Tigers supporters stay loyal as Roosters fans lose faith

[Nook]

Pulling stats out of years ass may appear cool

Dodge, sentences work better if they make sense. Particularly if you're trying to avoid looking like an utter dumbarse.

 

[Timmah]

Doesn't answer my question farkwit. How depressing, you took the time to change my handle to my old username, funnily enough to do exactly what it implied... dodge the question.

You're f**king fired, Nook ;-)

 

[Sir Biffo]

Plus with the Broncs figures don't forget if you live up here you really only get one chance a year to see your team. Its normally about a 60-40 mix of supporters for the Dragons game every year and you'd find there is far more away supporters for their games than any other club.

 

[innsaneink]

It's a pretty stupid thread, especially when started by a Tigers fan. They were the bandwagon kings at the end of last year. A few 'wagoners turned out for the first match against St George, and it's tapered since.

They are without doubt well supported, but it's a bit of a laugh seeing a Wests fan have a dig at the Roosters about their fickle supporter base.

Personally I have no problem with bandwagoners anyway, if they are helping the stadium be filled.

Youre a f**kin goose....its an article in the papaer.

 

[Tom Shines]

Good to see that Souths still can't attract fans. They're kidding we don't go to the Central Coast in the near future.

Note that Tigers have a bigger fan base due to location though. They basically have a corridor as far as Fairfield, Liverpool, Campbelltown, and Camden, plus adjoining councils, as they're closest team, not to mention the old diehards at Leichhardt and Ashfield. Roosters have a very small pocket in which could be considered "their" territory. Because of this, the Roosters have had to rely on fans from outside their region (aka "bandwagoners"). Whereas Wests will always have a consistent fan base because they are a "local team" for many more people.

No-one probably understood that last bit of drivel, but you know what I'm getting at.

 

[The Business]

Roosters 2003: home crowd aggregate: 193, 201 Home average: 16, 100

Wests Tigers 2006: home crowd aggregate: 175, 011 Home average: 19, 446

(When you add in the Jade stadium game the adjusted figures are aggregate: 18, 968 Home average: 189, 686)

For your assertion to be correct the Tigers would need to draw less than 2000 to each of the two remaining home games.

All the stats are at http://stats.rleague.com/rl/rl_index.html

The Bulldogs stats have been over-estimated. The proper home ground averages are 16.5k for 2005 and 18k for 2004.

That means that the Tigers home ground average for 2006 eclipses their own 2005 mark, which was the highest for a Sydney club since Parramatta in 1986.

What I meant was that the Roosters home crowd averages improved by nearly 50% the year after they won the comp. The Tigers has only just improved.

 

[Trevor Cogger]

Youre a f**kin goose....its an article in the papaer.

Yes but you spun it to bag out Easts, even though the Panthers despite winning a more recent GF and being arguably more successful for the past few years have a worse average, but still you wanted to highlight Easts. Do you have an agenda , are you envious or just an ignorant farkwit. Over the past 20 years I dare say Easts have a greater average than your joint venture.

 

[innsaneink]

Yes but you spun it to bag out Easts, even though the Panthers despite winning a more recent GF and being arguably more successful for the past few years have a worse average, but still you wanted to highlight Easts. Do you have an agenda , are you envious or just an ignorant farkwit. Over the past 20 years I dare say Easts have a greater average than your joint venture.

I spun it out to bag Easts?

Read the headline, ...just a continuation to what the Herald wrote.

If you must know....I did notice the Panthers and roosters similar figures, maybe the Herald figured with the high profile purchases the roosters had last year their slide is more significant

even though the Panthers despite winning a more recent GF and being arguably more successful for the past few years have a worse average, but still you wanted to highlight Easts.

Nfi :lol:

 

[TV Ted Ellery]

Doesn't answer my question farkwit. How depressing, you took the time to change my handle to my old username, funnily enough to do exactly what it implied... dodge the question.

You're f**king fired, Nook ;-)

Dodge, the statistics on Rleague are inaccurate because they consider the total double header attendances as Canterbury's home crowds and whatsmore they disregard games that are moved to other venues.

For example, in 2004 the Bulldogs co-hosted two double-headers- the first drew roughly 42k and the second drew 25k. I suppose that the most equitable solution for a double-header is to split the total attendance between the two co-hosts.

Canterbury also moved two home games to Gosford and one to Wellington. All three games were moderately attended.

These errors arer carried across for seasons 2003 & 2004.

BTW the figures for 2005 are actually slightly higher. Total: 219, 434 Average: 18, 286. They overlooked the game that was played at Carrara, which was a Bulldogs home game.

 

[Timmah]

It's very simple Ted.

Each team is allocated 12 home games out of 24 they play in a season. Some teams move games to neutral venues, but if it is home billed, that game is part of their HOME average.

On home averages (that includes Saints @ Aussie, which is their home game, and Manly @ SCG, which was also theirs), St George are ahead of Manly. And that's not using Rleague's stats.

 

[TV Ted Ellery]

Bulldogs 2003 Aggregate: 216, 574 Average: 18, 047 (not 21, 117 as listed by Rleague)

2004 Aggregate: 182, 164 Average: 15, 180 ( not 19, 693)

2005 Aggregate: 219, 434 Average: 18, 268 (not 18, 038) - Initially I had missed the Carrara game so thats why I was saying 16.5k.


----------------------------
Tigers 2006 Aggregate: 189, 686 Average: 18, 968... if we get 15k to each of the remaining games it will drop to about 18.3k

Tigers 2005 Aggregate: 225, 469 Average: 18, 789


IMO if Souths had ANY success they would surpass this mark and be the first Sydney side to maintain an average of 20k+ in the last twenty years.

 

[TV Ted Ellery]

It's very simple Ted.

Each team is allocated 12 home games out of 24 they play in a season. Some teams move games to neutral venues, but if it is home billed, that game is part of their HOME average.

On home averages (that includes Saints @ Aussie, which is their home game, and Manly @ SCG, which was also theirs), St George are ahead of Manly. And that's not using Rleague's stats.

Sorry, that was just speculation on my behalf in regards to Manly's crowds.

BTW the bolded part reiterates the point I was making about the inaccuracy of the Rleague stats. They DIDN'T count Gosford or Wellington games as Bulldogs home games for 2004

 

[colonel_123]

Wait for Tigers to have 2 bad years in a row to be fair.

But Roosters wavering support doesn't surprise in the least

In 2004 Wests averaged more then 12000 (close to 14000) and that was after 4 years of performances far worse then the Roosters have had in their last two years...

 

[tommytomlin]

Wests are also two popular Sydney teams combined into one.

 

[Nook]

Doesn't answer my question farkwit

dodge the question

Dodge's superbly worded "question":

Pulling stats out of your ass may appear cool, but unless you back up what you're saying, you're full of sh*t.

Nice going, moron.

 

[Nook]

Wests are also two popular Sydney teams combined into one.

Exactly - we should be drawing good crowds. And we are, at the moment.

The geographical split is a worry though - if Wests could combine the Leichhardt and Balmain elements regularly we'd be averaging 20,000+, easily.

Saints are the most dissapointing Sydney team re crowds as far as I'm concerned. The crowds at Wollongong have been poor and whilst Kogarah is good for the big Sydney matches some of the other crowds are pretty ordinary.

 

[tommytomlin]

Also interesting that while the article, and this thread, have been focused on the decline in the Roosters figures - Penrith have had a larger fall (by a tiny margin), and the Warriors have the worst drop out of all of them. And Cronulla and the Eels have also had sizeable drops after being contenders last year and parts of this year.

I'm not denying the Roosters figures are sh*thouse compared to their previous highs, but it just seems the article was written around the pre-conceived notion that Roosters fans = bandwagoners, when their fans behave exactly the same as every other team in the crowded Sydney market.

 

[Chook]

Two Grand Final loses in a row 03-04!
Missing the finals two years in a row 05-06!
Having to watch the abomination of Finch running around in your colours!

Name me one footy club that wouldn't suffer a drop in attendance after that cenario?

We know we're hemeraging, we don't need some dickwad defending pretenders fan telling us that.

But hey Inssane, if it get's your post count up... :roll:

Chook.

 

[innsaneink]

Two Grand Final loses in a row 03-04!
Missing the finals two years in a row 05-06!
Having to watch the abomination of Finch running around in your colours!

Name me one footy club that wouldn't suffer a drop in attendance after that cenario?

We know we're hemeraging, we don't need some dickwad defending pretenders fan telling us that.

But hey Inssane, if it get's your post count up... :roll:

Chook.

Hmmm...we have a bright spark in the house, yes chook...you make a post your count goes up, usually in increments of one. Very observant.

You dont need it....but tough luck sunshine, you got it. :lol:

Your club has the greatest number of fly by night fans, we ALL know this, dont be ashamed....this honour HAS to belong to someone.

 

[atomic_crimson]

Four free tickets every time you spend $50 at rhodes certainly helps crowd numbers.