18th club, whose next?

[Colk]

TV represents broadest audience & still gives greatest exposure, but viewership has been declining across the world for about a decade. Chances are every future grand final will be lowest rated regardless of participants. That's why ur comments on this year's number is shi..

So the bridge battle is authentic to you I guess?! Maybe there's some rivalry struck between the millionaires living at bondi & the millionaires living on the bay run, that I don't know about.
..& the spontaneous gatherings & excitement I saw first hand in western Sydney for last year's grand final were illegitimate.

1. So it declined by nigh a million in one year but apparently it had nothing to do with the participants or the fact that the game was over after about 20 mins. Sure thing.

2. It seems like you don’t understand any sort of relativist (cognitive relativism - I am not a fan of moral relativism) or nuanced point of view. Firstly I hate fumbleball so I don’t care about the Swans or whomever, nevertheless, the experiences of their supporters in supporting their teams (however minute that number may be which is besides the point in this debate) would be authentic to them. How could it not be - unless you are suggesting that they are not ‘real’ or that they are being not true to themselves by supporting their teams? The same with me supporting my side or you supporting yours. You seem to be making this perverse argument about what is authentic based on some personal distaste at how some teams originated. In fact the whole argument of or use of the word authentic outside of something that is purely objective (scientific/legal/historical) seems strange

3. Also lastly going back to your final point, never in any of my posts did I question that the experiences of these people weren’t legitimate (I am happy for them but again with this sort of language?) The question I am asking is simply forget about the excitement that you saw in Western Sydney or Sydney for one moment and think about it from a wider perspective - do you think that the fact that these teams were ‘rivals’ (which is a subjective argument in any case) somehow generated a wider audience for the game?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

1. So it declined by nigh a million in one year but apparently it had nothing to do with the participants or the fact that the game was over after about 20 mins. Sure thing.

2. It seems like you don’t understand any sort of relativist (cognitive relativism - I am not a fan of moral relativism) or nuanced point of view. Firstly I hate fumbleball so I don’t care about the Swans or whomever, nevertheless, the experiences of their supporters in supporting their teams (however minute that number may be which is besides the point in this debate) would be authentic to them. How could it not be - unless you are suggesting that they are not ‘real’ or that they are being not true to themselves by supporting their teams? The same with me supporting my side or you supporting yours. You seem to be making this perverse argument about what is authentic based on some personal distaste at how some teams originated. In fact the whole argument of or use of the word authentic outside of something that is purely objective (scientific/legal/historical) seems strange

3. Also lastly going back to your final point, never in any of my posts did I question that the experiences of these people weren’t legitimate (I am happy for them but again with this sort of language?) The question I am asking is simply forget about the excitement that you saw in Western Sydney or Sydney for one moment and think about it from a wider perspective - do you think that the fact that these teams were ‘rivals’ (which is a subjective argument in any case) somehow generated a wider audience for the game?

The lopsidedness of the game didn't help.

Nor did the way the Cowboys were f**ked over by the ref and touchies the previous week. I know the Cowboys should not have allowed the plodder to stroll over for two soft tries, but it doesn't change the fact that the NRL is Sydney-centric and these two decisions were made by officials who are based in Sydney and the media were talking up the Eels all week and gavef**k all attention to the Cowboys. That sort of bias pissed people off outside of NSW.

It also didn't help that the affluent eastern suburbs of Sydney didn't have a dog in the fight. The game was fought out by teams who represent low socio-economic areas. The only thing worse than a Parra vs Penrith GF is one between Cronulla and Penrith.

 

[Pippen94]

The lopsidedness of the game didn't help.

Nor did the way the Cowboys were f**ked over by the ref and touchies the previous week. I know the Cowboys should not have allowed the plodder to stroll over for two soft tries, but it doesn't change the fact that the NRL is Sydney-centric and these two decisions were made by officials who are based in Sydney and the media were talking up the Eels all week and gavef**k all attention to the Cowboys. That sort of bias pissed people off outside of NSW.

It also didn't help that the affluent eastern suburbs of Sydney didn't have a dog in the fight. The game was fought out by teams who represent low socio-economic areas. The only thing worse than a Parra vs Penrith GF is one between Cronulla and Penrith.

Nothing u say has any basis in reality, but so you know both parra & Penrith regions exceed the national average in income; Parra by 15% & is also one of the highest educated areas being above national average by 40%.
Not that this has anything to do with TV ratings..

 

[Pippen94]

1. So it declined by nigh a million in one year but apparently it had nothing to do with the participants or the fact that the game was over after about 20 mins. Sure thing.

2. It seems like you don’t understand any sort of relativist (cognitive relativism - I am not a fan of moral relativism) or nuanced point of view. Firstly I hate fumbleball so I don’t care about the Swans or whomever, nevertheless, the experiences of their supporters in supporting their teams (however minute that number may be which is besides the point in this debate) would be authentic to them. How could it not be - unless you are suggesting that they are not ‘real’ or that they are being not true to themselves by supporting their teams? The same with me supporting my side or you supporting yours. You seem to be making this perverse argument about what is authentic based on some personal distaste at how some teams originated. In fact the whole argument of or use of the word authentic outside of something that is purely objective (scientific/legal/historical) seems strange

3. Also lastly going back to your final point, never in any of my posts did I question that the experiences of these people weren’t legitimate (I am happy for them but again with this sort of language?) The question I am asking is simply forget about the excitement that you saw in Western Sydney or Sydney for one moment and think about it from a wider perspective - do you think that the fact that these teams were ‘rivals’ (which is a subjective argument in any case) somehow generated a wider audience for the game?

Not that what ur saying is relevant, but when river plate played Boca jnrs in final of south american championships I folliwed, regardless of never watching an Argentine league match in my life, simply because rivalry is so renowned. Real & Barca have transferred their small regional bitterness into being two of the biggest sporting brands in the world. That's the reach a good rivalry can have.

Afl don't demand this, just the boast to interest & box office you get locally. NRL has it in Sydney. The Aleague derby does much bigger business than other fixtures, but that's down on what it once was.

 

[Colk]

Not that what ur saying is relevant, but when river plate played Boca jnrs in final of south american championships I folliwed, regardless of never watching an Argentine league match in my life, simply because rivalry is so renowned. Real & Barca have transferred their small regional bitterness into being two of the biggest sporting brands in the world. That's the reach a good rivalry can have.

Afl don't demand this, just the boast to interest & box office you get locally. NRL has it in Sydney. The Aleague derby does much bigger business than other fixtures, but that's down on what it once was.

I am just showing you how blinkered your views are.

My posts were relevant because you keep using language like authentic and somehow in your own mind you have made this critical judgement that everything in Sydney is authentic and everything outside of it isn’t. The only thing that matters is how many followers a team has and how they follow that team. You know facts other than subjective opinion.

On to your examples do you ever think why these rivalries get the press and the significance that they do: they are always the teams that are winning the competitions.

Hypothetically, if Real Madrid and Barcelona were mid table La Liga sides year upon year and thus not particularly notable brands do you think people outside of their supporters would care about the rivalry that they have?

Even if we look at our old mate Wookie’s article about viewership throughout the year you’ll notice that none of the high rating matches were between what you would perceive as rivals but they were just between two good teams

2022 NRL/NRLW Season TV Ratings - Sports Industry AU

NRLW (1) In 2022, the average audience on Channel Nine has eclipsed the combined average for both broadcasters in 2020. About 150,000 people have tuned in to watch NRLW matches on Channel Nine in metropolitan and regional markets. The 53 per cent increase in viewers on Nine is reflected in a...

www.footyindustry.com

 

[Perth Red]

Not that what ur saying is relevant, but when river plate played Boca jnrs in final of south american championships I folliwed, regardless of never watching an Argentine league match in my life, simply because rivalry is so renowned. Real & Barca have transferred their small regional bitterness into being two of the biggest sporting brands in the world. That's the reach a good rivalry can have.

Afl don't demand this, just the boast to interest & box office you get locally. NRL has it in Sydney. The Aleague derby does much bigger business than other fixtures, but that's down on what it once was.

How many parra v panthers games have drawn sub 15k crowds in
Last decade? Real rivalry is sell out games regardless of form.

 

[Colk]

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread.

Perth is probably favourite I’d imagine, probably followed by another Kiwi or another Brisbane side.

 

[Perth Red]

Perth then we wont see any further teams for twenty plus years would be my prediction.

 

[Pippen94]

I am just showing you how blinkered your views are.

My posts were relevant because you keep using language like authentic and somehow in your own mind you have made this critical judgement that everything in Sydney is authentic and everything outside of it isn’t. The only thing that matters is how many followers a team has and how they follow that team. You know facts other than subjective opinion.

On to your examples do you ever think why these rivalries get the press and the significance that they do: they are always the teams that are winning the competitions.

Hypothetically, if Real Madrid and Barcelona were mid table La Liga sides year upon year and thus not particularly notable brands do you think people outside of their supporters would care about the rivalry that they have?

Even if we look at our old mate Wookie’s article about viewership throughout the year you’ll notice that none of the high rating matches were between what you would perceive as rivals but they were just between two good teams

2022 NRL/NRLW Season TV Ratings - Sports Industry AU

NRLW (1) In 2022, the average audience on Channel Nine has eclipsed the combined average for both broadcasters in 2020. About 150,000 people have tuned in to watch NRLW matches on Channel Nine in metropolitan and regional markets. The 53 per cent increase in viewers on Nine is reflected in a...

www.footyindustry.com

Teams which finish top make finals & therefore get higher ratings dummy.
Ur arguing derbies & rivalries don't exist - time to pack it up

 

[Pippen94]

How many parra v panthers games have drawn sub 15k crowds in
Last decade? Real rivalry is sell out games regardless of form.

Thanks Mr afl mentality

 

[MugaB]

Perth then we wont see any further teams for twenty plus years would be my prediction.

Nz2 then, nothing for 10 years then PNG and Perth as no.19&20

 

[Colk]

Teams which finish top make finals & therefore get higher ratings dummy.
Ur arguing derbies & rivalries don't exist - time to pack it up

Wow I’m starting to think language and comprehension is an issue for you.

I’ve been arguing with you about this exact same thing - that rivalries don’t matter as much as a quality contest - i.e this argument about authenticity that you constantly argue is absolute b*******. Now that you agree with me after how many posts you call me dumb. Wow.

Again with improper language about derbies and rivalries and twisting of words. I never used the words that they didn’t exist. I suggested that they didn’t matter as much as you think they do. As I said in my hypothetical Real Madrid and Barcelona thing, if they were mid table sides nobody other than their supporters would care about this rivalry. That doesn’t mean that this rivalry wouldn’t exist to their supporters and to the teams, it is just that nobody else would care because it wouldn’t matter to anybody else.

To exist and to matter to something are completely different and you are either fully aware of this and being disingenuous by claiming that there isn’t or you’re too stupid to know the difference.

Anyway, you might heed your own advice and pack it in.

 

[Pippen94]

Wow I’m starting to think language and comprehension is an issue for you.

I’ve been arguing with you about this exact same thing - that rivalries don’t matter as much as a quality contest - i.e this argument about authenticity that you constantly argue is absolute b*******. Now that you agree with me after how many posts you call me dumb. Wow.

Again with improper language about derbies and rivalries and twisting of words. I never used the words that they didn’t exist. I suggested that they didn’t matter as much as you think they do. As I said in my hypothetical Real Madrid and Barcelona thing, if they were mid table sides nobody other than their supporters would care about this rivalry. That doesn’t mean that this rivalry wouldn’t exist to their supporters and to the teams, it is just that nobody else would care because it wouldn’t matter to anybody else.

To exist and to matter to something are completely different and you are either fully aware of this and being disingenuous by claiming that there isn’t or you’re too stupid to know the difference.

Anyway, you might heed your own advice and pack it in.

Great, cancel the ashes when Australia & England aren't the top two nations

 

[Perth Red]

Thanks Mr afl mentality

Nice deflection troll

 

[Colk]

Great, cancel the ashes when Australia & England aren't the top two nations

Sigh. Again, you seem to struggling with nuance. Its popularity would wane if it became totally uncompetitive or other commercial interests were greater. There is no such thing as a straight line or constant.

There are examples within cricket if you wish to reflect on it.

Have a look at Australia and West Indies and that ‘great’ rivalry. They used to play regular five test series (home and away) from about the mid 60’s to about early 2000’s because it was seen as important and there was interest from both sides, as well outside interest from other countries.

Nowadays they struggle to play multiple tests against each other because a) the West Indies would be lucky to beat a Sydney first grade side and b) there is no great commercial windfall (mostly because of a and also because West Indies is a poor region with a small TV audience). That rivalry has now waned as there is no interest in it now from anybody.

On the flip side compare that to India. Australia didn’t tour India for about a decade at one stage. From roughly the start of this century onwards, they have played very regular contests of four-five tests both home and away because a) India is the fastest growing economy in the world (at least with China and Indonesia) so there’s money involved and b) the cricket has become very competitive between the two nations.

Also, as a last point if (hypothetically - remember that) cricket was also played in bigger markets like China, US etc then the Ashes rivalry would also fade in relevance due to commercial pressures. That’s because both countries would see playing in these markets and the money generated in turn, as more important than playing the Ashes every two years.

 

[Pippen94]

Sigh. Again, you seem to struggling with nuance. Its popularity would wane if it became totally uncompetitive or other commercial interests were greater. There is no such thing as a straight line or constant.

There are examples within cricket if you wish to reflect on it.

Have a look at Australia and West Indies and that ‘great’ rivalry. They used to play regular five test series (home and away) from about the mid 60’s to about early 2000’s because it was seen as important and there was interest from both sides, as well outside interest from other countries.

Nowadays they struggle to play multiple tests against each other because a) the West Indies would be lucky to beat a Sydney first grade side and b) there is no great commercial windfall (mostly because of a and also because West Indies is a poor region with a small TV audience). That rivalry has now waned as there is no interest in it now from anybody.

On the flip side compare that to India. Australia didn’t tour India for about a decade at one stage. From roughly the start of this century onwards, they have played very regular contests of four-five tests both home and away because a) India is the fastest growing economy in the world (at least with China and Indonesia) so there’s money involved and b) the cricket has become very competitive between the two nations.

Also, as a last point if (hypothetically - remember that) cricket was also played in bigger markets like China, US etc then the Ashes rivalry would also fade in relevance due to commercial pressures. That’s because both countries would see playing in these markets and the money generated in turn, as more important than playing the Ashes every two years.

So India vs Australia series draws bigger crowds & ratings than ashes?!

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Sigh. Again, you seem to struggling with nuance. Its popularity would wane if it became totally uncompetitive or other commercial interests were greater. There is no such thing as a straight line or constant.

There are examples within cricket if you wish to reflect on it.

Have a look at Australia and West Indies and that ‘great’ rivalry. They used to play regular five test series (home and away) from about the mid 60’s to about early 2000’s because it was seen as important and there was interest from both sides, as well outside interest from other countries.

Nowadays they struggle to play multiple tests against each other because a) the West Indies would be lucky to beat a Sydney first grade side and b) there is no great commercial windfall (mostly because of a and also because West Indies is a poor region with a small TV audience). That rivalry has now waned as there is no interest in it now from anybody.

On the flip side compare that to India. Australia didn’t tour India for about a decade at one stage. From roughly the start of this century onwards, they have played very regular contests of four-five tests both home and away because a) India is the fastest growing economy in the world (at least with China and Indonesia) so there’s money involved and b) the cricket has become very competitive between the two nations.

Also, as a last point if (hypothetically - remember that) cricket was also played in bigger markets like China, US etc then the Ashes rivalry would also fade in relevance due to commercial pressures. That’s because both countries would see playing in these markets and the money generated in turn, as more important than playing the Ashes every two years.

The Ashes will never diminish because it's been played for about 150 years. England's poor run from 1987 until 2004 didn't harm it. There will always be an appetite for it because it's the mother country vs their former colonial outpost and the oldest regularly played contest after the America's Cup.

Professionalism killed cricket outside of the "big three" countries. It's speculated that there will only be three countries playing Tests in the future. Countries like Zimbabwe only generate $1m per annum from broadcast rights and lose money playing Tests. Players from New Zealand can earn more playing in T20 leagues around the world than representing their country at Test level.

 

[Iamback]

TV ratings are based on what a few thousand people are watched. Very flawed data every major event this year has copped a hammering.

Most of the rivalries Pippen mentioned began well before the NRL was formed, A new club won't have that

 

[Colk]

The Ashes will never diminish because it's been played for about 150 years. England's poor run from 1987 until 2004 didn't harm it. There will always be an appetite for it because it's the mother country vs their former colonial outpost and the oldest regularly played contest after the America's Cup.

Professionalism killed cricket outside of the "big three" countries. It's speculated that there will only be three countries playing Tests in the future. Countries like Zimbabwe only generate $1m per annum from broadcast rights and lose money playing Tests. Players from New Zealand can earn more playing in T20 leagues around the world than representing their country at Test level.

Yes it did to a degree. There was quite rightly a concern about the Ashes and the length of the series prior to England winning in 2005. Rightly so as well - people get tired of one team absolutely smashing another.

 

[Colk]

So India vs Australia series draws bigger crowds & ratings than ashes?!

Is that a question?

Considering the population of India is roughly 1.3 - 1.4 billion compared to England’s 60 million, I think it is safe to presume that there are more people (in the several millions) watching an Australia - India test match than an Ashes match even if you take out Australian viewing numbers which via the framing of the question you seem to think is the only important thing in this ‘debate’ (which is a naive at best or ignorant at worst)

Also can you stop using exclamation marks - it is mildly off putting. You don’t have to yell.