New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Perth Red]

You are the only person that cares.

Given youve made 5 posts on it that’d suggest not lol

 

[Wb1234]

Queensland and NSW = 11,91600
Vic, south Australia, Tasmania WA=10,240000

So the population rl states exceeds population of AFL states for the most part
We have a champion!

Plus Canberra and Auckland / nz

we can leave out png it’s not fair as their team is only a qld cup one

 

[MugaB]

I’d say that was pretty deliberately worded to mean “Wellington or the South Island” without committing to either.

Vagueness is the ARLC policy, keeping all options open

 

[MugaB]

Very simplistic! You have to consider the footprint and exposure of each code in those states. So for example AFL in NSW and Qlnd has a reasonable footprint, participation and prof club representation. Whilst NRL in Vic, SA and WA doesnt.

Not really any club can exist in any state, or be relocated there, like the swans or lions, and still keep there interests there.. gobsmacked is talking population in states we know are nrl or afl heavily affiliated,
Not which one has a club whos presence is better..
He also forgot ACT, and really we need to add an extra 5million to the NRL side for the Warriors.. so yeah its comparisons on the apples vs oranges stakes

 

[The Great Dane]

Queensland and NSW = 11,91600
Vic, south Australia, Tasmania WA=10,240000

So the population rl states exceeds population of AFL states for the most part
We have a champion!

AFL/Aussie Rules holds a significantly larger percentage of the VIC, WA, SA, and TAS markets than the NRL/RL holds of NSW, Qld, and especially ACT markets. NRL/RL also holds significantly smaller portions of the markets outside of it's heartlands than AFL does.

Not all people in a give population follow either sport anyway. So just comparing the populations of both sets of heartlands is reductive in the extreme.

Add NZ into the mix and it looks a lot worse for AFL in that metric

Including NZ, and/or any other international international market, is shifting the goalposts.

The question is which is more popular/successful/whatever terminology you wish to use, in Australia, not globally.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Very simplistic! You have to consider the footprint and exposure of each code in those states. So for example AFL in NSW and Qlnd has a reasonable footprint, participation and prof club representation. Whilst NRL in Vic, SA and WA doesnt.

That is all considered in the national TV ratings, which we win handsomely. What we don't do well as a game historically is leverage our advantage. That is the challenge for the current administration.

 

[Perth Red]

That is all considered in the national TV ratings, which we win handsomely. What we don't do well as a game historically is leverage our advantage. That is the challenge for the current administration.

There’s no doubt nrl has a bigger passive supporter base whilst afl has a much larger active fanbase. Turning the couch potatoes into actual fans is one of the nrls big challenges.

 

[Gobsmacked]

There’s no doubt nrl has a bigger passive supporter base whilst afl has a much larger active fanbase. Turning the couch potatoes into actual fans is one of the nrls big challenges.

Huh?
"Passive supporter base " and " actual fan"
I don't go to games, so I'm not an " actual fan"

TV is the best way to watch League.

Live is the best way to watch AFL.

there's a massive number of people who go to AFL games because it's a good event to attend- massive bang for your buck and great get together with your mates- not real fans.
When I lived in Melbourne I did this with my house mates, a $20 outing and it was enjoyable no matter who was playing. Would I watch it at home by myself? Not a chance.
But I'll set aside time to watch most League games at home.

You really need to stop with this comparison.

 

[Wb1234]

AFL/Aussie Rules holds a significantly larger percentage of the VIC, WA, SA, and TAS markets than the NRL/RL holds of NSW, Qld, and especially ACT markets. NRL/RL also holds significantly smaller portions of the markets outside of it's heartlands than AFL does.

Not all people in a give population follow either sport anyway. So just comparing the populations of both sets of heartlands is reductive in the extreme.

Including NZ, and/or any other international international market, is shifting the goalposts.

The question is which is more popular/successful/whatever terminology you wish to use, in Australia, not globally.

Lmao

yep let’s ignore the warriors because it makes afl look bad

 

[Wb1234]

Huh?
"Passive supporter base " and " actual fan"
I don't go to games, so I'm not an " actual fan"

TV is the best way to watch League.

Live is the best way to watch AFL.

there's a massive number of people who go to AFL games because it's a good event to attend- massive bang for your buck and great get together with your mates- not real fans.
When I lived in Melbourne I did this with my house mates, a $20 outing and it was enjoyable no matter who was playing. Would I watch it at home by myself? Not a chance.
But I'll set aside time to watch most League games at home.

You really need to stop with this comparison.

It’s funny that the one metric which is indepdamt and counted properly is tv ratings and rugby league wins

crowd figures may include members who don’t attend, be outright lies or include stadium members who don’t pay anything to the afl to attend

 

[Perth Red]

Huh?
"Passive supporter base " and " actual fan"
I don't go to games, so I'm not an " actual fan"

TV is the best way to watch League.

Live is the best way to watch AFL.

there's a massive number of people who go to AFL games because it's a good event to attend- massive bang for your buck and great get together with your mates- not real fans.
When I lived in Melbourne I did this with my house mates, a $20 outing and it was enjoyable no matter who was playing. Would I watch it at home by myself? Not a chance.
But I'll set aside time to watch most League games at home.

You really need to stop with this comparison.

the word fan derives from fanatic. Sitting at home on your couch with one eye on the game and one eye on your phone does not smack fanatic does it? supporter yes, fan no.

Unless you're a member, attending games if possible and buying merch every year your not a fan, imo.

 

[Perth Red]

It’s funny that the one metric which is indepdamt and counted properly is tv ratings and rugby league wins

crowd figures may include members who don’t attend, be outright lies or include stadium members who don’t pay anything to the afl to attend

haha have you seen the sample size for tv ratings? Its not even closer to reliable.

 

[Gobsmacked]

the word fan derives from fanatic. Sitting at home on your couch with one eye on the game and one eye on your phone does not smack fanatic does it? supporter yes, fan no.

Unless you're a member, attending games if possible and buying merch every year your not a fan, imo.

And somehow your made up logic is what we are aiming for..
Cool story bro

 

[Wb1234]

if you think up to 30k Members attend games at the mcg then afls claims of large crowds are a myth

their whole claims of superiority rest on people who show up for free or club members who don’t show up for games

 

[Gobsmacked]

if you think up to 30k Members attend games at the mcg then afls claims of large crowds are a myth

their whole claims of superiority rest on people who show up for free or club members who don’t show up for games

The opra sells out, doesn’t mean squat.

 

[Canard]

if you think up to 30k Members attend games at the mcg then afls claims of large crowds are a myth

their whole claims of superiority rest on people who show up for free or club members who don’t show up for games

Why? And if so, why aren't every other members groups also excluded (SCG, etc)

And you must have some great weed, if you think 100% of the MCC turn up to every game?

 

[Canard]

Earlier this year

And now, the borders have been redrawn so the district of Melton has been included in Melbourne's catchment.
The new Melbourne has almost 19,000 more people than Sydney, with a total of about 5.8 million.

Sydney dethroned as Australia's largest city

www.9news.com.au

Righto.

That's just a bureaucracy thing though, I mean Melton is Melbourne. (It's less then 40km by car from the city)

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Including NZ, and/or any other international international market, is shifting the goalposts.

The question is which is more popular/successful/whatever terminology you wish to use, in Australia, not globally.

not if you’re comparing competitions and their associated markets though because the NRL includes an NZ side, so a direct NRL vs AFL comparison needs to include NZ otherwise you’re underselling the NRL.
PNG/England I’ll grant are outside the current scope.

 

[Perth Red]

The opra sells out, doesn’t mean squat.

err it means its popular with some people lol

 

[Perth Red]

not if you’re comparing competitions and their associated markets though because the NRL includes an NZ side, so a direct NRL vs AFL comparison needs to include NZ otherwise you’re underselling the NRL.
PNG/England I’ll grant are outside the current scope.

Auckland fair enough, whole of NZ? lol