Oi, Sporting Capital of Australia, where's the ticker tape parade?

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

If you scroll back I think you'll find the original comment was in relation to codes of Rugby... not 'football'.

Bingo..

 

[Danish]

Danish,



Use your brain for a second, instead of stubbornly persisting with this line of argument because you cannot admit you are wrong.

How on earth could the Rugby Union World Cup attract a cumulative audience of 3 billion? Just have a little think about it. You don't need EA's figures, all you need is a tiny amount of common sense.

I look at it this way...


the total population of the countries represented at the rugby world cup in 2003 equates to around 1 billion people.

In Australia, they estimate over 30 million TVs tuned in to the world cup over the course of the tournament. Safe to say that equates to at the very least each person in the country watching 2 games each (and that is assuming that the vast majority of people watched the games by themselves on their own individual TVs).

Not too much of a stretch to assume a similiar thing occured in the other viewing nations as well. Obviously not all countries would match our contribution as some would simply not have the technology to do so, but people who watch the world cup are also in no way limited to the countries that are involved in the tournament (150+ countries carried the broadcast).

Considering the estimates made for the Olympics (4-5 billion viewers worldwide) and even more so the Soccer World Cup (a ridiculous 30 billion in some reports) 3 billion is not too much of a stretch in my opinion.

Its not 3 billion different viewers afterall.

 

[JW]

Yep, those bllion+ Union powerhouses India and China would've been glued to their TV sets for past few weeks.

 

[Danish]

If you scroll back I think you'll find the original comment was in relation to codes of Rugby... not 'football'.

It does indeed when declaring the size of the competition melbourne won, which is why I am comparing it to the Rugby world cup....


However, the captains remark referred to Smith being the first "footballer", and the poster also mentioned Sydney's reaction the the Swans winning the AFL title.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I look at it this way...

We have found the problem...

 

[Nook]

I look at it this way...

the total population of the countries represented at the rugby world cup in 2003 equates to around 1 billion people.

Including -

About 300,000,000 in the US, where Union is a very minor sport, with a shocking time difference

About 65,000,000 in the UK and Ireland where Union isn't close to being the most popular sport (the final got great ratings in England - can't remember off the tp of my head but was something in the vicinity of 10-15 mil I think)

About 60,000,000 in France where Union isn't the most popular sport and where most matches were in the early morning

About 20,000,000 in Australia - where some of the prime time matches recorded lowest ever figures since these readings have been taken, and the final rated its tits off at about 5 million

About 50,000,000 in South Africa - a tiny of minority of whom are white Union types

etc etc etc

In Australia, they estimate over 30 million TVs tuned in to the world cup over the course of the tournament.

Who does?

Safe to say that equates to at the very least each person in the country watching 2 games each (and that is assuming that the vast majority of people watched the games by themselves on their own individual TVs).

I don't think that is safe to say at all.

Not too much of a stretch to assume a similiar thing occured in the other viewing nations as well.

Oh, yes it is. It is a massive, massive, massive stretch. Frankly, calling it a stretch doesn't really do it justice. It's just bullsh*t.

Obviously not all countries would match our contribution, but people who watch the world cup are also in no way limited to the countries that are involved in the tournament (150+ countries carried the broadcast).

LOL

Right about now "I'm wrong" would have been flashing over and over in your brain..you should have listened

Considering the estimates made for the Olympics (4-5 billion viewers worldwide) and even more so the Soccer World Cup (a ridiculous 30 billion in some reports) 3 billion is not too much of a stretch in my opinion.

Your opinion is based on not wanting to be wrong in an argument where you clearly are.

Seriously - common sense - use it.

 

[The Tank]

Safe to say that equates to at the very least each person in the country watching 2 games each

WTF!!! :lol: People barely know it exists.

 

[Danish]

3 billion is what they want you to think.

If you're too stupid to see through it and can't understand the simple calculations that put the kybosh on their figure immediately....\

who is "they" exactly??

do you question the figures put forth regarding how many people tune in to watch the olympics and soccer world cup also??

The 1 billion is overstating it a lot. Commonsense is what's required. See if you can buy some on Ebay.

If every game rated as highly as the final, it would be 1 billion.

Even if you were to assume that the only 2 countries watching it were Australia and England it still blows the NRL out of the water.

Hell, even including Australia alone acheives that feat.

Where?

Typical Union fan.

Your entered into this debate laughing at the notion that the rugby world cup is bigger than the NRL

You were smart enough to find the OZTAM figures?

Find them youself.

I've provided links for my stats.

You can provide your own thanks.

So, you're suggesting that a couple of now-defunct hybrid matches put on to give a few AFL lads a holiday and appease AFL fans who want any sort of rep matches is now a code?

Gimme a break.

It was a code, and a melbourne player captained them.

The fact you dont believe so does not change facts.

It doesn't exist.

And don't talk sh*t, it was never as popular as League Tests.

Never.

Nope, but its much of a muchness really considering how poorly league internationals rate. Particularly in Sydney.

 

[JW]

Nope, but its much of a muchness really considering how poorly league internationals rate. Particularly in Sydney.

Poorly?

The one's that outrate Wallaby Tests?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

who is "they" exactly??

Start with John O'Neill and work your way down.

do you question the figures put forth regarding how many people tune in to watch the olympics and soccer world cup also??

I don't feel the need to.

If I do, I will.

But their figures are a lot more likely than Unions.

For example.

The last Soccer World Cup, each Australia game rated over 2 million here whilst being on mid-week in the early hours of the morning.

This Union world cup, the Australia games on late at night have rated in the 400,000 area.

Soccer and the Olympics are true world events. The RWC is not.

Even if you were to assume that the only 2 countries watching it were Australia and England it still blows the NRL out of the water.

lol

What a load of crap.

The RWC ratings are abysmal this year. The Australia games have rated less than a home and away NRL match rates in Sydney only.

And they're the biggest rating matches here.

Hell, even including Australia alone acheives that feat.

bwwahahahahahahahahahaha

Seriously, you know absolutely nothing.

You're embarrassing.

Lose the Roosters avatar.

Your entered into this debate laughing at the notion that the rugby world cup is bigger than the NRL

No, I didn't.

I've provided links for my stats.

You can provide your own thanks.

I don't need to and I'm not your slave.

There are already 2 threads here with the information.

Find them.

It was a code, and a melbourne player captained them.

The fact you dont believe so does not change facts.

The fact that International Rules is a code?

:lol:

Nope, but its much of a muchness really considering how poorly league internationals rate. Particularly in Sydney.

I doubt you'd have any idea how they rate.

They have been outrating Bledisloe of late.

And they murdered International Rules ratings.

Stop talking bollocks.

 

[Danish]

Including -

About 300,000,000 in the US, where Union is a very minor sport, with a shocking time difference

Time difference certainly wouldn't help here, obviously.

Probably about as much as it effects Australias soccer world cup ratings (discounting 2006 for obvious reasons).

And we still rate well in that regard.

About 65,000,000 in the UK and Ireland where Union isn't close to being the most popular sport (the final got great ratings in England - can't remember off the tp of my head but was something in the vicinity of 10-15 mil I think)

About 60,000,000 in France where Union isn't the most popular sport and where most matches were in the early morning

About 20,000,000 in Australia - where some of the prime time matches recorded lowest ever figures since these readings have been taken, and the final rated its tits off at about 5 million

http://www.worldgames-iwga.org/vsit...,11040,1044-163417-180632-54682-0-file,00.pdf

You are correct with your figures for the final ratings in Oz and England. Australia had 31 million viewers overall, and France also had just a touch over 14 million watch their semi against the England and the Final alone.

Safe to say each of these countries would have gone close to matching our percentage of viewers without a worry.

About 50,000,000 in South Africa - a tiny of minority of whom are white Union types

Much like Australia, its not only the stuffed shirt rich types which watch union in South Africa.

I don't think that is safe to say at all.

Well our opinions can differ on that.

But regardless of that, the World Cup is still clearly a much, much larger competition than the NRL. which was my original and still standing argument.

Right about now "I'm wrong" would have been flashing over and over in your brain..you should have listened

Your opinion is based on not wanting to be wrong in an argument where you clearly are.

Seriously - common sense - use it.

My common sense tells me that the official figures listed are much more reliable than the opinions of a couple of posters on an internet forum.

It also tells me that the Soccer world cup is widely accepted to attract 7 or 8 times as many viewers as the Rugby World cup claims to. So accepting the Union figures is not to much of a stretch IMO.

But again, even if you want to dispute the figures, there is no disputing that the point made regarding the NRL being the largest comp of any code in the world is utterly wrong.

 

[Lego_Man]

Every person in the RWC viewing countries watches 2 games each...

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Schillaci]

whens the rugby world cup start anyway im sick of hearing about it already

 

[Choppies]

whens the rugby world cup start anyway im sick of hearing about it already

It's on apparently.

 

[Danish]

Every person in the RWC viewing countries watches 2 games each...

:lol::lol::lol:

Seems quite ridiculous, I know.


But when you consider the Australian figures of 31 million total viewers and only 10 million households to average the stats across, we actually appear to come out on top of that.

Unless of course you want to assume that each of those 31 million TVs equated to 1 person watching the game on their own personal TV, by themselves. Then we (obviously) only sit at 1.5 games per person.

 

[Nook]

Danish,

Official figures? WTF? The figures you are quoting are PR - nothing more. EA has carefully walked you through the "official figures" for what would have been the top rating match of the tournament, and illustrated that even making the ridiculous assumption that all matches were viewed by the same number of people the cumulative ratings would have barely nudged 1 billion.

The rest of your drivel about respective viewership around the world based on extrapolation of Aussie figures requires nothing more than a laughy emoticon:

Much like Australia, its not only the stuffed shirt rich types which watch union in South Africa

Congratulations, you've become a parody of yourself.

As for this gem

Nope, but its much of a muchness really considering how poorly league internationals rate. Particularly in Sydney

RL internationals in Sydney rate better than RU internationals (club RL games also rate better than most internationals).

But hey, if you want to believe that 3 billion people watch the RU world cup, good luck to you. As long as you are prepared to be laughed at.

 

[Misty Bee]

Danish, you are such a twat! Your eyes are worse that Greg Macallums were :lol::lol:

Lets recap:

Well?

Sydneysiders had to put up with one when the Swans won your pissant comp.

A few thousand revellers in a square is NOT a ticker tape parade down Collins Street, lined with a few hundred thousand wellwishers - even if they are shoppers and business people having a lunchtime gawk. Massive difference.

So, if you are the city that embraces all sports, you own side won the biggest comp in either Rugby code on the face of the earth.

Annually, the NRL blitzes the second most watched comp (Ironically, the ESL) in both TV ratings and attendence. As the ESL is second only to soccer in the UK TV sporting ratings, you get the picture.

Besides, if you add up the NRL's crowd for 2007, and it's combined TV ratings, I'd doubt the Union WC would get within 70%. Happy to be proven wrong, of course.

Anyway, held one every 4 years, it's more an event than a comp. But if that's too much semantics for ya, cool.

It also won the most viewed sporting event in Australia.

Check the Ratings thread. It's defeated the AFL. If anything tops the NRL GF, let me know.

Will Cam Smith - the first Melbourne footballer of any code to captain Australia, be given the keys to the city?

Well??????

Geez, ya got me there. I got lost in all of that ticker tape.

But you are a dimwit for not defeationg me with Soccer evidence, but International rules!!!! - a code so obscure that it is only played between 2 teams once every few years. It's as common as Halley's Comet.

 

[Misty Bee]

the Lord Mayor and Premier were with the storm yesterday, they also congratulated Greg 'Ingles' for his BOG performance

WTF? They were praising him for bowell movements??????

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Last I heard International Rules had been canned because the AFL professional players decided to belt the crap out of the amateur Irishmen in the last series.

They mustn't have enjoyed losing....

 

[Hutchy86]

:sleeper: