

chesslover
28-02-2004, 08:44 PM
This is the list and world ranking of all the Rugby League nations on earth

http://world.rleague.com/nations/wr.php

Other than England, Australia and New Zealand, the rest of the nations are very weak. A strong NRL club can probably beat all the other 20 League nations put together

However thsi shows that League is more popular internationally than AFL, but obviously not when compared to Soccer

ursogr8
28-02-2004, 10:55 PM
In Sydney before 1995, Rugby League used to be an icebreaker (topic of conversation) between people who otherwise had nothing in common.
For example, before 1995 at my workplace people would often talk about the football (league) and you would often notice peoples' moods on a Monday would be better/worse depending if their team won/lost on the weekend. Nowadays at my workplace league is only mentioned about a quarter of the time compared with pre-1995. I would say that this is typical of what has happened at many other workplaces in Sydney.



Paul S
This is a sad loss of the glue that once held casual conversation together in Sydney. You must feel akin to the French who are losing much of their culture to American influences. There are big signs of the French fighting back to retain their identity. But as you say, in Sydney the spell of reverence seems to have been permanently broken.




In 1995 we had the bitter Superleague versus ARL fued, which lasted for about 3 years and caused massive damage to the game. During this time there was endless rubbish in the media which turned many people off. Even after the Superleague versus ARL fued was settled, as a direct (and indirect) result of this upheaval:
1) 6 clubs merged into 3 (Manly-Norths, Wests-Balmain and St. George-Illawrrra).
2) South Sydney (the club with more history than any other) was removed (in a disgraceful manner) from the competition (but was re-instated after 2 years and a costly court process).

Is it any wonder that a lot of Sydneysiders lost interest in League? Is it any wonder that (in general) Sydneysiders' passion for League has been greatly diminished? (BTW, I am one of these people - see my post earlier in this thread).



When I first read your comment I thought, "there is Paul S., finding excuses for League’s loss of position as an ice-breaker. I pondered on your comment for a day, and came to ask, why could it happen?
Well we know who did it ……NEWS Ltd. And we know why they did it >> so that they could have that wall-to-wall pap that they could show on endless loop on payTV in various countries. League was an ideal candidate; it was international, very structured, and easily seduced by big dollars.




If the same thing had happened to AFL (Superleague versus ARL type feud), then I am sure that a lot of Melburnians would lose interest in AFL.



So this is the key issue, and you identify it well Paul S.

No, it cannot happen to Aussie Rules. Nobody outside Australia is interested in the unstructured mayhem that occurs in Aussie Rules. Even Kevin in Hobart doesn’t like the continual turnovers.
Sure we have been corporatised. But that is different. That just means that mugs-in-suits will pay $45 to $200 to watch from behind glass what the other 50,000 of us enjoy under the roof.
Aussie Rules is safe from being bought out by NEWS Ltd because no other country on earth gives a continental about our game. (Except maybe the Irish).

So Paul S., our recommendation to you is support Aussie Rules; it is Australian made and the best.


starter

chesslover
04-03-2004, 09:52 PM
No, it cannot happen to Aussie Rules. Nobody outside Australia is interested in the unstructured mayhem that occurs in Aussie Rules. Even Kevin in Hobart doesn’t like the continual turnovers.

Aussie Rules is safe from being bought out by NEWS Ltd because no other country on earth gives a continental about our game. (Except maybe the Irish).

So Paul S., our recommendation to you is support Aussie Rules; it is Australian made and the best.
starter

1. And that is also the biggest weakness of Aussie Rules. It is only played in the country it was invented, Australia. It is non existent overseas, and hence willnever get the big bucks from sponsors and media, that an international game such as Union or Soccer can get

2. International Rules is not Aussie Rules. It is purely a mechnism for two sports that only exist in one country each (Gaelic football in Ireland and Aussie Rules in Australia) to delude themselves into giving their best players a chance to represent their country. By any objective reckoning, the rules of International rules is different to the rules of Aussie Rules

3. paul s should stick to the most popular sport of NSW - League. In today's 730 report, Roy masters said it was the toughest sport and also very resiliant. He was talking about the Sydney Bulldogs gang rape saga, but as the revival of league after Super League shows, League will also revive after this alleged rape saga

4. The Australian League Captain, Darren Lockyer, said this funny joke - "St George won 11 Premierships with one Raper, so you can imagine how many premierships the Bulldogs will win now"!!!! For this joke he was blasted by the Broncos and NRL and had to apologise today. This of course meant that this above joke was given even more airplay, and was being repeated all over NSW and Queensland

Trent Parker
04-03-2004, 10:48 PM
see Darryn Lockyer's comments today??

it went something like: "it took 1 Raper (John Raper) for St. George Dragons to win 11 premierships, so imagine how many the bulldogs will win"

Rincewind
04-03-2004, 11:02 PM
see Darryn Lockyer's comments today??

it went something like: "it took 1 Raper (John Raper) for St. George Dragons to win 11 premierships, so imagine how many the bulldogs will win"

Quite insensitive. I guess he failed Public Speaking 101.

Trent Parker
04-03-2004, 11:05 PM
yes, david gallop was right on the phone to the bronco's management and within hours lockyer appologised!

arosar
05-03-2004, 07:58 AM
NRL is dying. It is dying a slow painful death.

AR

Trent Parker
06-03-2004, 10:44 AM
Rugby league fills a niche in NSW like AFL fills a Niche in Victora. Rugby in my view will not take over, nor will AFL. Sorry to say it but I believe the Sydney swans get a good turn out because 1/ it is the only club in the city 2/it is rather more of a novelty to go to. I would much perfer to go to see my beloved STG-Illawarra Dragons play than the Sydney Swans

(okay, shoot me down!)

Trent Parker
06-03-2004, 11:04 AM
See even soccer has it's sex scandal problems with Leister City embroiled in a scandal of their own.

PHAT
06-03-2004, 12:33 PM
I have read ~1% to this thread, so I don't know who I am about to offend.

:uhoh:

The main football codes - AFL, League and Soccer - are organisations built by and run for the very worst of mankind. I can honestly say that I have every football-emersed footy player I have ever knowingly met (as such) was [deleted] or arragant or dim-witted or [deleted] or liar or thug or some combinatorial iteration of these. So, why would anyone with an once of decency be a "fan"? Perhaps every person who has ever paid money to see a game should think, "I have put money into the pockets of these creeps."

I have paided to see games - in the far past - and I feel ashamed.

I urge all of you, never again watch another game, never participate in the fan culture.

Yours sincerely Matt

[EDIT] Correction: I know a social soccer player well who is a good bloke.

ursogr8
06-03-2004, 02:12 PM
I have read ~1% to this thread, so I don't know who I am about to offend.

:uhoh:

The main football codes - AFL, League and Soccer - are organisations built by and run for the very worst of mankind. I can honestly say that I have every football-emersed footy player I have ever knowingly met (as such) was [deleted] or some combinatorial iteration of these. So, why would anyone with an once of decency be a "fan"? Perhaps every person who has ever paid money to see a game should think, "I have put money into the pockets of these creeps."

I have paided to see games - in the far past - and I feel ashamed.

I urge all of you, never again watch another game, never participate in the fan culture.

Yours sincerely Matt

[EDIT] Correction: I know a social soccer player well who is a good bloke.

But Matt

Going to the MCG to watch a match on game-day is like a religious experience; and you would not want to miss out on your share of those. Would you?
Mate, the MCG is like a cathedral. No. Its better; it like firegoat's painted-palace.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it intrinsically bad.

starter

ps I think you have lost your power to offend.

jenni
06-03-2004, 02:36 PM
I have read ~1% to this thread, so I don't know who I am about to offend.

:uhoh:

The main football codes - AFL, League and Soccer - are organisations built by and run for the very worst of mankind. I can honestly say that I have every football-emersed footy player I have ever knowingly met (as such) was [deleted] or some combinatorial iteration of these. So, why would anyone with an once of decency be a "fan"? Perhaps every person who has ever paid money to see a game should think, "I have put money into the pockets of these creeps."

I have paided to see games - in the far past - and I feel ashamed.

I urge all of you, never again watch another game, never participate in the fan culture.

Yours sincerely Matt

[EDIT] Correction: I know a social soccer player well who is a good bloke.

Well I've only read Matt's post, so really don't know what I am talking about either!

However I have come across a decent footy player. Don't know what code he played, as I have never come to grips with the different ones. He did play for Randwick, before he came to Canberra, if that helps at all!

Anyway we were having enormous trouble with Gareth - he had been bullied appallingly at school. Basically he was gentle, didn't play much sport, was accelerated up a year at school and was very good at chess. All this made him a target for the mindless thugs that are always part of any school. Unfortunately he had become such a victim that pretty much everyone in the school felt he was fair game.

We had no idea (Gareth not being one to communicate much - we would have known everything with the two girls), until at the age of 9, after years of bullying, Gareth sat down in the garage and refused to ever go to school again. Once we finally extracted from him what was happening, I tackled the school in my usual sweet fashion and the worst of the bullying was brought under control.

However Gareth was left with his confidence in tatters and low self esteem. Enter Mr Football person as a class teacher for Gareth. Gareth was still copping a bit of low level bullying and Mr F not only was really tough with the thugs, but told Gareth he was really keen to learn chess and was happy to do a swap and teach Gareth ball skills, if Gareth would teach him chess.

Gareth had a fantastic year in his class, discovered he was actually quite good at sport, and while the scars will always be there (even now Gareth has a fear of new people and always assumes someone will be unpleasant until proven otherwise), his self esteem is now much better.

Mr F only stayed the one year in Canberra and then returned to Sydney, but we are eternally grateful for the sensitive and caring way he treated Gareth. I suspect there are plenty of nice footy people buried in the yobs.

Incidentally Matt and Fg7 would probably be amused to hear that when Gareth moved to High School, he started getting bullied again. Gareth solved the problem by belting the boy who was bullying him and all bullying stopped immediately. While I am a pacifist, this was one case where I felt violence was understandable (and unfortunately successful).

arosar
06-03-2004, 03:38 PM
There is actually a sorta 'decent' footy player. What's the name of that NRL bloke who carries the bible and preaches celibacy and claims to be celibate?

AR

arosar
06-03-2004, 03:42 PM
Anyway we were having enormous trouble with Gareth - he had been bullied appallingly at school. Basically he was gentle, didn't play much sport, was accelerated up a year at school and was very good at chess. All this made him a target for the mindless thugs that are always part of any school. Unfortunately he had become such a victim that pretty much everyone in the school felt he was fair game.

How does Gareth feel about you revealing all this to the world?

AR

jenni
06-03-2004, 03:56 PM
How does Gareth feel about you revealing all this to the world?

AR

Not the world Arosar - probably about 10 people!

Gareth and ourselves have never made any secret about what happened. I think bullying is an incredibly hidden problem and that people need to be very open about it and parents need to be given a lot more help in how to deal with it. I've read a lot about bullying and you still see texts that claim that you have to give children "strategies" on how to deal with bullying. You know "ignore them and it will go away". In our experience the only way to deal with bullies is for them to know the victim is protected and no longer vulnerable to them.

When the school started doing work with Gareth's class to stop the endemic bullying that had set in, the teacher told me that after many sessions with the thugs who were the main culprits and being sent to the principal a few times, they finally left Gareth alone. She was horrified to find that far from having learnt anything, they just moved onto the next child that they thought was lacking in protectors!

Of course you also need to work with the child to see what can be done to make them less of a victim as well.

While I don't totally approve of Gareth's final solution it worked 100%. It was also helped that he went from a physically very slight child, to one who looks as though he would be at home in a rugby scrum!

skip to my lou
06-03-2004, 04:29 PM
Just because 10 people post in this thread, doesn't mean only 10 people are reading it.

PHAT
06-03-2004, 11:47 PM
Well I've only read Matt's post, so really don't know what I am talking about either!


So irt is tru e!! You only follow me amd raed only ny posts :D




...Unfortunately he had become such a victim that pretty much everyone in the school felt he was fair game.

We had no idea (Gareth not being one to communicate much ...

However Gareth was left with his confidence in tatters and low self esteem. Enter Mr Football person ... his {garath] self esteem is nnow much better.



oK i am nort sure that II would like to be outed as "PUnching bag of the week". But he is your son, i f you want to humilliate him, that is your style, and hey we mostly serviveour up bringinging .



Incidentally Matt and Fg7 would probably be amused to hear that when Gareth moved to High School, he started getting bullied again. Gareth solved the problem by belting the boy who was bullying him and all bullying stopped immediately. While I am a pacifist, this was one case where I felt violence was understandable (and unfortunately successful).


WOW!!! do you realy think that it is unfortunat that yous son has soughted out his bulies and is now free to play some chess withouty being "picked on"? GEzz, I would be happy about it. He can learn to use lawyers at 20 paceses as he gets older. for now however he shood be lerning to be a man and not a [deleted]. zGive him my congats :D ANDY ou should be proud of him .

PHAT
07-03-2004, 12:19 AM
But Matt

Going to the MCG to watch a match on game-day is like a religious experience; and you would not want to miss out on your share of those. Would you?



Yes. when your God requiress you to sac your daughters it is tim eto sac your god. Like racism and sexism , they should be

unacceptable

and that means at the very least

you dont do support tose who are into it.



You can either turn a bind eye o r be a man of integrety - it is your choise.


.

jenni
07-03-2004, 10:24 AM
So irt is tru e!! You only follow me amd raed only ny posts :D

.

Yep it is true - I like to read your posts - kind of in the same way I turn to the comics first in the newspaper.....

jenni
07-03-2004, 10:40 AM
oK i am nort sure that II would like to be outed as "PUnching bag of the week". But he is your son, i f you want to humilliate him, that is your style, and hey we mostly serviveour up bringinging .


You see it is this attitude that makes things worse for bullied kids.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in being bullied. It is like being ashamed of being run over by a drunken driver, or ashamed of having your house burgled.

The other people are the offenders.


Many kids who are bullied as children commit suicide in later life. Not surprising as they are made to suffer twice - first by the thugs who do the bullying and secondly by a society who makes them feel they should be ashamed of what happened to them.

Gareth did nothing wrong - he was bullied because

1. he was intelligent
2. he played chess
3. he had parents who were idealists and had brought him up to be gentle
4. he was young

Incidentally he was not used as a "punching bag" - if he had been physically assaulted we would have noticed - maybe a bit of pushing and shoving, but nothing too physical. It was much worse than that - day after day of emotional abuse.

When young kids have to put up with that, they blame themselves. They start believing the bullies are right and there is something wrong with them. It is terribly important for parents to stand up and say very loudly and clearly that there is nothing wrong with them, nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of.

skip to my lou
07-03-2004, 11:57 AM
I reckon that you teach people how to treat you. If you let them know its hurting you, then they're gonna do it more and more!

ursogr8
07-03-2004, 12:39 PM
Yes. when your God requiress you to sac your daughters it is tim eto sac your god. Like racism and sexism , they should be

unacceptable

and that means at the very least

you dont do support tose who are into it.



You can either turn a bind eye o r be a man of integrety - it is your choise.


.

Matt
Oops. You presumed that to have a religious experience there is a need for a God (your word).
Not so.
AFL is the peoples game.We run without a God.
So, the rest of your post was irrelevant.
starter

jenni
07-03-2004, 01:24 PM
I reckon that you teach people how to treat you. If you let them know its hurting you, then they're gonna do it more and more!
It is a strategy that works well with High School kids and adults. The -" don't let them see they are getting to you and it won't be any fun and they will stop doing it".

Unfortunately at primary school, it is not an effective strategy. The only one that really works is to make the perpetrators afraid - either the Matt solution by physical violence (which I don't approve of, but it does work), or adult intervention.

skip to my lou
07-03-2004, 02:21 PM
Is that because they are hopeless actors or because they are little gremlins?

jenni
07-03-2004, 03:38 PM
Is that because they are hopeless actors or because they are little gremlins?

I think a 6 or 7 year old isn't capable of that sort of sophisticated reaction - much more immediate in their emotions.

Rincewind
07-03-2004, 04:05 PM
You presumed that to have a religious experience there is a need for a God (your word).
Not so.

I agree though AFL might not be the best example. ;)

chesslover
07-03-2004, 04:15 PM
NRL is dying. It is dying a slow painful death.

AR
league will revive and revitalise. It has been through far worse, including the declining crowds in 80s (resulting in the decision to expand from Sydney, and which saw ACT, Queensland, New Zeland, Melbourne and rural NSW have teams in the NRL), the SUper league war (which saw the much needed rationalisation of our sydney clubs, and a partnership with News ltd) and has survived

It will survive this crisis too. It is a true working class game - unlike elite Rugby Union, "ethnic" soccer or "higher social clsss" Aussie Rules (at least in Sydney) - and has it's roots firmly in the heart and soul of NSW

PHAT
07-03-2004, 06:17 PM
There is nothing to be ashamed of in being bullied. It is like being ashamed of being run over by a drunken driver, or ashamed of having your house burgled.

The other people are the offenders.


Wrong. It is like being run over when you are the drunk pedestrian.
It is like leaving your cars keys in the ignition for the thief.

Schoolyard victums of bullies are usually asking for it by such things as:

1. Being brown noses in the classroom.
2. Pretending to be Oscar Wild.
3. Not saying boo.
4. Making sacastic remarks to the drongo.
5. Not making eye contact.
6. Walking around with your tail between your legs.
7. Ignoring your foe.
8. Talking everything over.

I am not supporting the bully - I am saying It takes two poeople for a bullying incident to occur.
1. A bully
2. A person who allows themselves to be bullied.



Many kids who are bullied as children commit suicide in later life.


So what? How do you know that the bullied person suicides because of the bullying. Equally, it could be that the personality type that offers themselves up for bullying is the same one that pulls the pin early on life.



Gareth did nothing wrong - he was bullied because

1. he was intelligent
2. he played chess
3. he had parents who were idealists and had brought him up to be gentle
4. he was young


Plenty of smart people don't get bullied
Plenty of chess players don't get bullied
Plenty of gentle people don't get bullied
Plenty of young people don't get bullied

Why? Because they do not allow themselves to be bullied. This not to say that some people are turned into currs by their parents, and thus becoming the kid most likely to be bullied, sexually abused or clinically depressed.



It is terribly important for parents to stand up and say very loudly and clearly that there is nothing wrong with them, nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of.


This must have come out of the DIY victimhood handbook. It should read,

"It is terribly important for parents to stand up and say very loudly and stand up for yourself, nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of in standing up to a bully."

PHAT
07-03-2004, 06:33 PM
The only one that really works is to make the perpetrators afraid - either the Matt solution by physical violence (which I don't approve of, but it does work), or adult intervention.

Yes, belting the bully works. But, I do not advocate it until most other personal methods have failed. However violence is the second last step in these school yard problems. Adult intervention should only come in when the someone has had to go to casualty. Young people must be guided to being able to sort out their own interpersonal relationships without having to be a filthy dobber.

jenni
07-03-2004, 06:47 PM
Yes, belting the bully works. But, I do not advocate it until most other personal methods have failed. However violence is the second last step in these school yard problems. Adult intervention should only come in when the someone has had to go to casualty. Young people must be guided to being able to sort out their own interpersonal relationships without having to be a filthy dobber.

The usual rubbish I would expect from you.

jenni
07-03-2004, 06:52 PM
Wrong. It is like being run over when you are the drunk pedestrian.
It is like leaving your cars keys in the ignition for the thief.

Schoolyard victums of bullies are usually asking for it by such things as:

1. Being brown noses in the classroom.
2. Pretending to be Oscar Wild.
3. Not saying boo.
4. Making sacastic remarks to the drongo.
5. Not making eye contact.
6. Walking around with your tail between your legs.
7. Ignoring your foe.
8. Talking everything over.

I am not supporting the bully - I am saying It takes two poeople for a bullying incident to occur.
1. A bully
2. A person who allows themselves to be bullied.



So what? How do you know that the bullied person suicides because of the bullying. Equally, it could be that the personality type that offers themselves up for bullying is the same one that pulls the pin early on life.



Plenty of smart people don't get bullied
Plenty of chess players don't get bullied
Plenty of gentle people don't get bullied
Plenty of young people don't get bullied

Why? Because they do not allow themselves to be bullied. This not to say that some people are turned into currs by their parents, and thus becoming the kid most likely to be bullied, sexually abused or clinically depressed.



This must have come out of the DIY victimhood handbook. It should read,

"It is terribly important for parents to stand up and say very loudly and stand up for yourself, nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of in standing up to a bully."
All the stuff you are talking about is fine as a kid gets older. Gareth was 5 years old when the bullying started and 8 years old when he worked out that he couldn't stop the kids from what they were doing - by that time it was 1 against 30 and that he couldn't expect any help from the school. At the age of 8 he came up with a solution, which was to remove himself from the environment.

He is more than capable of standing up for himself now - as he showed at the age of 12 when he belted the boy who was causing trouble. But he a decent human being who will look for solutions that do not involve thumping other people as a first option.

jenni
07-03-2004, 07:02 PM
Schoolyard victums of bullies are usually asking for it

No they don't you moron - I can't even be bothered debating this with you because you are just a stereotypical macho man.

PHAT
07-03-2004, 07:06 PM
Matt
Oops. You presumed that to have a religious experience there is a need for a God (your word).
Not so.
AFL is the peoples game.We run without a God.
So, the rest of your post was irrelevant.
starter

Hang on. It was you who talked of religious experiance and cathedrals.

In some places around the world, female circumsission is in the people's culture. This however, does not mean it should be condoned. Football is part of our culture - it is full of animals and should killed with disregard.

If you approve of the footy mentality, go right ahead and support your team. Buy tickets and forget that you are paying for the alcohol that fuels the rapes.

PHAT
07-03-2004, 07:21 PM
No they don't you moron - I can't even be bothered debating this with you because you are just a stereotypical macho man.

Actually, I am a stereo-playing moron **man**. As such, you, as a stereoflipical anthrothropic castrater, have no idea of what is like to be male. Now, go and plat your hairy legs.

jenni
07-03-2004, 08:15 PM
Actually, I am a stereo-playing moron **man**. As such, you, as a stereoflipical anthrothropic castrater, have no idea of what is like to be male. Now, go and plat your hairy legs.
If that is supposed to intimidate me it doesn't.

PHAT
07-03-2004, 08:55 PM
If that is supposed to intimidate me it doesn't.

If that is supposed to be a come back, it isn't.

But back to the point. I reckon if you tell your son, "Don't you stick-up for yourself again. Mummy will come down to the school make sure it's safe for you," he will do his block. Stay out of male business - your smoothering has already caused him to adopt a victim's role that he has bearly escaped, using some agro, and something you can never give, manly advice.

jenni
08-03-2004, 08:14 AM
If that is supposed to be a come back, it isn't.

But back to the point. I reckon if you tell your son, "Don't you stick-up for yourself again. Mummy will come down to the school make sure it's safe for you," he will do his block. Stay out of male business - your smoothering has already caused him to adopt a victim's role that he has bearly escaped, using some agro, and something you can never give, manly advice.

It wasn't meant to be a comeback - I just didn't want to drag myself down to your level (but wasn't going to let you think my silence was because you had cowed me).

2 things

- I don't interfere in his life and haven't since he got to High School

- I do think interference is necessary with young (i.e. less than 10) children

Also I do keep wondering what is in your background that you continually have to have such an overly aggressive reaction to everything. You seem to lack any understanding of what strength of character actually is.

Alan Shore
08-03-2004, 02:02 PM
There is a current poll running on the MSN site:

Has the Bulldogs incident put you off supporting Rugby League?

So far, 16,100 have said yes, 9,900 have said no. Not a good sign for Rugby League...

chesslover
08-03-2004, 05:24 PM
There is a current poll running on the MSN site:

Has the Bulldogs incident put you off supporting Rugby League?

So far, 16,100 have said yes, 9,900 have said no. Not a good sign for Rugby League...

but how representative are these voters?

If you look at the universe of league supporters, how many of them woudl visit MSN? How many of those voting in the MSN poll are non League supporters who would not have supported League in any case

League has survived the Super League war, and it will survive the Bulldogs gangrape crisis. reports of the death of League are greatly exagerated.

PHAT
08-03-2004, 07:29 PM
Also I do keep wondering what is in your background that you continually have to have such an overly aggressive reaction to everything. You seem to lack any understanding of what strength of character actually is.

You are confusing "aggression" with "passion".

You are right, I do not know what strength of character. How much strength of character - a lot, a little - does it take to do these?

Get a 90+ UAI
Tell your friend they are being a dickhead
Admitt to being a dickhead
Starting Uni at 60 years of age
Divorcing the mother of your children
Not divorcing the mother of your children
Doing an armed rob
Become a Budist monk
Doing a break and enter
Sell a kidney
Punch a copper
Go to a nude wedding
Devote your life to a charity organisation
Turn down a career move for your family
Pay all the tax that you should
Pickup a hitch-hiker
Testify against your own cousin
Dieting forever
Being a sports champion
Do a suicide bombing
Write a warts and all autobiography
Sell used cars
Go into prostitution to put your child through a private catholic school
Be an ACF BB participant



"Strength of character" is a nubulous term that is used by people to demean or slur someone whose motivations they do not know or understand. I think that "strength of character" is like IQ. It can be strong or weak in different areas, but there is an average of all these. I think my average is OK, albeit with a high std.dev. Hence I think your portrayal of me as "aggressive" is unidimentional and therefore wrong - and I will snot anyone who disagrees. :owned:

jenni
08-03-2004, 07:52 PM
You are confusing "aggression" with "passion".

You are right, I do not know what strength of character. How much strength of character - a lot, a little - does it take to do these?

Get a 90+ UAI
Tell your friend they are being a dickhead
Admitt to being a dickhead
Starting Uni at 60 years of age
Divorcing the mother of your children
Not divorcing the mother of your children
Doing an armed rob
Become a Budist monk
Doing a break and enter
Sell a kidney
Punch a copper
Go to a nude wedding
Devote your life to a charity organisation
Turn down a career move for your family
Pay all the tax that you should
Pickup a hitch-hiker
Testify against your own cousin
Dieting forever
Being a sports champion
Do a suicide bombing
Write a warts and all autobiography
Sell used cars
Go into prostitution to put your child through a private catholic school
Be an ACF BB participant





Far too simplistic - the circumstances change everything e.g. if you have pushy parents and go to a good school, getting a 90+ is easy. If you have drug addicted parents and a dysfunctional home, it take an awe-inspiring amount of character.

In fact the only ones I would think require no strength of character are

"Do a suicide bombing

Be an ACF BB participant"

PHAT
08-03-2004, 10:26 PM
Far too simplistic - the circumstances change everything ...

In fact the only ones I would think require no strength of character are

"Do a suicide bombing

Be an ACF BB participant"


Yes, agreed, each example is too hard to judge without knowing the context. And that is part of my point; "strength of character" cannot be judged from examination of a person's BB blatherings. ;)


Wow. "Do a suicide bombing and Be an ACF BB participant" are both no "Strength of character" acts. That is weird. :eek:

Rincewind
08-03-2004, 10:40 PM
Yes, agreed, each example is too hard to judge without knowing the context. And that is part of my point; "strength of character" cannot be judged from examination of a person's BB blatherings. ;)

There's some that would argue that it is not someone's actions but the motivations for their actions which most clearly reveal their character. In different circumstances all your examples could have been the behaviour of someone with exemplary character or almost as easily, someone with no character whatsoever.

If by blathering in the BB one receives an insight into the reasons for their actions, then it is their character that is being revealed. Far moreso IMHO than if they perform some random act of violence/kindness/bravery/cowardness/etc.

chesslover
08-03-2004, 10:56 PM
what does all of this debate about character and bullying have to do with NRL, AFL and the other football codes? :confused:

why not people who want to discuss those issues start another new thread??

skip to my lou
08-03-2004, 11:06 PM
what does all of this debate about character and bullying have to do with NRL, AFL and the other football codes?

Aww gee, I felt like printing and framing this.

Rincewind
08-03-2004, 11:41 PM
what does all of this debate about character and bullying have to do with NRL, AFL and the other football codes? :confused:

Let me explain.

Competitive situations are also useful for revealing character.

Bullies are quite often those who are intellectually and socially inadept but physical more developed than their peers. Sounds like the average football player's profile to me. ;)

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 11:25 AM
Schoolyard victums of bullies are usually asking for it by such things as:

Matt, your list reminds me of the kind of drivel churned out by creeps who say that women deserve to be raped if they go out at night, are attractive, fail to have a male escort at every opportunity, allow themselves to be alone with a man they aren't married to, discuss sex in a public place, drink alcohol, or fail to dress in a Taliban-approved manner at all times. Of course, no one who makes these comments is defending the rapist, just pointing out that it takes two people for a rape to occur. :rolleyes:


"It is terribly important for parents to stand up and say very loudly and stand up for yourself, nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of in standing up to a bully."

I agree with this bit. I reckon the victim should feel free to combat the bully in virtually any way they feel comfortable with, short of actual murder.

A corollary to that: I don't think the victim should be pressured to combat the bully in ways that they feel uncomfortable with, because that is really letting the bully win if the bully realises what's going on. For instance if the bully knows the child's a pacifist but the bully manages to get the child to lash out, that can be a win for the bully.

Trent Parker
09-03-2004, 10:49 PM
could also be a win for the bullied. The child being bullied might learn that he needs to come out of being a pacifist. Then the bullying may cease. ???????

PHAT
10-03-2004, 02:02 PM
Matt, your list reminds me of the kind of drivel churned out by creeps who say that women deserve to be raped if they go out at night, are attractive, fail to have a male escort at every opportunity, allow themselves to be alone with a man they aren't married to, discuss sex in a public place, drink alcohol, or fail to dress in a Taliban-approved manner at all times. Of course, no one who makes these comments is defending the rapist, just pointing out that it takes two people for a rape to occur. :rolleyes:


All this is true except for the word "deserve". In a completely objective description of the womens behaviour (as you decribed above) the "deserver" should be replaced with the phase "might expect to". Naturally I am not approving of it. I am however, saying that like it or not, that is the situation actually women face.

Once that is acknowlegded, we can ask, "How do we reduce the frequency of rape?" You can (and KB will) be as PC as you like about it and say it is all the fault of the rapist and therefore we must work on only the perpetraters. If you do this, sure, there will be a reduction in the crime. However, if you acknowledge that women also have a "role" to play, then we can make a further reduction in the crime.

It does no good to say to women to, "Go for it sister, act like a slut as much as you like, because we are working on the perpetraters." What do you say to the victim. "Don't worry about it, go and act like a slut again - you can still do it because we are working on the perpetraters."

Back to schoolyard bullies. If you don't want to be singled out for "special treatment," don't be:

1. A brown noses in the classroom.
2. Pretend to be Oscar Wild.
3. Not saying boo.
4. Making sacastic remarks to the drongo.
5. Not making eye contact.
6. Walking around with your tail between your legs.
7. Ignoring your foe.
8. Talking everything over.

In conclussion, bullying is a practical problem, not an esoteric one. Therefore it needs practical solutions, not PC drivel.

[EDIT] BTW, which of those 8 - and/or - others got you bullied KB. I was giulty of 4 and 7.

jenni
10-03-2004, 06:49 PM
Of course if you take the Matt solution to its ultimate conclusion then you have the Columbine massacres. They REALLY made the bullies regret it...

PHAT
10-03-2004, 07:45 PM
Of course if you take the Matt solution to its ultimate conclusion then you have the Columbine massacres. They REALLY made the bullies regret it...

Reductio ad absurdium

The Columbine massacre was a case of disproportionate reaction. If they had used their fists instead of bullits ...

jenni
11-03-2004, 01:19 PM
Reductio ad absurdium

The Columbine massacre was a case of disproportionate reaction. If they had used their fists instead of bullits ...

More like QED

It is all a matter of viewpoint isn't it? Many Americans feel they have a God given right to carry and use guns.

Sorry to hear you were bullied - explains the extreme reaction. Everyone has a different way of coping.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 04:03 PM
All this is true except for the word "deserve". In a completely objective description of the womens behaviour (as you decribed above) the "deserver" should be replaced with the phase "might expect to".

That's true, and I'd do the same with the bullying case. Someone might expect to be bullied if they carry on in a certain way but that doesn't mean they deserve it, and it doesn't mean the onus should be so much on them to cringe, feign conformity and avoid such a risk. I have no problem with them taking that path if they choose to, but they shouldn't be put in a situation where nothing else works. Rather, address the problem.


It does no good to say to women to, "Go for it sister, act like a slut as much as you like, because we are working on the perpetraters." What do you say to the victim. "Don't worry about it, go and act like a slut again - you can still do it because we are working on the perpetraters."

I think it's got a lot to do with how you word it. The right way to say it is "Look, in an ideal world you should have the right to walk alone through a rugby changeroom in your underwear with a blood alcohol reading of .15 and not have anyone there even touch you unless you tell him to, but unfortunately policing will probably never be good enough to guarantee your safety in such a situation, so if you want to do stuff like that, be well aware of the risks you are taking and think about whether it's worth it."

The wrong way to say it, either in the bullying or rape cases, is anything along the lines of "You deserved it". Though some non-physical stirring sometimes is deserved, if the person being stirred has really provoked it by doing something inappropriate rather than merely different themselves.

I don't know what the situation is nowadays but the school I went to never did that much about bullying, at least that I knew about, although a couple of bullies were "advised" not to re-enrol. A common problem in private schools is that there are several bullies paying full fees vs one freak on a scholarship - school has a vested interest in letting it go at least until someone sets the lawyers on them.


1. A brown noses in the classroom.
2. Pretend to be Oscar Wild.
3. Not saying boo.
4. Making sacastic remarks to the drongo.
5. Not making eye contact.
6. Walking around with your tail between your legs.
7. Ignoring your foe.
8. Talking everything over.

[EDIT] BTW, which of those 8 - and/or - others got you bullied KB. I was giulty of 4 and 7.

Don't remember very clearly but I'd make an opening bid for 4 (only when severely provoked) and 8 with side options on 1 and 2. Unkind commentators may notice how little has changed. :lol: 1 or 2 are a bit exaggerated but I was certainly proud of my competitive academic successes, though I never put others down for getting bad marks. Some of the stuff that used to get me bullied included:

* Having weird interests the others couldn't/wouldn't relate to. They really hated me for this.
* Openly criticising the interests of others (eg violent physical sports, soap operas) - actually I was grossly disrespectful and snobby about this sort of thing even in cases where it wasn't at all warranted, and should have been told off for it much more strongly. (Cue appropriate cheapo.)
* Stubbornly not conforming whenever there was any practical advantage in not doing so.
* (In high school) having a high female to male friend ratio.
* (In junior school) while not exactly being teacher's pet, making it very clear to the other pupils that I generally preferred the company of adults. I had been put back a year on age grounds on moving to Tasmania and was intellectually far too far ahead of my age group - I couldn't relate to them nor them to me.

jenni
11-03-2004, 04:58 PM
I don't know what the situation is nowadays but the school I went to never did that much about bullying, at least that I knew about, although a couple of bullies were "advised" not to re-enrol. A common problem in private schools is that there are several bullies paying full fees vs one freak on a scholarship - school has a vested interest in letting it go at least until someone sets the lawyers on them.


.

The high school my kids goes to does a lot of work on bullying. Tamzin(just gone to High School) has currently been going through a course on bullying and how to cope with it, and why it is bad, that all year 7 and 8 kids have to attend.

The school claims to take bullying seriously and they do attempt to squash any really overt bullying that goes on. However Gareth put up with 6 months of low level bullying on going to the school, until he belted one of the boys. The school gave Gareth 2 detention periods as punishment, but gave the boy who got belted 1 dention period in recognition of the fact that he had been provoking Gareth.

Garvinator
11-03-2004, 05:07 PM
The school claims to take bullying seriously and they do attempt to squash any really overt bullying that goes on. However Gareth put up with 6 months of low level bullying on going to the school, until he belted one of the boys. The school gave Gareth 2 detention periods as punishment, but gave the boy who got belted 1 dention period in recognition of the fact that he had been provoking Gareth.
thats the way to teach ppl about bullying, punish the person who reacted with a higher penalty. Im sure that will encourage ppl to stand up for themselves. they will know in future that they will get more of a penalty than the original perpertrator. why did you tolerate this punishment jenni?

the school has admitted who was the original problem, so why did you not really question and demand action about why this was not dealt with earlier?

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 06:00 PM
Depends on the kind of bullying that provoked it. If it's physical bullying the provoker should get the greater punishment. If it's the provokee that steps over the line into violence it's less clear cut.

I knew someone once who was bullied who finally lashed out and attacked one of the bullies after many years of putting up with it. The bully ran screaming to the teacher (funny how bullies will bully children for dobbing but then do so themselves when on the receiving end) and the teacher just said "Well if he hit you you must have been doing something really stupid" and ignored it.

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 06:29 PM
Depends on the kind of bullying that provoked it. If it's physical bullying the provoker should get the greater punishment. If it's the provokee that steps over the line into violence it's less clear cut.

I knew someone once who was bullied who finally lashed out and attacked one of the bullies after many years of putting up with it. The bully ran screaming to the teacher (funny how bullies will bully children for dobbing but then do so themselves when on the receiving end) and the teacher just said "Well if he hit you you must have been doing something really stupid" and ignored it.
Hahaha, that happened to me too!

Though it was in year 8, and the bullying was for 10 minutes. And also, it wasn't a "hit". It was more like "face re-arranged". :)

When I was finished with him, he couldn't stand up to complain to the teacher! :lol:

jenni
11-03-2004, 07:21 PM
thats the way to teach ppl about bullying, punish the person who reacted with a higher penalty. Im sure that will encourage ppl to stand up for themselves. they will know in future that they will get more of a penalty than the original perpertrator. why did you tolerate this punishment jenni?

the school has admitted who was the original problem, so why did you not really question and demand action about why this was not dealt with earlier?

I think if Gareth had been the only one to be punished, we would have reacted, but it was kind of fair. They were both punished, thus recognising the fault of the other boy, but sending a message that losing your temper and reacting is not really tolerated in a civilised society.

I have to admit that we did tell Gareth that, although we would not like to see it happen again, we understood what had happened and that we supported his action.

Fortunately his action (he almost broke the boy's nose), seems to have got through to all the kids and all bullying stopped. Gareth is quite a vicious basketball player now, so maybe that has helped as well.

PHAT
11-03-2004, 08:40 PM
Someone might expect to be bullied if they carry on in a certain way but that doesn't mean they deserve it, and it doesn't mean the onus should be so much on them to cringe, feign conformity and avoid such a risk.



You do not seem to be able to let go of the PC concept of "all victims are innocent". There is an onus on people to look after themselves as much as they can. If a person knows that an action is a high risk, even if it is of an illegal nature, then they must bear the consequences.

For example, while there are campaigns that exhalt junkies to be careful with "new H" until they know its strength, society will then say "Sucko, Scum Bag" with every OD, and rarely touches the dealers.

As for schoolyard bullying, there is a pecking order, and individuals are responsible for their position in it. At least you (and I) have the insight to know why we were in line for a hard time - I was like cross between Karl Kruszelnicki and Johnny Rotten - and accepted the conditions thet come with the turf. If a "victim" chooses not to accept those conditions, then good on them. But the school should not bully the bullies unless there is blood or "school refusal".

Garvinator
11-03-2004, 08:43 PM
You do not seem to be able to let go of the PC concept of "all victims are innocent". There is an onus on people to look after themselves as much as they can. If a person knows that an action is a high risk, even if it is of an illegal nature, then they must bear the consequences.

For example, while there are campaigns that exhalt junkies to be careful with "new H" until they know its strength, society will then say "Sucko, Scum Bag" with every OD, and rarely touches the dealers.

As for schoolyard bullying, there is a pecking order, and individuals are responsible for their position in it. At least you (and I) have the insight to know why we were in line for a hard time - I was like cross between Karl Kruszelnicki and Johnny Rotten - and accepted the conditions thet come with the turf. If a "victim" chooses not to accept those conditions, then good on them. But the school should not bully the bullies unless there is blood or "school refusal".

so are you condoning bullying?

PHAT
11-03-2004, 08:49 PM
Sorry to hear you were bullied - explains the extreme reaction. Everyone has a different way of coping.


"Extreme reaction?" There has not been one person on this BB who has disagreed with your son's actions - the actions that I have been endorsing. What decent father would tell his son to be a dobber? I know, a mother.

PHAT
11-03-2004, 08:59 PM
so are you condoning bullying?

It is not black and white. I accept pecking orders, I do not accept brutality. Bullying can fall anywhere on that scale.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 09:58 PM
You do not seem to be able to let go of the PC concept of "all victims are innocent". There is an onus on people to look after themselves as much as they can. If a person knows that an action is a high risk, even if it is of an illegal nature, then they must bear the consequences.

I sort-of agree with that (except for your latest attempt to pigeonhole me as PC which is especially funny coming after you complained about me supposedly playing the "racist" card on you in another thread). But in some cases the risks in question are only there because other people behave in an undesirable manner that society lacks the resources or will to properly police. It is not the victim's fault that the situation is risky. In some cases, the behaviour that the victim gets bullied for is something that is an important part of their personality. To say "oh, it's your fault, you insisted on being who you are when you could have avoided it by changing" is missing the point. Actually I think our positions on this are about the same, we're just using differently-slanted vocab.


As for schoolyard bullying, there is a pecking order, and individuals are responsible for their position in it. At least you (and I) have the insight to know why we were in line for a hard time - I was like cross between Karl Kruszelnicki and Johnny Rotten - and accepted the conditions thet come with the turf. If a "victim" chooses not to accept those conditions, then good on them. But the school should not bully the bullies unless there is blood or "school refusal".

It's a complex problem. Ideally I'd say boot the bullies after even a tenth of what most bullies have traditionally got away with. However, while that's a great short-term result for the victim, it's a really bad long-term result for the bully and a serious social problem in the making. Also I'm not sure whether a completely civilised environment as a child really prepares the victim for encountering some of the jerks you can come across in the adult world.

I'd just hope to see more bullied children get decent quality advice about how to respond to bullying effectively. The quality of advice I got - and this at a top private school - was totally hopeless. Every dumb ineffective cliche in the book.

Trent Parker
11-03-2004, 10:13 PM
Back to schoolyard bullies. If you don't want to be singled out for "special treatment," don't be:

1. A brown noses in the classroom.
2. Pretend to be Oscar Wild.
3. Not saying boo.
4. Making sacastic remarks to the drongo.
5. Not making eye contact.
6. Walking around with your tail between your legs.
7. Ignoring your foe.
8. Talking everything over.



In high school i was guilty of maybe 3 or 4 of these, but I was not bullied much in high school.

There was one day, when i was in year 7, where this kid that caught the same bus as myself, and was in the same year, had been picking on me and doing stupid things like tripping me over. Once on the bus to go home I thought f**k this I took a swing at him when he was teasing me from the Isle... BAD MOVE.
What I did not know was that this guy did boxing as a hobby, also a bad move because i was trying to punch upwards whilst he was punching downwards. Also a bad move was that I was basically facing him so that my head was against the glass of the window so there was no give when each of his punches landed. It didn't last very long though. My left eye ended up so puffed up that i could not see out of it (and i am already legally blind in the right). so i was walking up my street literally blind.

I think the fact that in the most part i was not bullied was the fact that most students, in my year at least, knew that I had a vision impairment. Or it could have been the fact that my cousin who had left the school a year or two before I started, had an legenary bad reputation for creating trouble.

chesslover
11-03-2004, 11:49 PM
NRL will be meeting in late April to decide if it should expand. Central Coast, Gold Coast and Wellington have all applied to be included

ARL chief said that he is not in favourt of any expansion till end of 2006. NRL chief Gallop said that at most there will be 16 teams

Singleton said if his Central Coast Bears Team does ntot get admitted he wil quit leage and get a super 12 franchise from Rugny Union

It is time League expands and lets all 3 areas join in. Phil Gould said thathe wanted Central Coast, Gold Coast and Wellington all join.

only way that could happen is if 2 clubs relocate. Central Coast have a contract that says that if they play in the NRL, they must pplay as the central coast bears as the North Sydney Bears owns 20% of the Cental Coast homeground

if league does not take this chance Aussie Rules and Union will

PHAT
12-03-2004, 05:53 AM
Once on the bus to go home I thought f**k this I took a swing at him when he was teasing me from the Isle... BAD MOVE.
What I did not know was that this guy did boxing as a hobby, also a bad move because i was trying to punch upwards whilst he was punching downwards.


Trent, mate. Prepare your attacks ;) You should have;
1. Sat behind him!
2. A quick head lock from behind.
3. Wrench his head back over the deat
4. Jamb a metal biro up one nostral (his, not yours)
5. Lever it backwards with extreme prejudice (big big big pain)
6. Say "Right, f***er! Drop your dacks or I'll tear your f***ing nose off," and laugh alot.
7. Then say, "Now start playing with your prong." Now everyone is laughing with you.
8. Prey to allmighty God you can get to the door berore his can pull is dacks up.
9. Run
10. Laugh a lot.

PHAT
12-03-2004, 05:59 AM
"Look, in an ideal world you should have the right to walk alone through a rugby changeroom in your underwear with a blood alcohol reading of .15 and not have anyone there even touch you unless you tell him to, but unfortunately policing will probably never be good enough to guarantee your safety in such a situation, ...

"Unfortunately?" Really? I think it is good that we do not have a state police force so powerful that it could policy idiocy of this magnitude. If it could save this dopey slag it could stop me picking my nose at the traffic lights.

Trent Parker
12-03-2004, 08:27 AM
NRL will be meeting in late April to decide if it should expand. Central Coast, Gold Coast and Wellington have all applied to be included

ARL chief said that he is not in favourt of any expansion till end of 2006. NRL chief Gallop said that at most there will be 16 teams

Singleton said if his Central Coast Bears Team does ntot get admitted he wil quit leage and get a super 12 franchise from Rugny Union

It is time League expands and lets all 3 areas join in. Phil Gould said thathe wanted Central Coast, Gold Coast and Wellington all join.

only way that could happen is if 2 clubs relocate. Central Coast have a contract that says that if they play in the NRL, they must pplay as the central coast bears as the North Sydney Bears owns 20% of the Cental Coast homeground

if league does not take this chance Aussie Rules and Union will

There is no way in the world that the central coast would get a super 12/13 team. An additional super 12 team might go to Melbourne.but not central coast. Eache Sper 12 team represents a territory in either Sth Africa, NZ or Aus.

There is, in my view, no way.
As for Aussie rules, I think when i was up there once i read the local paper and they only had 6 teams in all the central coast. Also is there capacity for an AFL team on the central coast? I doubt it.

jenni
12-03-2004, 08:29 AM
"Extreme reaction?" There has not been one person on this BB who has disagreed with your son's actions - the actions that I have been endorsing. What decent father would tell his son to be a dobber? I know, a mother.

I think the bullies won with you Matt - they provided a role model for you, which you have copied and endorsed with fervour.

Have a look at your tactics on the bulletin board - you harangue and bully people all the time!

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2004, 12:49 PM
"Unfortunately?" Really? I think it is good that we do not have a state police force so powerful that it could policy idiocy of this magnitude. If it could save this dopey slag it could stop me picking my nose at the traffic lights.

There is actually no valid reason to stop you doing that, although the world would doubtless be grateful if you installed tinted glass on your windscreen. I was, however, exaggerating for effect. And it's true, that a police force powerful enough to police all the things that could do with better policing would probably also be a menace - not in itself but because of a greater power to enforce some of the stupider laws made by politicians.

PHAT
12-03-2004, 04:52 PM
I think the bullies won with you Matt - they provided a role model for you, which you have copied and endorsed with fervour.

Have a look at your tactics on the bulletin board - you harangue and bully people all the time!

There are much clearer examples of bullies here than me. I think I have been in the past more of a BB brawler than a standover man. As in chess, I like to claim a scalp here and there, but only a scalp worth taking.

chesslover
14-03-2004, 03:55 PM
There is no way in the world that the central coast would get a super 12/13 team. An additional super 12 team might go to Melbourne.but not central coast. Eache Sper 12 team represents a territory in either Sth Africa, NZ or Aus.

There is, in my view, no way.
As for Aussie rules, I think when i was up there once i read the local paper and they only had 6 teams in all the central coast. Also is there capacity for an AFL team on the central coast? I doubt it.

New Zealand warriors owner said that he is going to setup a Pacifika Super 12 franchise combining all the teams from the pacific islands (PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and others) into a combined rugby union team

everyone said it was a good idea, but as all super 12 franchises are owned by the state rugby union federation, they do not like privateownership of rugby union franchises and said no to him. But if all the pacific island rugby union team's agree, you will have a super 13 concept.

I agree thatCentral Coast will find it hard to get a super 12 franchise, while they say that team's should be owned by the official rugby union federations, and they have the currebt state based teams of NSW Waratahs, ACT Brumbies and Queensland Reds. Also Central Coast does not have much of an AFL market, and AFL's main priority is to make sure that teh Sydney Swans are succesful.

Singleton's threat to go to Union or AFL should not League give him a licence is a bluff. But I do think League should give the Central Coast a team of their own

chesslover
14-03-2004, 04:22 PM
NRL has 15 teams. 10 are from NSW (9 in Syndey Metro, and 1 from Newcastle), 2 from Queensland (Brisbane and North Queensland), 1 from Canberra, 1 from Melbourne and 1 from New Zeland (Auckland based NZ Warriors)

There are 3 new applicatiosn to join the National Rugby League competiton. They are from Central Coast in NSW, Gold Coast in Queensland and Wellington in New Zealand

NRL is a 50/50 venture between News Ltd and the Australian Rugby League. News Ltd also owns the Melbourne Storm outright, and has stakes in the Brisbane Broncos and Nth Queensland Cowboys team. Daily Tele said that News does not want any more teams added to the current 15 teams, because it is too expensive and reduces profits from existing teams and also diverts money from the League grassroots. This has the support of a lot of Sydney based clubs as well.

However Melbourne is losing tens of millions of dollars, as for some reason the AFL mad Victorians and the Victorian press are not warming to the Melbourne Rugby League team. Dennis Fitzgerald the Parramatta CEO, and Phil Gould and others have called for News to admit that Victoria is an AFL country, and abandon the League experiment in Melbourne. Thsi will mean that, just as League lost in Adelaide and Perth and pulled out, League will abandon the code in Victoria at a time that the AFL is gaining ground in the only states in Australia where there is league - NSW (Sydney Swans), Queensland (Brisbane Lions) and ACT (Kangaroos). In addition League is losing fans to Rugby Union in these 3 League states as well (NSW Waratahs, ACT Brumbies and Queensland Reds).

If league abandons the Melbourne Storm, that means that the second biggest city in Australia will not have a League team, and all pretense of a national competition are gone. This means that sponsorships, profile, media all take a big hit as well.

League will thus be reduced to 3 states in Australia, and internationally just North England and soem areas of New Zeland. That is why League must make all efforts to hang on to Melbourne, and convince the Victorians that league is the best winter sports in the world. The ground record for a Melbourne match is just 20,000 and the average crowds have been just under 10,000.

In terms of League expansion, the only viable areas for League to expand will be Gold Coast, Central Coast and also a second New Zeland team. That is why having these 3 teams join the NRL, and having melbourne stay on is very good. If 18 teams are too much, then we should have a couple of Sydney clubs relocate to these areas.

Phil Gould said the Bulldogs should relocate to one of these 3 areas, and Dennis Fitzgerald said that a couple of the Sydney teams should merge to allow for a 14 or 16 team comp that has Central Coast and The Gold Coast. Since all other areas of expansion are AFL areas which League cannot expand into having tried that in the past with a lot of financial loss, League can then in the future include Wellington to have 2 New Zealand teams, and also have another Brisbane team to join the Brisbane broncos.

That way there will be a strong league in Queensland (at least 3 teams with Gold Coast and 4 if down the track there is another Brisbane Team), NSW (with Newcastle and Central Coast included in addition to the Syndey teams), ACT, Victoria and New Zealand (2 teams if Wellington joins now or in the future). May not be Australia wide competition, but it covers all the biggest markets and will mean that league can remain a great foortball code in Australia, providing great challenge to Union and AFL and soccer. In addition League worldwide will propser as well, as New Zeland will have 2 teams in the number 1 league competition in the world

chesslover
15-03-2004, 09:24 PM
John O"neil the chief of Australian Soccer said that there will be 8 teams in the new Soccer national league next year.

They will be city based, with 1 team to a city and a New Zealand team. This means that Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adeleaide, Sydney and New Zealand will all have 1 team each. The other 2 teams will come from Newcastle, Wollongong, Canberra or Tasmania

The biggest losers from this is the Sydney teams. NSL now has 13 teams with 1 each from WA, SA, Queensland and New Zealand. Victoria has 2 teams and NSW 7 with 5 of these 7 based in Sydney. Now Syndey will go from 5 to 1 and people are not happy here.

The new teams will be announced in July and the ASA says that they have million dollartv deals and sponsorships all lined up. It does seem that finally the sleeping soccer giant has woken up

Only problem is having 1 team to a city is silly for a big city liek Sydney. John O'Neil also said that his aim is to push Australia from number 82 in the soccer FIFA world ranming to number 20. But even that is too low for in League Australia is number 1, in cricket we are number 1, in Union we are number 2, in AUssie Rules we are number 1 (only because no one elsewhere plays it ;) ) and in Tennis we are highly ranked.

Even if the new Soccer League next year goes well having 1 team a city will Australia follow a sport passionately where we are just number 20 in the world??? That is one of the big problems in Soccer beating league in NSW

Garvinator
15-03-2004, 09:57 PM
in Tennis we are highly ranked.


we are not highly ranked in tennis atm, we have only two players that are highly ranked, the rest are way off the pace.

chesslover
15-03-2004, 11:35 PM
we are not highly ranked in tennis atm, we have only two players that are highly ranked, the rest are way off the pace.

the 2 Davis Cup finals that were held here in recent years?

In Soccer the best we can hope for is a top 20 ranking. I know Soccer is the most popular sport in the world by far and has more participants but why would any Australian support a team that is only number 20?

You can support League, Union, Cricket., Tennis where we are always in contention for world number 1 status.

Garvinator
15-03-2004, 11:42 PM
the 2 Davis Cup finals that were held here in recent years? Tennis where we are always in contention for world number 1 status

and how did we do against sweden just recently, also how did we do again when hewitt, the dud and pat rafter werent available against argentina in argentina :hmm: the point is that we have very little depth and so we cant be classed as number one in the world.

chesslover
16-03-2004, 10:35 PM
which major football code is like chess in Australia?

To me it is Rugby League

It is like arm wrestle, with first one side attacking and then another and generally scores are very tight. You build up small advantages and gain field position and try to win

Aussie Rules is far more free flowing and there seems to be no logic or order or pattern.

In NSW and Quuensland the state of origin and league ratings are far higher than any sport. In teh first round of the NRL a massive 140,000 people attended the 7 matches and ratings were good. League has shaken off the Bulldogs rape saga and there were lot of deifiant Bullodgs fans at the double header in telstra Stadium

The Bulldogs are the bad boys and this has seen a lot of their fans noiw being hardcore about their support for them

Bow wow wow Bow wow wow :lol:

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2004, 01:29 AM
which major football code is like chess in Australia?

To me it is Rugby League

Mwahaha. This gives me another option to gratuitously mention Rugby Chess, my personal response to attempts to compare chess with any other sport.

Rugby chess started when someone was comparing Aussie Rules to chess and one of my friends said that he thought rugby was more like chess. In one of my rare moments of thinking of the appropriate smart-alec response on the spot rather than fifteen minutes later, I said "Nonsense, if rugby was like chess you'd win if you got your king to the other side of the board."

Hence rugby chess.

It's the same as normal chess except that if you legally move your king to the opponent's back rank, you win! Naturally anything that makes this permanently impossible for both sides, including checkmate and stalemate, is a draw. 50 move rule is amended to also require that neither side's king is beyond the rank it was on at the start of the 50 moves.

arosar
22-03-2004, 06:31 PM
Hey CL - how's about that latest blunder by NRL officials in failing to stop the extra period half-time? You reckon Tigers were hardly done by?

AR

ursogr8
22-03-2004, 06:57 PM
John O"neil the chief of Australian Soccer said that there will be 8 teams in the new Soccer national league next year.

They will be city based, with 1 team to a city and a New Zealand team. This means that Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adeleaide, Sydney and New Zealand will all have 1 team each. The other 2 teams will come from Newcastle, Wollongong, Canberra or Tasmania

The biggest losers from this is the Sydney teams. NSL now has 13 teams with 1 each from WA, SA, Queensland and New Zealand. Victoria has 2 teams and NSW 7 with 5 of these 7 based in Sydney. Now Syndey will go from 5 to 1 and people are not happy here.

The new teams will be announced in July and the ASA says that they have million dollartv deals and sponsorships all lined up. It does seem that finally the sleeping soccer giant has woken up

Only problem is having 1 team to a city is silly for a big city liek Sydney. John O'Neil also said that his aim is to push Australia from number 82 in the soccer FIFA world ranming to number 20. But even that is too low for in League Australia is number 1, in cricket we are number 1, in Union we are number 2, in AUssie Rules we are number 1 (only because no one elsewhere plays it ;) ) and in Tennis we are highly ranked.

Even if the new Soccer League next year goes well having 1 team a city will Australia follow a sport passionately where we are just number 20 in the world??? That is one of the big problems in Soccer beating league in NSW

hi CL
65,000 people pay top dollar to watch a Serie A game in Italy. The world game. The challenge to AFL.
Game is abandoned just after half-time due to crowd unrest. Is this what we can look forward to?
Oh and yes, the score; I nearly forgot to mention. Nil all when the game was abandoned.

I wonder if John O'Neil picked up pointers.
starter

Rincewind
22-03-2004, 09:04 PM
hi CL
65,000 people pay top dollar to watch a Seriere A game in Italy.

I'm pretty sure it's just Serie A (pronounced something like seh-ree-eh ah).

ursogr8
23-03-2004, 06:54 AM
I'm pretty sure it's just Serie A (pronounced something like seh-ree-eh ah).
Now corrected.
I knew I had it w-r-o-n-g.
But I had to wait for SBS later to be reminded what was r-i-g-h-t.

arosar
23-03-2004, 07:58 AM
Now corrected.
I knew I had it w-r-o-n-g.
But I had to wait for SBS later to be reminded what was r-i-g-h-t.

You should be ashamed of yourself starter mate. You got an Italian missus after all.

Hey listen, can you do us a favour mate? There's a show on channel 7 - My Restaurant Rules. You reckon you could vote for the Sydney mob in the competition? They are an Italian restaurant, just up the road from where I sit now, and hope they win. There's a mexican entrant but the guy is up himself.

AR

ursogr8
23-03-2004, 08:07 AM
You should be ashamed of yourself starter mate. You got an Italian missus after all.

Hey listen, can you do us a favour mate? There's a show on channel 7 - My Restaurant Rules. You reckon you could vote for the Sydney mob in the competition? They are an Italian restaurant, just up the road from where I sit now, and hope they win. There's a mexican entrant but the guy is up himself.

AR
Listen AR
I have a quota of 3 errors per day.

Now I have used one on Baz.
I use one per day when Bill picks on me.
There is no way that I will risk the third on voting using some technology that is beyond me. I am saving the error for something useful, see. :uhoh:

starter

ps My wife is away and I am batching, so Serie A could not be validated by that source. ;)

chesslover
25-03-2004, 08:32 PM
Hey CL - how's about that latest blunder by NRL officials in failing to stop the extra period half-time? You reckon Tigers were hardly done by?

AR

Wests appealed and NRL said the results will stand. Poor Wests.But if you start reversing results days after the match that is not good.

Also mason has been named as the bulldog with the cocaine bust but he has denied it. Mortimer is gone and Hughes who was fired has taken the Bulldogs to court.

thats my ....thats my....thats my team
I want you to know that....thats my......thats my...thats my team

chesslover
25-03-2004, 09:21 PM
hi CL
65,000 people pay top dollar to watch a Serie A game in Italy. The world game. The challenge to AFL.
Game is abandoned just after half-time due to crowd unrest. Is this what we can look forward to?
Oh and yes, the score; I nearly forgot to mention. Nil all when the game was abandoned.

I wonder if John O'Neil picked up pointers.
starter

In soccer the richest soccer league is the Premier League in England. This is followed by Italy, Spain, Germany and France

But just 1 soccer team in the entire England's premier league got a higher average home crowd than AFL's Collingwood's 50,000 average. That was of course Manchester United with a 65,000 average.

Newcastle United and Liverpool both exceeded 40,000 but other clubs including Arsenal and Chelsea all had averages below 40,000

In Spain the only clubs to have exceeded COllingwood's home crowd average were Real Madrid (70,000) and FC barcelona (55,000)

In italy only 3 crowds exceeded Collingwood's home average. They were Internatizionale, Milan and Roma. Juventus and lazio got over 40,000 but all others were below even that.

This shows that while the Soccer clubs may be far richer than AFL and have more sponsorship and merchandising, their fans are not as passionate as the AFL fans and do not watch the match live to the same extent.

the fact is that Soccer is the world game while Aussie Rules exists only in Australia. Once John O'Neil gets the game in order here soccer will be a big threat to Aussie Rules and League.

The only thing that can stop Soccer is that Australia will never be a top 10 soccer nation unlike in League where we are number 1 (as well as in cricket). Not many people will support a team where coming number 20 is considered great when if they support League they can be number 1.

Aussie Rules fans of course have no one to play any international games with and must invent "international rules' to play modified aussie rules with the Irish. Has any smart Aussie Rules fans thought why AFL has never been a legitimate sport outside Australia? what does that say about Aussie rules when you compare that to Rugby League :p

chesslover
25-03-2004, 09:45 PM
these were the top 20 tv programs for 2003 Australia-wide.

There were 11 sports programs in the top 20. The Rugby world cup saw Rugby have 7 top 20 ratings including number 1. Cricket, AFL, Horse racing and league all had one spot in the top 20. AFL Grandfinal drew almost 3 million people and came 4th while the League Grand final drew 2.4 million and came 4th

1 2003 RUGBY WORLD CUP: FINAL: AUSTRALIA V ENGLAND, 4,015,723 viewers
2 AUSTRALIAN IDOL - THE FINAL VERDICT, 3,300,051 viewers
3 THE BLOCK - THE AUCTION, 3,114,975 viewers
4 2003 GRAND FINAL COLLINGWOOD V BRISBANE, 2,965,566 viewers
5 2003 RUGBY WORLD CUP: CLOSING CEREMONY, 2,726,159 viewers
6 2003 RUGBY WORLD CUP: FINAL: PRESENTATION, 2,614,412 viewers
7 AUSTRALIAN IDOL - LIVE FROM THE OPERA HOUSE, 2,544,981 viewers
8 2003 RUGBY WORLD CUP: AUSTRALIA V ARGENTINA,2,491,683 viewers
9 2003 RUGBY WORLD CUP: OPENING CEREMONY, 2,466,365 viewers
10 CRICKET WORLD CUP 2003 - FINAL - AUS V IND 2,465,293 viewers
11 2003 RUGBY WORLD CUP: SEMI FINAL 1: NEW ZEALAND V AUSTRALIA, 2,428,696 viewers
12 RUGBY LEAGUE GRAND FINAL, 2,351,626 viewers
13 BIG BROTHER FINAL EVICTION, 2,267,043 viewers
14 THE BLOCK - MOVING OUT, 2,249,154 viewers
15 THE 2003 MELBOURNE CUP CARNIVAL: MELBOURNE CUP 2,244,184 viewers
16 THE BLOCK, Channel 2,227,589 viewers
17 BIG BROTHER - IN THEY GO, 2,224,976 viewers
18 2003 RUGBY WORLD CUP: SEMI FINAL 2: FRANCE V ENGLAND, 2,142,792 viewers
19 CHARLIE'S ANGELS, 2,078,773 viewers
20 THE TV WEEK LOGIES RED CARPET ARRIVALS, 2,036,286 viewers

Rincewind
25-03-2004, 11:08 PM
I only saw two of those "events". Nos 1 & 10. Is there something wrong with me? :eek:

Alan Shore
26-03-2004, 12:29 AM
I saw 1,2,3,4,10,12. I enjoyed #4 the most though :D

ursogr8
26-03-2004, 07:41 AM
Aussie Rules fans of course have no one to play any international games with and must invent "international rules' to play modified aussie rules with the Irish. Has any smart Aussie Rules fans thought why AFL has never been a legitimate sport outside Australia? what does that say about Aussie rules when you compare that to Rugby League :p

hi CL
Good to see you out and about.
You ask 2 questions.
The first one we already know the answer to. Aussie Rules is consonant with the Australian disrepect for authority and rules. Aussie Rules in anarchic like almost no other game, and that matches part of our convict psyche. Consequently it is unlikely to ever transport as a game into any other culture.
The second question is related to the first. Rugby was strong in the early 1900's in the USA; but lost a battle it should have won against grid-iron because the Americans prefer so much structure. Rugby will remain strong in societies like UK and France.
starter
ps Hence the Victorian/Eureka saying "It is un-Australian to like rugby".

ursogr8
26-03-2004, 07:44 AM
I only saw two of those "events". Nos 1 & 10. Is there something wrong with me? :eek:
Baz
You may have had something wrong with you but you are almost now cured. Just #1 to go.
starter

Rincewind
26-03-2004, 12:27 PM
Baz
You may have had something wrong with you but you are almost now cured. Just #1 to go.
starter

I actually forgot that I had seen number 1 until I was half way through writing that post. :D Definitely enjoyed #10 more.

ursogr8
26-03-2004, 04:21 PM
Sydney and Brisbane Football Clubs are in close competition, as they were in last year’s Preliminary Final, to be the most popular AFL team. On this occasion, however, the Sydney Swans lead the way. They have an estimated 1,341,000 supporters, just ahead of the Brisbane Lions, who have 1,331,000, according to the Roy Morgan AFL Football Monitor.

What do you think CL? Do you have comparable Rugby Union figures?

Garvinator
26-03-2004, 04:26 PM
Sydney and Brisbane Football Clubs are in close competition, as they were in last year’s Preliminary Final, to be the most popular AFL team. On this occasion, however, the Sydney Swans lead the way. They have an estimated 1,341,000 supporters, just ahead of the Brisbane Lions, who have 1,331,000, according to the Roy Morgan AFL Football Monitor.

What do you think CL? Do you have comparable Rugby Union figures?
notice though that these two teams are from one team towns

chesslover
27-03-2004, 05:54 PM
Sydney and Brisbane Football Clubs are in close competition, as they were in last year’s Preliminary Final, to be the most popular AFL team. On this occasion, however, the Sydney Swans lead the way. They have an estimated 1,341,000 supporters, just ahead of the Brisbane Lions, who have 1,331,000, according to the Roy Morgan AFL Football Monitor.

What do you think CL? Do you have comparable Rugby Union figures?

I am not a Rugby Union follower and have no interest or knowledge of this game.

My favourite sport is Rugby League and that is the sport I have played and love very much. I started as a mad South Sydney supporter but then supported Western SUburbs when we moved to Ashfield. Then when Wests were forced to merge as a result of SUper League I started supporting Souths again. After Souths were kicked out of the comp I supported the local Parramatta Eels team and have recently idenfied myself with the Sydney Bulldogs

That's my...that's my......that's my team
I want the world to know...that's my.....that's my.........that's my team

Rugby Union and Ruby League were once sport once. Rugby split from Soccer in the early 1800s and was an ametuer game. In 1895 the Northern England clubs split from the Rugby Union clubs as they wanted to pay their footballers. The Northern England was a working class heartland instead of the richer and private school SOuth where Union held sway. Soccer was far more popular than these two rugby codes combined in England then and now.

Untill 1907 there was just one code in Australia. That was Rugby Union and it was popular in NSW and Queensland. The rest of Australia had taken up Aussie Rules which was popular everywhere but in these two states. In 1907 due again to the professionlaism and ameatuer debates League split away from Union.

In 1908 the firstever professional Rugby League comp take place in Australia. The signing of dally messenger resulted in Rugby league taking over from Rugby Union as the favoured Rugby code in NSW. This position has never ever been challenged and will never ever will be.

In terms of world wide impact Rugby Union is far more popular than Rugby League and is played in about 100 countries with about 10 geniuinely competititive at the elite level. This is still dwarfed by SOccer which was, is and will be the most popular sports in the world.

Rugby League was originally a serious second tier sport in england, France and New Zealand. It has now waned in France and is a fifth rate sport in a country where football and to a lesser extent Union rules. In england it is restricted to North England, and in New Zeland it is the number 2 sport behind Union. It is played in 23 countries but in relaity it is Australia, North England and New Zeland where it flourishes. Even in Australia it flourishes in NSW, canberra and Queensland with an outpost in Melbourne.

The biggest threat to League is Union. Union is played in far more countries than League and the Super 12 concept has increased their popularity far more. Union has also gone professional which makes the entire reason for the original split irrelevent.

Unless League can expand beyound NSW, Canberra and Queensland (in Australia), North England and New Zeland we will eventually die and may even be forced to merge with Union to be one code again. That is because worldwide Union generates more money. supporters and media interest than League ever can as it is more of a world game

chesslover
27-03-2004, 06:13 PM
This is the partivpation rates for all sports in Australia by Roy Morgan

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2003/3661/

national figures are
1. Soccer 1,218,000
2. cricket 1,067,000
3. Basketball 892,000
4. Netball 762,000
5. Aussie Rules 585,000
6. Volleyball 501,000
7. Rugby League 405,000
8. Rugby Union 240,000

Soccer is number 1 here as well as overseas.Cricket is number 2 here and is a popular sport like in the ICC test nations. Leagues figures are very qood when you consider that it is only played a majority sport in NSW and Queenland. But number 7 for the number 1 league team in the world is not so good

For men the top 5 sports were
1. Soccer 870,000
2. Cricket 862,000
3. Basketball 575,000
4. AUssie Rules 438,000
5. Rugby League 311,000

For women the top 5 sports were
1. Netball 635,000
2. Soccer 348,000
3. basketball 317,000
4. Volleyball 251,000
5. Cricket 205,000
Aussie Rules was 6th with 147,000 females and League 7th with 95,000

chesslover
27-03-2004, 06:23 PM
This is the Roy Morgan poll about the Aussie Rules supporters. It identifies some of the chracteristics about the AFL fans. Though the poll is dated late 2001 these are the results of Australia'ssupport for the Aussie Rules clubs, in the only country where Aussie Rules is played :lol: :lol:

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2001/3407/

Syndey Swans were number 1 then with the support of 10% of the country ie 1,554,000 supporters. West Coast with 5.5%, Brisbane with 5.5%, Adelaide Crows with 5% were the next well supported clubs.

Then came the Victorian clubs with Essendon having 4.5% support Australiawide and Collingwood (4.5%), carlton (4%) and Richmond 2.5% next.

Starter, do you have a weblink to the latest AFL monitor. I just like to know what the enemy code to my League is upto ;) :p

chesslover
27-03-2004, 06:35 PM
This is the Roy Morgan poll on League. It shows how much Australian's suupported the League teams and also describes the characteristics of the league supporters of the team. It is dated in mid 2001 though but there should not be much marjed change

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2001/3412/

Brisbane Broncos were the most popular team then and had the support of almost 10% of the country which came to almost 1.6 million people. Then came Melbourne Storm with 6.5% of the population (1 million) and then the NSW clubs where support was scattered amongst the 9 Sydney clubs with teh highest just getting 3.5% of the support.

The big difference is that while AUssie Rules is played across all states only 54% of the population support an AFL club. In league while it is only played in NSW and Queensland and canberra 40% of the populaton of Australia support a NRL club. This shows that while League is non existent in SA, WA, NT and Tasmania, the population of NSW and Queensland is enough to make it signficant. The Melbourne Storm League teaam in Victoria is important as it will try to convert Victoria to the merits and attarction of League and also give sponsors access to the number 2 market in Australia

ursogr8
27-03-2004, 10:13 PM
Starter, do you have a weblink to the latest AFL monitor. I just like to know what the enemy code to my League is upto ;) :p

Not sure exactly what you are looking for CL, but I access all AFL stuff through
afl.com.au

ursogr8
28-03-2004, 10:53 AM
The Melbourne Storm League teaam in Victoria is important as it will try to convert Victoria to the merits and attarction of League


hi CL

Do those attractions include physical action both sides of the fence; players AND spectators?

chesslover
29-03-2004, 12:07 AM
hi CL

Do those attractions include physical action both sides of the fence; players AND spectators?

You are confusing the Bulldogs fans with the Melbourne Storm fans

The Bulldogs fans are now being investigated by our police and Channel 9 was also blasted for showing coverage of the brawls in TV. The Daily Tele had front page coverage of a mother protecting her children while 2 Bulldogs fans bashed a Sydney Rooster fan in front of her. It seems that our police is also having a strikeforce to investigate the brawls. There has also been threats that Bulldogs will be docked points if they brawl again or that they might even be expelled from the competition. Phil Gould who is trying to get the NRL to expand to GoldCoast, central coast and wellington said that there are too many Sydney teams and the Bulldogs should relocate to one of the 3 expansion ideas.

That makes sense as there are 9 sydney teams, 1 newcastle team, 2 Queensland team, 1 canberra team, 1 new zeland team and 1 Victorian team in the NRL. It is obvious that there are too many teams here and for the good of the game some of the sydney teams should merge or relocate.

Melbourne Storm so far have had 2 home games. Their crowd has been 10,000 and 8,000 which are not much for a team that won a premiership in it's second year.

There was speculation that NRL would abandon Melbourne Storm and give up trying to convert the AFL mad Victorians to the merits of League. Phil Gould wanted melbourne to be kicked out as did the parramatta CEO. That way they said NRL can concentrate on it's heartland (goldcoast, central coast). This will mean that league in Australia will be just limited to NSW and Queensland and we will have lost the second major media market in Australia. This was how we lost SA and WA when the NRL abandoned the Rugby League teams based there which makes it impossible for league to be revived there again.

chesslover
31-03-2004, 12:11 AM
good post that says that Soccer and the Socceroos unite Australia more than League, AFL or Union

Says union is an anglo upper middle class sport in 2 states and the League is a working class sport in 2 states. Says that while AFL is a egalitarian sport it divides the country into 16 tribes and does not unite as there is no national side that unites the AFL fans

http://www.thefanatics.com/category/Soccer/172.html

chesslover
31-03-2004, 12:47 AM
These are the top 25 TV programs Australia wide for the 21st century

13 of the top 25 are sports programs

Union holds the number 1 spot and has 4 entries all from the World Cup
AFL has 3 entries with all 3 grand fnals of the 21st century in the top 10
Rugby League has just 1 entry and that is the 2003 grand final at number 21

Socccer has 1 entry and that was the World Cup Final where Australia was not there. It was number 8
Cricket has just 1 entry (16) as has Tennis (number 4) horseracing (number 13) and swimming (number 12)

It shows that the AFL grandfinal routinely makes it to the top of the ratings chart. Union and other sports make it only when there is a special event on. The league grandfinal in 2003 was the highest rated for a long long time yet it only came 21st

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's most watched TV shows of the 21st century March 9, 2004

Compiled by David Dale for The Sydney Morning Herald, based on OzTAM's audience estimates for the mainland capitals. Series figures are for the most watched episode of the year.

1. Rugby World Cup final 2003 (7) 4.01 million
2. Australian Idol final 2003 (10) 3.30 m
3. The Block auction 2003 (9) 3.11 m
4. Wimbledon day 14 2001 (9) 3.04 m
5. AFL grand final 2003 (10) 2.96 m
6. Big Brother finale 2001 (10) 2.78 m
7. The National IQ Test 2002 2.78 m
8. World Cup Soccer final 2002 (9) 2.70 m
9. AFL grand final 2002 (10) 2.62 m
10. AFL grand final 2001 (7) 2.60 m
11. Friends finale 2001 (9) 2.54 m
12. World Swimming Championships day 8 2001 (9) 2.51 m
13. Melbourne Cup race 2002 (7) 2.50 m
14. Rugby World Cup Aus v. Argentina 2003 (7) 2.49 m
15. Rugby World Cup opening ceremony 2003 (7) 2.49 m
16. Cricket World Cup final Aus v India 2003 (9) 2.46 m
17. Rugby World Cup semi final Aus v NZ (7) 2.43 m
18. Logie Awards 2001 (9) 2.41 m
19. Friends opening 2002 (9) 2.41 m
20. Ten news Sunday 2002 (10) 2.40 m
21. Rugby League grand final 2003 (9) 2.35 m
22. 60 Minutes 2001 (9) 2.34 m
23. Backyard Blitz 2001 (9) 2.32 m
24. Big Brother final eviction 2002 (10) 2.30 m
25. Big Brother final eviction 2003 (10) 2.27 m

chesslover
18-04-2004, 12:02 AM
this is the top 50 average home crowds for the entire Rugby League teams in the WORLD. Source was Rugby League Review magazine and it is to teh nearest 1000, and figures are inflated for teams as it also includes finals matches as well

The highest home crowd average for the entire WORLD for league is 23,811 by the Brisbane Broncos. The highest ranked England team came 5th, Bradford Bulls and they had 17,267. The highest ranked New Zeland team was the New Zealand Warriors who particpate in the NRL and came 7th qith 16,103 crowd.

There were also 3 other countries that were in the top 50 home crowds in the world. France had 6 entrires, with the highest UTC coming 29th with a parltry average of 2,400 people. PNG had just one entry and that came 46th with an average of 1,100 people and USA also had one entry with their Glen Mills Bulls cominhng 50 with an attendence of 994

The top 4 are all Australia's NRL teams, with the top 10 comprising 8 NRL teams and 2 England Super League teams. The lowest ranked by crowd of the 15 NRL teams were the Melbourne Storm which came 22nd in the world with an average crowd of 9,153. Australia in all had all 15 NRL teams, and 7 non NRL teams (ranging from Nth Qld young Guns with average of 2000 at number 31 to Brisbane easts with average of 1000 atnumber 49) in teh top 50

New Zealand just had one team in the top 50 and that was the NZ warriros who are a part of our NRL. The fact that none of the other NZ teams can even get a home crowd of more than 1000 in NZ is worrying for the future of league.

England had 20 entries (with just 7 of the 12 SUper league clubs having attendences of over 10,000). England SUper League clubs such as London, Salford, Hlaifax (amongst the 12 elite English Super League teams could only have home averages of 4000, 3000 and 2000)

France had 6 entiries, and PNG just had one entry and USA also one (respectively number 46 with 1,100 and number 50 with 994 home crowds)

1. Brisbane Broncos (Aus-NRL) - 24,000
2. Penrith Panthers (Aus-NRL) - 23,000
3. Sydney Roosters (Aus-NRL) - 21,000
4. Newcastle Knights (Aus-NRL) - 18,000
5. Bradford Bulls (England - Super League) - 17,000
6. Leeds Rhinos (Engkand - Super League) - 16,000
7. NZ Warriors (New Zealand - NRL) - 16,000
8. Cronulla (Aus - NRL) - 15,000
9. Parramatta (Aus - NRL) - 15,000
10. Nth Qld (Aus - NRL) - 14,000
11. Canberra (Aus - NRL) - 14,000
12. Manly (Aus - NRL) - 13,000
13. Wests (Aus - NRL) - 13,000
14. Castleford (England - Super League) - 12,000
15. Warrington (England - Super League) - 11,000
16.St Helens (England - Super League) - 11,000
17. Wigan (England - Super League) - 11,000
18. Souths (Aus - NRL) - 11,000
19. St George (Aus - NRL) - 11,000
20. Hull (England - Super league) - 10,000
21. Bulldogs (Aus - NRL) - 9000
22. Melbourne (Aus - NRL) - 9000
23. Huddesrsfield (England - SuperLeague) - 6,000
24. Wakefield (England - Super League) - 6,000
25. Widnes (England - SuperLeague) - 5000
26. Salford (England - Superleague) - 4000
27. London (England - Super League) - 3,000
28. Halifax (England, SUper League) - 2000
29 UTC (France) - 2000
30. Pia (France) - 2000

ursogr8
18-04-2004, 08:10 AM
this is the top 50 average home crowds for the entire Rugby League teams in the WORLD. Source was Rugby League Review magazine and it is to teh nearest 1000, and figures are inflated for teams as it also includes finals matches as well

The highest home crowd average for the entire WORLD for league is 23,811 by the Brisbane Broncos. The highest ranked England team came 5th, Bradford Bulls and they had 17,267. The highest ranked New Zeland team was the New Zealand Warriors who particpate in the NRL and came 7th qith 16,103 crowd.

There were also 3 other countries that were in the top 50 home crowds in the world. France had 6 entrires, with the highest UTC coming 29th with a parltry average of 2,400 people. PNG had just one entry and that came 46th with an average of 1,100 people and USA also had one entry with their Glen Mills Bulls cominhng 50 with an attendence of 994

The top 4 are all Australia's NRL teams, with the top 10 comprising 8 NRL teams and 2 England Super League teams. The lowest ranked by crowd of the 15 NRL teams were the Melbourne Storm which came 22nd in the world with an average crowd of 9,153. Australia in all had all 15 NRL teams, and 7 non NRL teams (ranging from Nth Qld young Guns with average of 2000 at number 31 to Brisbane easts with average of 1000 atnumber 49) in teh top 50

New Zealand just had one team in the top 50 and that was the NZ warriros who are a part of our NRL. The fact that none of the other NZ teams can even get a home crowd of more than 1000 in NZ is worrying for the future of league.

England had 20 entries (with just 7 of the 12 SUper league clubs having attendences of over 10,000). England SUper League clubs such as London, Salford, Hlaifax (amongst the 12 elite English Super League teams could only have home averages of 4000, 3000 and 2000)

France had 6 entiries, and PNG just had one entry and USA also one (respectively number 46 with 1,100 and number 50 with 994 home crowds)

1. Brisbane Broncos (Aus-NRL) - 24,000
2. Penrith Panthers (Aus-NRL) - 23,000
3. Sydney Roosters (Aus-NRL) - 21,000
4. Newcastle Knights (Aus-NRL) - 18,000
5. Bradford Bulls (England - Super League) - 17,000
6. Leeds Rhinos (Engkand - Super League) - 16,000
7. NZ Warriors (New Zealand - NRL) - 16,000
8. Cronulla (Aus - NRL) - 15,000
9. Parramatta (Aus - NRL) - 15,000
10. Nth Qld (Aus - NRL) - 14,000
11. Canberra (Aus - NRL) - 14,000
12. Manly (Aus - NRL) - 13,000
13. Wests (Aus - NRL) - 13,000
14. Castleford (England - Super League) - 12,000
15. Warrington (England - Super League) - 11,000
16.St Helens (England - Super League) - 11,000
17. Wigan (England - Super League) - 11,000
18. Souths (Aus - NRL) - 11,000
19. St George (Aus - NRL) - 11,000
20. Hull (England - Super league) - 10,000
21. Bulldogs (Aus - NRL) - 9000
22. Melbourne (Aus - NRL) - 9000
23. Huddesrsfield (England - SuperLeague) - 6,000
24. Wakefield (England - Super League) - 6,000
25. Widnes (England - SuperLeague) - 5000
26. Salford (England - Superleague) - 4000
27. London (England - Super League) - 3,000
28. Halifax (England, SUper League) - 2000
29 UTC (France) - 2000
30. Pia (France) - 2000

CL
You can print all the lists you like of half -attended games of rugby. The lists can be as long as you like, and from as many countries you can dredge. But the fact remains, attendances are pitiful because rugby-followers know that if they go to the ground that the spectacle (apart for the sizzle of songs and dancing girls) will be boring. So, to answer the title of your thread, the future of rugby is to bequeath boredom to the next generation of rugby followers.
starter

chesslover
20-04-2004, 11:57 PM
CL
You can print all the lists you like of half -attended games of rugby. The lists can be as long as you like, and from as many countries you can dredge. But the fact remains, attendances are pitiful because rugby-followers know that if they go to the ground that the spectacle (apart for the sizzle of songs and dancing girls) will be boring. So, to answer the title of your thread, the future of rugby is to bequeath boredom to the next generation of rugby followers.
starter

starter

there is a big difference between Rugby, which is not the main ocde in any state in Australia (but is after soccer the second most popular football code) and League which is the dominant code in NSW

and maybe we will watch league in half filled stadiums, but at least we will be watching it outside Australia as well :p and in tv (free and pay), our game is more exciting than yours

chesslover
21-04-2004, 12:07 AM
after 4 from 22 rounds here is the AFL betting market to win the flag

Brisbane $2.75
Port Adelaide $5.00
St Kilda $6.00
Sydney $7.00
Essendon $12.00
Fremantle $16.00
West Coast $16.00
Collingwood $21.00
Hawthorn $24.00
Kangaroos $26.00
Melbourne $26.00
Adelaide $101.00
Richmond $101.00
Geelong $151.00
Western Bulldogs $251.00
Carlton $251.00

St Kilda seems to be good odds as is Sydney

The bookmakers top 8 are
Brisbane, Port Adelaide, Sydney, St Kilda
Essendon, Fremantlle, West Coast, Collingowod

only team that misses out from last year is Adelaide, with St Kilda taking their place in the 8

chesslover
21-04-2004, 12:11 AM
the League market to win the Premiership after 6 of 26 rounds have finsihed

Roosters $3.50
Penrith $4.50
Bulldogs $6.00
Brisbane $7.00
St George-Illawarra $8.50
New Zealand $15.00
Canberra $17.00
Parramatta $19.00
Melbourne $19.00
Newcastle $26.00
Sharks $51.00
North Queensland $61.00
Wests Tigers $81.00
Manly $251.00
Souths $251.00

My club the mighty Bulldogs look like great odds

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 11:28 AM
If Brisbane win the AFL again, will starter be hired to assist the sport with "competitiveness"? :lol:

ursogr8
21-04-2004, 12:01 PM
If Brisbane win the AFL again, will starter be hired to assist the sport with "competitiveness"? :lol:

Moderator, Moderator, I am being misrepresented by a poster.

Let me take a closer look.
:eek: :eek: It is worse than I thought. I am being misrepresented by a Moderator. :rolleyes:


My competitiveness thread has never once targetted the top-rated player and designed conditions such that he is no longer the top-rated player. On the contrary, my motivation has been derived from noticing (and receiving feedback) from players who prefer evenly matched games to junk rounds. They vote with their entrance money.

It is quite possible Brisbane will be premiers again and the competition during 2004 will be a ripper of close matches.

starter

ps carna Bombers,
and the Sainters
and the D's

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 01:29 PM
It's OK starter, I was sledging them not you. No representation of your position was intended at all.

I thought the whole idea of the draft, salary caps and so on in the AFL was to stop the same team from being so dominant.

ursogr8
21-04-2004, 05:30 PM
It's OK starter, I was sledging them not you. No representation of your position was intended at all.

I thought the whole idea of the draft, salary caps and so on in the AFL was to stop the same team from being so dominant.

Ohhh.
Kev. !!

It was just my attempt to sound like a cross between an outraged CL and an offended Flude. (I amused myself anyway).


And yes, the draft and the salary caps do have this objective. But that is not a guarantee that Clubs will make good use of the processes to even the competition.

starter

Rincewind
21-04-2004, 05:49 PM
And yes, the draft and the salary caps do have this objective. But that is not a guarantee that Clubs will make good use of the processes to even the competition.

Reminds me of the quote...

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. ;)

chesslover
21-04-2004, 07:08 PM
It is quite possible Brisbane will be premiers again and the competition during 2004 will be a ripper of close matches.

starter

ps carna Bombers,
and the Sainters
and the D's

good show. go for 3 clubs

why not pick another few as well so that you have a fair chance of "your" club winning :p

If Brisbane win that will be the first time since Collingwood won 4peat. Just the second time in AFL history. Shows that the cometitiveness measures are not workinh

At least in NRL it is working with different winners :p

chesslover
21-04-2004, 07:13 PM
amusing article trashing soccer in the US and some measures to sell soccer to US

some amusing quotes

"No matter how successful you are overseas, no matter how big a name you've made for yourself in Europe, Asia or those former East Bloc countries that nobody can keep track of, you haven't really made it until you've made it in North America. Like it or not, the United States is the centre of the media universe, a place where talented foreigners have always come for the ultimate validation".

"Watching soccer is like watching 22 people search for a contact lens.
Now, in between riots and suicides, soccer fans are quick to tell us it's still the most popular game in the world. And they're right. But what they don't tell you is that most of the world is so screwed up it's a minor miracle the planet is still in one piece. Or, to paraphrase our mothers, if most of the world jumped off a bridge, would you jump, too? No, soccer is dull as dishwater and just because it stops camel traffic in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we have to fall in line."

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam020630/col_tychkowski-sun.html

ursogr8
21-04-2004, 09:39 PM
good show. go for 3 clubs

why not pick another few as well so that you have a fair chance of "your" club winning :p

Three steps better than your advocacy to stay home and watch the game on the couch.



If Brisbane win that will be the first time since Collingwood won 4peat. Just the second time in AFL history. Shows that the competitiveness measures are not working.



Yes, you have convinced me CL.
The AFL need to improve their equalisation policies so that all Clubs have a chance of winning the flag.
Now, let me see; what would be a new idea? I know. What about we pick on the team that finishes on top at the end of the main season, and then just take away their premiership points. That should stop them winning the flag. That's a good equaliser.

And what about if we start hyphenating names; now that should reduce crowds to a bare minimum.
Not harsh enough. What about we just arbitrarily say we don't like the name South...out you go Souths.

Your correct CL. The AFL has a lot to learn about equalisation.




At least in NRL it is working with different winners :p


Hey CL, you are good with lists. Print the last NFL 55 premiership winners; and instead of a certain name, just put an avatar of a dragon. May look a bit repetitive?


starter

chesslover
23-04-2004, 05:50 PM
Yes, you have convinced me CL.
The AFL need to improve their equalisation policies so that all Clubs have a chance of winning the flag.
Now, let me see; what would be a new idea? I know. What about we pick on the team that finishes on top at the end of the main season, and then just take away their premiership points. That should stop them winning the flag. That's a good equaliser.

And what about if we start hyphenating names; now that should reduce crowds to a bare minimum.
Not harsh enough. What about we just arbitrarily say we don't like the name South...out you go Souths.

Your correct CL. The AFL has a lot to learn about equalisation.



Hey CL, you are good with lists. Print the last NFL 55 premiership winners; and instead of a certain name, just put an avatar of a dragon. May look a bit repetitive?


starter

The Bulldogs gort docked points because they cheated on the salary cap. As a bullgod supporter (BOW WOW WOW) it upset me more than a fine would, and made sure that the club will never chreat again. ALL the AFL does isfine the Lions for similar cheaying - way to go AFl played only in Australia

Hyphenating names and kicking out SOuths were part of the move to rationalise the sydney comp. So what? currently just 9 from the 15 clubs are Sydney based, and there are 3 teams (wellington, Central Coast and Gold coast) who wantto enter in 2006. Given that Sydney is the centre of the League Universe, and that if SYndey loses interest, League in the world falls, I think having 9 from 15 in Sydney is ok. What is your excuse for having 10 Vic clubs in a 16 team "national" comp. :p

If you were a national comp, there would be far fewer AFL clubs in Victoria. ANd unlike SYdney which is the main reason League in the world survives, AFL isthe main stringhold of every state except NSW and Queensland. There is no need to have 10 of 16 clubs in Vic.

As for the Dragons, that was in the time of non salary caps. The last 5 years the winners have been Penrith, Sydney Roosters, Newcastle, Brisbane, Melbourne

Refresh my memory by saying who won the last 3 comps, in the AFL equalkisation policy? go on...enlighten me.. :p

Alan Shore
24-04-2004, 12:07 AM
The Bulldogs gort docked points because they cheated on the salary cap. As a bullgod supporter (BOW WOW WOW) it upset me more than a fine would, and made sure that the club will never chreat again. ALL the AFL does isfine the Lions for similar cheaying - way to go AFl played only in Australia

Get your facts right - the Lions did not cheat on salary caps, the fines were for late lodgement of forms.


"The Lions received the tough penalty – one of the heaviest fines in league history – for 26 breaches of the player rules, although none of them related to the most serious offence of being over their salary cap."

As for the Bulldogs (cheats) rightly so they were penalised.


If you were a national comp, there would be far fewer AFL clubs in Victoria. ANd unlike SYdney which is the main reason League in the world survives, AFL isthe main stringhold of every state except NSW and Queensland. There is no need to have 10 of 16 clubs in Vic.

What are you going to so, just kick teams out of the competition? Don't be stupid.


As for the Dragons, that was in the time of non salary caps. The last 5 years the winners have been Penrith, Sydney Roosters, Newcastle, Brisbane, Melbourne

Refresh my memory by saying who won the last 3 comps, in the AFL equalkisation policy? go on...enlighten me.. :p

FFS, not another Eddie McGuire wannabe. The Lions have won the past three years because they are an exceptional team who have worked extremely hard (if you actually followed the AFL you would notice a marked improvement of play in many then younger Lions players who are turning out to be champions) under Leigh Matthew, an already proven Premiership Coach and voted 'Player of the Century'.

chesslover
26-04-2004, 05:49 PM
What are you going to so, just kick teams out of the competition? Don't be stupid.

FFS, not another Eddie McGuire wannabe. The Lions have won the past three years because they are an exceptional team who have worked extremely hard (if you actually followed the AFL you would notice a marked improvement of play in many then younger Lions players who are turning out to be champions) under Leigh Matthew, an already proven Premiership Coach and voted 'Player of the Century'.

All I can say is that it looks very fishy when a team is in contention to win 4 in row, in a time of slary caps/drafts/equlaisation.

No NRL teams have won more than 2 in a row since the salary cap happened., and we dont even have the draft. Something fishy is happeining in Brisbane :p

And yes, don't kick out the teams, but relocate them. 10 teams in Victoria is too many, particularly in a sport that is only pplayed in Australia.

Unlike League, where the power centre that counts is in Sydney (not just for the Aust League but also for the International League), all states have Aussie Rules entrecnhed , except for NSW and Queensland.

What is so bloody wrong in reloacting 3 of teh 10 Aussie Rules teams, to the states where there is no Aussie Rules, and where Aussie Rules is a integral aprt of their life? You could have the Western Bulldogs relocate to NT, the Kangaroos to ACT and maybe Hawthorn or St Kilda to Tasmania

That way you each of the smaller states/ non AUssie Rules NSW&Queensland will have 1 team, Melbourne 6 (and Geelong 1), and SA/WA 2 each because they are bigger. Much better than the current system where there is 10 in Vic, 2 each in SA & WA and 1 each in NSW & Queendland - with no teams in Tassie, ACT and NT

chesslover
26-04-2004, 05:56 PM
The richest and most popular soccer league in the world has been won.

Arsenel are the new Premier League champs

In Soccer there is no salary caps, drafts etc and it is dominated by just a handful of teams.

The 4 most important soccer leagues in the world are the English Premier League, Italian Serie A, Germany's Budesliga and Spanish Pimera Division.

In this non equlaisation policy, In germany Bayern Muncih and Borussia Dortmund normally wins. In Spain it is Real Madrid, barcelona and Deportiva and valencia that wins. In italy it is either Roma, AC Milan, Inter Milan or Juventus.

In the 12 seasons of the English Premier League, there has been 3 winners. Manchester United with 8 titles, Arsenal with 3 and Blackburn with 1. That is beacuse the rich clubs get richer and buy all the best players

ursogr8
27-04-2004, 08:32 AM
All I can say is that it looks very fishy when a team is in contention to win 4 in row, in a time of slary caps/drafts/equlaisation.


What is so bloody wrong in reloacting 3 of teh 10 Aussie Rules teams, to the states where there is no Aussie Rules, and where Aussie Rules is a integral aprt of their life? You could have the Western Bulldogs relocate to NT, the Kangaroos to ACT and maybe Hawthorn or St Kilda to Tasmania

That way you each of the smaller states/ non AUssie Rules NSW&Queensland will have 1 team, Melbourne 6 (and Geelong 1), and SA/WA 2 each because they are bigger. Much better than the current system where there is 10 in Vic, 2 each in SA & WA and 1 each in NSW & Queendland - with no teams in Tassie, ACT and NT

Oh. I see now CL.
You guys have stuffed attendances at the ground for NRL games by destroying the fabric of the tribe. And now you want to have a similar revolution of the AFL.
CL, AFL aint broke, and we don't want you to fix it.

starter

ursogr8
27-04-2004, 08:35 AM
Refresh my memory by saying who won the last 3 comps, in the AFL equalkisation policy? go on...enlighten me.. :p

hi CL

Port Power has finished top of the 22 game season in 2003 and 2002, not Brisbane. The 22 game season is a superior measure of equalisation, surely.
I give for example Adelaide's two wins of final series when they could not even make the top 4 in the 22 game season.

starter

Garvinator
27-04-2004, 10:47 AM
Oh. I see now CL.
You guys have stuffed attendances at the ground for NRL games by destroying the fabric of the tribe. And now you want to have a similar revolution of the AFL.
CL, AFL aint broke, and we don't want you to fix it.

starter
dont double post so you can get your post count up starter :whistle: :lol:

ursogr8
27-04-2004, 11:55 AM
dont double post so you can get your post count up starter :whistle: :lol:

The software 'done made me do it' due to that dumb 30 second/1-post rule.

And anyhow, they don't count on that thread Mr Pot.

starter

Oepty
27-04-2004, 12:25 PM
hi CL

Port Power has finished top of the 22 game season in 2003 and 2002, not Brisbane. The 22 game season is a superior measure of equalisation, surely.
I give for example Adelaide's two wins of final series when they could not even make the top 4 in the 22 game season.

starter

A 22 game season might be a better measurement of a teams worth, but to try and take a 22 game season which was played in the context of there being a finals series and claim that the team that won the final series was not the strongest or the most deserving is unfair. Brisbane and Adelaide might have had a different approach to planning the season if they knew they had to be on top at the end of the 22 game season.
Scott

Paul S
28-04-2004, 01:34 AM
thanks Paul. Good news for the Bulldogs too - it seems rape charges may not be laid according to the Daily Tele


Yes, that is good news (in fact they have now been cleared). :clap:

Chesslover, you will be interested to know that as a result of a chance meeting I had with (the then CEO) Steve Mortimer 2 months ago, I have ended up attending 2 Bulldogs matches this year (and I plan to go to the Bulldogs versus Brisbane match this Sunday). These are the first Bulldogs matches I have attended since 1994. Its a bit of a strange experience for me coming back after such a long time away - new players, new home ground etc etc.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I used to attend many Bulldogs (and Berries!) matches from 1974 to 1994. I miss Belmore and I don't like the fact that at present the club has only an animal for identity (the "Canterbury-Bankstown" has been dropped, although most people still refer to them as "Canterbury" anyway).

Hope to see you at a Bulldogs match! :lol:

P.S. Have just had a look at the Bulldogs fan website "The Kennel" - it has been running hot today - you should take a look!

P.P.S. You seem to be a big fan of the Tele. What do you think of the Tele's coverage of the "Bulldogs sex scandal" over the last 2 months? I think it has been atrocious and sensationalist.

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2004, 01:55 AM
Port Power has finished top of the 22 game season in 2003 and 2002, not Brisbane. The 22 game season is a superior measure of equalisation, surely.

You would think so although a few things get in the way. Firstly a team is playing some teams once and some teams twice so oddities in the draw are always possible. Secondly, the supposed theory is that the finals theory tests "who does best under pressure", eg Port don't win finals because they can't win under pressure.

I suspect the latter logic is bogus and that actually Port are perceived as being unable to win under pressure because they have happened to choke in games that happened to be finals. But I know little about this sport so could be wrong.

What I do know is that any sport that decides its season on the results of one game (however the combatants qualify) is likely to be more interested in TV ratings than rigour.

An interesting comparison would be English soccer. I don't follow that sport either but I get the feeling that the team that wins the season is far more likely to be the best team than the team that wins the FA Cup. Their season is even longer. Reminds me of the bad old days when chess tournaments used to be 30 or 40 round round-robins.

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 08:08 AM
You would think so although a few things get in the way. Firstly a team is playing some teams once and some teams twice so oddities in the draw are always possible. Secondly, the supposed theory is that the finals theory tests "who does best under pressure", eg Port don't win finals because they can't win under pressure.



Kevin

The point CL and I were discussing was equalisation policies. Whereas your remark is directed at 'best team', equalisation has the objective of ensuring that all teams have a chance to be competitive (not necessarily best).
Thus your criticism of the current bias in the 22 rounds is not relevant to the discussion point. And Port's inability to win is irrelevant as they are obviously competitive.

starter

chesslover
28-04-2004, 08:28 PM
Yes, that is good news (in fact they have now been cleared). :clap:

Chesslover, you will be interested to know that as a result of a chance meeting I had with (the then CEO) Steve Mortimer 2 months ago, I have ended up attending 2 Bulldogs matches this year (and I plan to go to the Bulldogs versus Brisbane match this Sunday). These are the first Bulldogs matches I have attended since 1994. Its a bit of a strange experience for me coming back after such a long time away - new players, new home ground etc etc.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I used to attend many Bulldogs (and Berries!) matches from 1974 to 1994. I miss Belmore and I don't like the fact that at present the club has only an animal for identity (the "Canterbury-Bankstown" has been dropped, although most people still refer to them as "Canterbury" anyway).

Hope to see you at a Bulldogs match! :lol:

P.S. Have just had a look at the Bulldogs fan website "The Kennel" - it has been running hot today - you should take a look!

P.P.S. You seem to be a big fan of the Tele. What do you think of the Tele's coverage of the "Bulldogs sex scandal" over the last 2 months? I think it has been atrocious and sensationalist.

BOW WOW WOW...BOW WOW WOW

yes it is great that they have been cleared. But not great that the NRL has fined them $150K, that Mortimer has gone and that we lost $1.3 million in sponsorships. All for what? the p[layers are not guilty

BOW WOW WOW....BOW WOW WOW

I hope the players sue that woman for all she is worth, for bringing such harm to them. The club should also sue teh NRLm Daily Tele, media for the lost sponsosrship

The Bulldogs were nto even guilty, and as a result of the media bias have lost a lot. It is time that the Bulldog managment fight back, instead of taking everything that the idiots dish out to us

BOW WOW WOW....BOW WOW WOW

I liked it when the club had canterbury bankstown too. I dont know why they cannot keep that name, fopr even though they are "officially" the Buldogs, everybody still refers to them as Canterbury. Cronulla call themselves the Cronsulla Sutherland Sharks, Manly, St George Illawara, Parra, Penrith and Souths still call themselves by their old names. Only Balmain has lost out in the "wests tigers" and Easts who call themselves the Sydney Roosters.

I hope the bulldogs win the premiership and show the NRL and the world that despite everything that they did to destroy us, the bulldogs will always be unbeaten and undefeated

BOW WOW WOW.....BOW WOW WOW

chesslover
28-04-2004, 08:39 PM
Oh. I see now CL.
You guys have stuffed attendances at the ground for NRL games by destroying the fabric of the tribe. And now you want to have a similar revolution of the AFL.
CL, AFL aint broke, and we don't want you to fix it.

starter

with an attitude like that, no wonder Aussie Rules is never played overseas at the elite level. League can boast at least 5 countries - us, kiwis, england, france and PNG and there are another 25 countries where league plays. We always try to better ourselves, instead of you "if it aint broke dont fix it" mob. I betcha you voted for the Queen in the referendum with that attitude :p

as for destroying he fabric, how did you come to that conclusion? Aussie rules by all admissions is played in Australia, and the NT, ACT and Tasmania have no AFL teams. None. Zip. Nil. Victoria has 10. 10 as in T-E-N

Why cant the victorians relocate the 3 poorest drawing teams (Western Bulldogs, Kangaroos and St Kilda/ Hawthorn) to those 3 states. That way all 8 of Australian states will have an AFL team, and the crowds will increase. Given that you only play AUssie Rules in Australia, that is pretty much the extent of your expansion, and is a logical thing to do.

At least we tried expanding to Perth and Adeleaide and even though we failed, the lessons learnt has enabled us to have the Melbourne Storm in the AFL haertland. The expansion of the NRL to the New Zeland warriors has resulted in League increasing it's stregth in New Zeland, where it was once dying. As a result, the England SUper League (the second strongest league comp in the world) is asking France to field a team in the English Super League, so that France can fight off union, like we are doing in New Zealand

That is the prob with you aussie rules people. No vision, no dynamism, just complacency. And that is why Aussie Rules will die in 50/100 years from sports like soccer and even League. We are always looking forward and seeking to expand the game

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 09:29 PM
with an attitude like that, no wonder Aussie Rules is never played overseas at the elite level. League can boast at least 5 countries - us, kiwis, england, france and PNG and there are another 25 countries where league plays. We always try to better ourselves, instead of you "if it aint broke dont fix it" mob. I betcha you voted for the Queen in the referendum with that attitude :p

as for destroying he fabric, how did you come to that conclusion? Aussie rules by all admissions is played in Australia, and the NT, ACT and Tasmania have no AFL teams. None. Zip. Nil. Victoria has 10. 10 as in T-E-N

Why cant the victorians relocate the 3 poorest drawing teams (Western Bulldogs, Kangaroos and St Kilda/ Hawthorn) to those 3 states. That way all 8 of Australian states will have an AFL team, and the crowds will increase. Given that you only play AUssie Rules in Australia, that is pretty much the extent of your expansion, and is a logical thing to do.

At least we tried expanding to Perth and Adeleaide and even though we failed, the lessons learnt has enabled us to have the Melbourne Storm in the AFL haertland. The expansion of the NRL to the New Zeland warriors has resulted in League increasing it's stregth in New Zeland, where it was once dying. As a result, the England SUper League (the second strongest league comp in the world) is asking France to field a team in the English Super League, so that France can fight off union, like we are doing in New Zealand

That is the prob with you aussie rules people. No vision, no dynamism, just complacency. And that is why Aussie Rules will die in 50/100 years from sports like soccer and even League. We are always looking forward and seeking to expand the game

CL
No. I voted republican on the basis that adopting an o/s monarch is a sign of immaturity of a nation and undemocrtic as a method of filling a public office.

Thus, you are wrong (sorry, W-R-O-N-G) on that prediction, and also on your other suggestions for changing a code of football that is beyond your cultural appreciation.

starter

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 09:40 PM
That is the prob with you aussie rules people. No vision, no dynamism, just complacency. And that is why Aussie Rules will die in 50/100 years from sports like soccer and even League.

CL
We have no vision, and dynamism, because we (the AFL) are breathless with the growth in crowds and media interest. We barely have time to count the money pouring in.
BTW, how many stadia built recently in NSW to cover for 50,000+ crowds of NRL? Not even you would count the Olympic one. So, how many CL?

We have got two on the go at the moment.

How many people attend rugby in Perth, CL? Tasmania?

NRL, a game made for TV eh CL.....no, it is a game made for cable wall-paper.

starter

ursogr8
28-04-2004, 09:45 PM
yes it is great that they have been cleared. But not great that the NRL has fined them $150K, that Mortimer has gone and that we lost $1.3 million in sponsorships. All for what? the players are not guilty




The Police Chief of the Country town says on TV tonight that he is sure a rape occurred. Who did it Paul S.? The pool-side furniture?
Would you like to bet that the players will sue the Police chief?

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 10:14 PM
The Police Chief of the Country town says on TV tonight that he is sure a rape occurred. Who did it Paul S.? The pool-side furniture?
Would you like to bet that the players will sue the Police chief?
The DPP is basically saying you could not get a conviction based on the evidence.
This does not equate to either not guilty or innocent.

Garvinator
28-04-2004, 10:16 PM
The DPP is basically saying you could not get a conviction based on the evidence.
This does not equate to either not guilty or innocent.
and also the police are saying that if any further witnesses come forward or further evidence is received, they will re open the investigation.

I was surprised to read that the police did not pursue the player that refused to submit to the dna test in court to force the player to submit to testing.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2004, 03:48 AM
The point CL and I were discussing was equalisation policies. Whereas your remark is directed at 'best team', equalisation has the objective of ensuring that all teams have a chance to be competitive (not necessarily best).
Thus your criticism of the current bias in the 22 rounds is not relevant to the discussion point. And Port's inability to win is irrelevant as they are obviously competitive.

Yes I was actually more following the train of thought present in Scott's post without checking to see whether it was already to some degree a derailment. :rolleyes:

On the equalisation point I completely agree with you. The pre-season (and not just who wins but how dominant they are) is the better measure.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2004, 03:52 AM
The DPP is basically saying you could not get a conviction based on the evidence.
This does not equate to either not guilty or innocent.

There's something of a push now for rape laws to have a verdict called "not proven" so that the alleged offender is still free because they have not been proven guilty, but the victim does not have to put up with a court finding that would be read by some as saying that the alleged offender definitely didn't do it.

ursogr8
03-05-2004, 10:02 PM
hi CL

AFL
Game 1 Friday night.......84 points plays 83 points
Game 2 Saturday afternoon....108 plays 98
Game 3 Saturday afternoon.....120 plays 119

Looks like equalisation to me

Game 4 Saturday night........92 plays 91......ground sold out at 52,500 crowd
Game 5 Saturday night.........83 plays 73

Looks like equalisation to me

starter

Kevin Bonham
03-05-2004, 10:19 PM
Looks like equalisation to me

Carlton result conveniently omitted. :p

ursogr8
04-05-2004, 08:06 AM
Carlton result conveniently omitted. :p
Tut tut Kevin,

:eek: YOU know better as a scientist than to rely on one data-point to support YOUR argument. :naughty:
And that between the team at #2 and last years wooden-spooner. That game was never likely to be equal. Fair go. ;)

starter

Alan Shore
06-05-2004, 12:57 AM
Tut tut Kevin,

:eek: YOU know better as a scientist than to rely on one data-point to support YOUR argument. :naughty:
And that between the team at #2 and last years wooden-spooner. That game was never likely to be equal. Fair go. ;)

starter

Starter, last year's wooden spooner was the Western Bulldogs.

I was disappointed with Carlton's performance, particularly after they had just come off a 50 point win against West Coast. Hopefully we won't see any more of that nonsense and Carlton can still make the finals :)

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2004, 01:30 AM
Tut tut Kevin,

:eek: YOU know better as a scientist than to rely on one data-point to support YOUR argument. :naughty:

My argument was only that you were using evidence selectively. For that, I know as a scientist that one data-point is absolutely sufficient, provided it is one you left out, so counter- :owned: to you. :lol:


And that between the team at #2 and last years wooden-spooner. That game was never likely to be equal. Fair go. ;)

I was just being cheeky.

ursogr8
06-05-2004, 08:15 AM
Starter, last year's wooden spooner was the Western Bulldogs.

I was disappointed with Carlton's performance, particularly after they had just come off a 50 point win against West Coast. Hopefully we won't see any more of that nonsense and Carlton can still make the finals :)

Yes BD, I admit you are correct. Carlton were not wooden-spooners last year. I wondered what had led me to the mistake. First my mind turned to round 22 2003 Carlton 9.9.63 lost to Kangaroos 28.19.187. Did that belting make me think about the "ol' dark (give me the) BLUES"? Nah, I know what it was > I watched SAINTers v Dockers at Princes Park late in the year and there were all these old wooden spoons lying around. The memory was still vivid and hence my error.

starter

Alan Shore
06-05-2004, 09:58 AM
Eeeek.. that was our worst loss ever! (the one on the weekend was the 4th worst..).

What team do you follow starter?

ursogr8
06-05-2004, 10:11 AM
Eeeek.. that was our worst loss ever! (the one on the weekend was the 4th worst..).

What team do you follow starter?

Long term priority pick is Bombers. But hard to get to matches because they play FRI pm (conflicts with Chess Club night), I/State, and Blockbusters (no go). :owned:
Next pick is SAINTers, because a mate follows these and we go together. :cool:
Final pick is game of the week. :clap:
Last pick is free tickets anywhere. :uhoh:

starter

chesslover
06-05-2004, 10:13 PM
Long term priority pick is Bombers. But hard to get to matches because they play FRI pm (conflicts with Chess Club night), I/State, and Blockbusters (no go). :owned:
Next pick is SAINTers, because a mate follows these and we go together. :cool:
Final pick is game of the week. :clap:
Last pick is free tickets anywhere. :uhoh:

starter
what about the swans???? you can watch us in melbourne for free :p

ursogr8
07-05-2004, 08:16 AM
what about the swans???? you can watch us in melbourne for free :p

hi CL
Good to see you back.
Yes, the SWANS are great to watch. In other decades I think many in Melbourne watched (on TV) the SWANS as their second team.

Now, finally it is time to knock over the last pillar of your argument. You have defended poor attendances of the the Northern Flingball League (aka NRL) by saying it was made for TV, not for actually attending and cheering.

Here is the challenge for you. Print the names of Sydney top ten TV programmes last week-end.

In Melbourne BTW
1st
2nd Saturday night AFL
3rd
4th
5th
6th Friday night AFL
7th
8th
9th Sunday AFL
10th

Oh, and AFL attendances are breaking records. :clap: And Saturday nights game was a sell-out. :clap: The 4th this year. :clap:

starter

ursogr8
21-05-2004, 07:57 AM
League can boast at least 5 countries - us, kiwis, england, france and PNG and there are another 25 countries where league plays. We always try to better ourselves, instead of you "if it aint broke dont fix it" mob.

That is the prob with you aussie rules people. No vision, no dynamism, just complacency. We are always looking forward and seeking to expand the game

hi CL
Bit quiet from you lately?
Now about this Mark Gasnier guy.
He is the newcomer to S-O-O, right?
Did he misread the handout briefing
and thought Bonding session = Binge drinking.

It will probably be the last Training Camp he attends and over-trains, right?

starter

ursogr8
25-05-2004, 08:17 AM
That is the prob with you aussie rules people. No vision, no dynamism, just complacency. And that is why Aussie Rules will die in 50/100 years from sports like soccer . We are always looking forward and seeking to expand the game

hi ChessLover
Are you still defending this thread you started?

The new SOCCER Australia puts on a game Turkey v Australia at our 55,000 capacity stadium with a roof, in Melbourne.
The paper this morning says that they got 30,000 to attend; a rough survey at the gates revealed 21,000 Turkish supporters and 9,000 of OZ.
I hate to tell you this CL but there were more than 9,000 turned away from the Essendon v Geelong match on Saturday night. A sell-out.

Back to the soccer > the minimum charge for a ticket was $48. No misprint. $48. What were they thinking?

Anyhow, we did learn something from the new FOXTEL service. Apparently 38.6% of the kicks in the game went backwards. This, in a game where the ONLY reward comes from going forward. Can you explain how this is interesting CL?

And the score CL?
1 -0.
That's right; you got 1 goal for your $48 (minimum). Hope no-one looked away at the key moment.

You said <We are always looking forward and seeking to expand the game>. When does it start CL?

starter

PHAT
25-05-2004, 03:28 PM
:confused:

This thread keeps on going and going. Look, NRL and AFL are full of low life people doing disgusting things. They are a vehicle for selling stuff, the sport being secondary.

Give up on it like you would give up cigarettes. Every time you watch it on TV, read it in the papers or even talk about it, you are part of the machine that pays money to filth to do its worst. While ever you continue to follow it , you are partly responsible for every rape and fracas that these goons participate in. You should feel ashamed of yourselves. :(

ursogr8
25-05-2004, 06:38 PM
:confused:

This thread keeps on going and going. Look, NRL and AFL are full of low life people doing disgusting things. They are a vehicle for selling stuff, the sport being secondary.

Give up on it like you would give up cigarettes. Every time you watch it on TV, read it in the papers or even talk about it, you are part of the machine that pays money to filth to do its worst. While ever you continue to follow it , you are partly responsible for every rape and fracas that these goons participate in. You should feel ashamed of yourselves. :(

hi Matt
Welcome to the thread.
And thanks for your short but powerful post. It contains so many issues I will be preparing a super long response. I look forward to the engagement with you as a pinch-hitter for CL.
I think my first approach will be to go over the preceding 218 posts and summarise the issues and then invite you to comment one by one.
Looking forward to it.
Your mate, starter

PHAT
25-05-2004, 07:07 PM
hi Matt
Welcome to the thread.
And thanks for your short but powerful post. It contains so many issues I will be preparing a super long response. I look forward to the engagement with you as a pinch-hitter for CL.
I think my first approach will be to go over the preceding 218 posts and summarise the issues and then invite you to comment one by one.
Looking forward to it.
Your mate, starter

:eek:

:uhoh:

PHAT
31-05-2004, 04:43 PM
[Looks at his watch, stuffs his pistol down his coin slot under his coat, and then leaves.]

ursogr8
31-05-2004, 05:06 PM
:confused:

This thread keeps on going and going.

Give up on it like you would give up cigarettes. You should feel ashamed of yourselves. :(





[Looks at his watch, stuffs his pistol down his coin slot under his coat, and then leaves.]




hi Matt
Judging by your two most recent posts (on this thread) you are suffering from MED.

Mutually Exclusive Directions.

Under advice, I gave up, cold-turkey like.
And now, an invitation to roll-your-own.

OK. As MacArthur said … :uhoh:


starter

Alan Shore
31-05-2004, 07:24 PM
hi Matt
Judging by your two most recent posts (on this thread) you are suffering from MED.

Mutually Exclusive Directions.

Under advice, I gave up, cold-turkey like.
And now, an invitation to roll-your-own.

OK. As MacArthur said … :uhoh:


starter

I think he was waiting for your:


It contains so many issues I will be preparing a super long response.

:confused:


On another note, Lions had an impressive win over Melbourne despite their injury worries.. I must say they look like Grand Finalists once more. St Kilda have been demolishing all opposition.. can they keep up the phreneteic pace all season?

ursogr8
01-06-2004, 07:57 AM
I think he was waiting for your:



:confused:


?

I knew that.
And I had pointed out that he had told me to cease-and-desist also.
And I told him 'I will return'......i.e MacArthur quote.


I think he was waiting for your:



:confused:

St Kilda have been demolishing all opposition.. can they keep up the phrenetic pace all season?



I have watched 6/10 of their games this season. They are doing it on the bit with a lot in reserve.

ursogr8
01-06-2004, 08:18 AM
[Looks at his watch, stuffs his pistol down his coin slot under his coat, and then leaves.]

Matt
I have wandered back through this very long thread and in some aspects you are correct; parts were a waste of time or a diversion.
I notice at times you participate quite energetically; for example your debate with jenni about bullying. Equally there are times that you show annoyance with the focus on football, whether it be the debate about which code or attendances.

Two odd aspects strike me about your position.

1 The presence of biggish money in senior football you see as a corruption of purpose. But where is your balance to see the good things about football. For example the common shared experience that serves as a unifying culture for much of the ‘common man population’. Where do you take joy in the development of exciting socialised tribal activities such as football? Why do you only see a conspiracy of sinister big money control? Why do you only see the down-side as some sports role models are shown to be fallible? Where do you show an on-balance assessment?

2 Australian Rules is a reflection of how Aussies like their authority; viz anarchic and mildly disrespectful. Not for us the structured plays of grid-iron. Not for us the tedium of soccer where the audience resorts to singing or swinging to involve itself. Not for us over-emphasis on the game as an expression of nationalistic breast-beating; no, we play the game, we cheer, we go home, and then we talk about it Monday. Where is your expression of pride in this unique Australian invention; Aussie Rules?

I repeat here a post that I think makes my points
I noticed this letter to the editor of a non-Sydney daily >

"...I have come to see that Aussie Rules football provides the social oil in its native habitats that Sydney lacks. Few in Sydney care about Rugby League. But as an icebreaker between strangers in Adelaide, Darwin, Melbourne, Hobart, and Deniliquin, AFL is unmatched.
It is not just a game -- it is how it enables people to talk to each other where otherwise they wouldn't. To be able to take part in the great conversation of Australian football should be the cause for thanks and joy -- even for sullen Sydneysiders".
Sydneysiders must be glad when it becomes cricket season and they can converse with the rest of Aus.

starter

ps Or did you call for an end to the thread just because chesslover stopped posting? :uhoh:

ursogr8
02-06-2004, 01:04 PM
[Looks at his watch, stuffs his pistol down his coin slot under his coat, and then leaves.]


[Man walks into a bar and says "do you mind if I tie my horse to post #227".

He looks at the calendar and sees the autograph of a Neanderthal half-breed, and the number #220.
"What is all that about?" the man asks the bartender.

The bartender says "there was a adequately-dressed guy here a few days back who looked like he might do himself an injury shoving a long-barrelled gun down the front of his cargo pants (with detachable zippers). He left the autograph, but owes for a round of drinks. We are expecting to hear back from him].

ursogr8
11-06-2004, 08:28 AM
The thread asked the question "What is the future of football".

Some data may be of interest.
For this coming week-end
> The Essendon-Brisbane match is sold-out.....Docklands stadium..capacity 56,000
> The West Coast v Adelaide match is sold out..Subiaco...43,000
> The Collingwood v Melbourne match will probably sell out...MCG...63,000.

The future of Aussie Rules? Looks rather healthy.
But might be limited by the size of the stadia available. :hmm:

starter

ps Any NRL game likely to attract more than 20,000 this week-end?

Garvinator
11-06-2004, 09:48 PM
ps Any NRL game likely to attract more than 20,000 this week-end?
brisbane and newcastle have the bye i think, so probably not, if one game was in sydney tonight i might have gone watched, but as it is at penrith i have decided to give it a miss :eek:

Trent Parker
11-06-2004, 11:36 PM
The thing is starter all the melbourne teams in AFL have moved away from their individual Home grounds and moved into the large stadiums e.g. Docklands and MCG.

League Has stayed at it's roots. Servicing the local community and Not Just honing in on stadium australia or the SCG or SFS.

If Aussie Rules Really is the future then what will the viability of teams in say Woolongong or Newcastle or Canberra? They would not have the stadiums large enough to hold even medium crowd as AFL is only played on local bodgy ovals.

AFL might be the future in Melbourne. But it Bloody sure is nowhere near the future in NSW or QLD.

ursogr8
17-06-2004, 08:17 AM
The thing is starter all the melbourne teams in AFL have moved away from their individual Home grounds and moved into the large stadiums e.g. Docklands and MCG.

League Has stayed at it's roots. Servicing the local community and Not Just honing in on stadium australia or the SCG or SFS.



tp, you have kicked an 'own goal' with your argument on this one.
Aussie Rules still attracts crowds in excess on 10,000 to local grounds, regularly. This is done by feeder clubs (Box Hill for Hawthorn, Sandringham for Melbourne, Bendigo for essendon etc). So it services the grass roots just as well as Rugby League best attendances.

And AFL attracts crowds of 20,000-30,000 to Geelong and Carlton and Canberra...all local ovals.

starter

ursogr8
18-06-2004, 10:55 AM
The thread title asks what is the future of football.

If we take the current moment as a single data point then it would suggest that the future belongs to QUEENSLAND.
In the AFL they have smashed their traditional Melbourne rival Essendon (Collingwood, their more recent rival is languishing near the bottom).
In Rugby State of Origin, QLD hold the high cards.

Garvinator
18-06-2004, 12:02 PM
In Rugby State of Origin QLD hold the high cards.
i dont know whether you refer to rugby league as just rugby to irritate or if it is a genuine lack of understanding, anyways, rugby and rugby league are two different ball sports. State of origin is played in rugby league.

arosar
18-06-2004, 12:15 PM
i dont know whether you refer to rugby league as just rugby to irritate or if it is a genuine lack of understanding, anyways, rugby and rugby league are two different ball sports. State of origin is played in rugby league.

well, he did say 'state of origin'. Most people understood that to mean RL.

You just have to say something cheap, don't you gray?

AR

arosar
18-06-2004, 12:20 PM
I'm sure everyone here saw this in the news: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065032687.html?oneclick=true

AR

ursogr8
18-06-2004, 12:31 PM
i dont know whether you refer to rugby league as just rugby to irritate or if it is a genuine lack of understanding, anyways, rugby and rugby league are two different ball sports. State of origin is played in rugby league.

rag'rag'

It was neither of the two reasons you list in your post.
In fact AR hit it in one; economy of typing where there would be no misunderstanding.
I judged that there would be literally no-one who thought Union was in the frame in relation to the thread title question.

starter

Alan Shore
18-06-2004, 03:19 PM
The thread title asks what is the future of football.

If we take the current moment as a single data point then it would suggest that the future belongs to QUEENSLAND.
In the AFL they have smashed their traditional Melbourne rival Essendon (Collingwood, their more recent rival is languishing near the bottom).
In Rugby State of Origin, QLD hold the high cards.

Yes! QLD QLD QLD!!! :owned:



And yeah I thought it was pretty obvious he meant Rugy League..

ursogr8
02-07-2004, 01:32 PM
Halfway point of the AFL season.
I thought I might check on attendances at games to date.

HOLY MOLY
The AFL is currently ahead of all attendance records in their history.
More attending games.
More watching on TV.
More playing in REGIONAL competitions.

And all this while the MCG (our biggest ground) is on half-rations while it is being re-built for even bigger crowds.

Just for example, and I know this is hard to believe, Carlton drew a crowd of 47,000 to an ordinary game against a cellar-dweller just two weeks back. Your eyes do not deceive you. Yes, Carlton. Against a cellar-dweller. Cold night too.

starter

Rincewind
02-07-2004, 01:44 PM
Just for example, and I know this is hard to believe, Carlton drew a crowd of 47,000 to an ordinary game against a cellar-dweller just two weeks back. Your eyes do not deceive you. Yes, Carlton. Against a cellar-dweller. Cold night too.

Yes but can any of them bat?

Alan Shore
02-07-2004, 03:28 PM
Halfway point of the AFL season.
I thought I might check on attendances at games to date.

HOLY MOLY
The AFL is currently ahead of all attendance records in their history.
More attending games.
More watching on TV.
More playing in REGIONAL competitions.

And all this while the MCG (our biggest ground) is on half-rations while it is being re-built for even bigger crowds.

Just for example, and I know this is hard to believe, Carlton drew a crowd of 47,000 to an ordinary game against a cellar-dweller just two weeks back. Your eyes do not deceive you. Yes, Carlton. Against a cellar-dweller. Cold night too.

starter

Carlton is a club that has historically been the most successful ever therefore despite the performance of the last couple of seasons still retains a large number of members.

ursogr8
02-07-2004, 04:01 PM
Yes but can any of them bat?

Baz

And while we are on irrelevancies, can you remind me what the signature translates to again. And why don't you put the translation underneath?

starter

Rincewind
02-07-2004, 05:55 PM
And while we are on irrelevancies, can you remind me what the signature translates to again. And why don't you put the translation underneath?

Hardly irrelevancies. Just pointing out your tactics of feigning interest in other threads to take the heat Elliott is copping in the Cricket thread. :)

Regarding the translation, you've got a lot of time on your hands waiting for the next time Elliott gets a start in the test team. You should be able to work it out for yourself. ;)

arosar
06-07-2004, 08:10 PM
Forget about bloody football boys. It appears we suffered a minor catastrophe across the Tasman. We lost all 3 games in the netball test against the Kiwis! Can youse all believe this? FMD!

AR

ursogr8
13-07-2004, 12:54 PM
Carlton is a club that has historically been the most successful ever therefore despite the performance of the last couple of seasons still retains a large number of members.

hi BD
Carlton are a bit like old wine I suppose. Used to be good, but does not travel well (as in last week-end).

But there is no doubt that earlier vintages were worth the purchasse price of good players.

starter

ursogr8
14-07-2004, 08:03 AM
Forget about bloody football boys. It appears we suffered a minor catastrophe across the Tasman. We lost all 3 games in the netball test against the Kiwis! Can youse all believe this? FMD!

AR

No arosar, I don't think the future of football is under threat from netball. Who would want to play a game where you have to stop running every time you catch the ball?

ursogr8
11-08-2004, 09:26 AM
This thread has the title of Football codes - what is the future? .
Well, if you rely on free-to-air TV for your coverage of the the next Australian Soccer League games then you have no future in being able to watch the games. Guess what, the new soccer governing body has decided that Australian Soccer games will only be available on FOXTEL !! Now, what other organisation would put their show-case product at arms length from most of the interested spectators?

Rugby League and Aussie Rules must be breathing a sigh of relief.

starter

Garvinator
11-08-2004, 10:32 AM
Who would want to play a game where you have to stop running every time you catch the ball?
most players do that in aussie rules too :eek:

Rincewind
11-08-2004, 10:46 AM
most players do that in aussie rules too :eek:

I think the key phrase is "HAVE TO". ;)

Garvinator
11-08-2004, 10:50 AM
I think the key phrase is "HAVE TO". ;)
well actually in netball you dont have to stop at all, you can catch the ball, take one step then pass ;)

so if we are playing true pedantics then starters have to is wrong :owned: :uhoh: