Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

Mr Wind Up

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

277 Excellent

Member Profile

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,402 profile views
  1. I suspect everyone who is overweight already knows that people around them know they're overweight. I don't agree with fat-shaming, but I do agree with not promoting unhealthy body image.
  2. Whatever it is, India is gonna cost you the lot.
  3. Unless you’re watching all 8 hours of a game, kind of hard to tell. People trickle in all throughout the day. From what Ive seen the games have been very well attended.
  4. I don't fully believing viewing figures for the women's world cup in the same way that I don't believe any TV figures for anything. At the end of the day, however much people want to say it's accurate, TV ratings are determined using sampling of a few thousand people to extrapolate data for 60+ million. That may be the best we can do for now, and it may be good enough for advertisers, but at the end of the day it doesn't tell us how many people watched something. It's guesswork. In defense of the women's world cup, TV ratings alone aren't a measure of reach and interest. If you look at the comments section on the BBC or Guardian for women's world cup, there's a pretty healthy amount of interaction. As of this moment, the Guardian has 822 comments for England's last game, while the BBC has 1,646 comments. That's on par with marquee Premier League matches. So clearly it's having some impact, even if many comments are moaners like me who didn't watch a second of the game. I'm thankful that streaming and video on demand is becoming mainstream. That data is irrefutable. Not only do you know how many watched, you know for how long, and you know their gender and age (so you can better target advertising). Once streaming and VOD is fully entrenched and terrestrial and cable goes by the wayside (we'll be waiting many decades I fear), I think we'll begin to see media values of sporting products better reflect reality/demand.
  5. In your world, the UK is the only country that exists outside of America. We are talking global exporters of culture. How the hell does home and away prove your point? Do you want me to list off the hundreds of American tv shows that have become bigger phenomenon than home and away? Or the hundreds of American bands, or writers? Give it a rest, Australia is a tiddlywink in cultural exportation. America is by far the largest in human history.
  6. Pink Floyd is better than whatever the Americans came up with, but other than that that’s a very bizarre take on history. Im guessing this is what people mean when they say theres been a mandela effect, because we’re definitely not living in the same timeline.
  7. True, but it goes further than that. The appeal of NFL is that it’s American. As the biggest cultural exporter in the world, it’s only natural that Britain imports much of its culture (edit: takes cues) from the states. What Britain doesnt do is import culture from countries the size of Australia, which has no relevance as an exporter of culture. America is a big brother, Australia the family runt. Hence why NFL has a following, and why Aussie rules has none.
  8. They can already establish bidding among 3 major cities outside Sydney and Brisbane. I just cant see who is going to spend money to attract a low profile event outside Australia. They probably got very good deals to get Origin played in Perth based on the massive popularity and draw of Origin in Australia. Do we really see the FA or Tottenham or whoever doing the same?
  9. Would Australians get anything out of hosting it in the UK? Doubtful. Would it somehow benefit English RL? Doubtful. That's about as far as the conversation should extend.
  10. League format. All countries involved in the same league. 4 teams per division. Promotion relegation. 1 up, 1 down. 6 games a year. Top four leagues get automatic qualification to World Cup (position averaged over the preceding four year period. If you spent 3 years in league D and 1 year in league E, you qualify over someone that spent 2 years in league D and 2 years in league E).
  11. I expect England to go through, but remaining two opponents are undefeated so far. My bet is that England beats India but loses to NZ, which should still see them through as the others won't be able to make up the gap with the fixtures they have remaining.
  12. Well we have a cricket world cup on at the moment. Wonder if they're doing any updates on that. My guess is no. The media are absolutely playing a role in trying to spread acceptance of women's sport. There's nothing wrong with that, but denying that they're doing so as many on here do is funny to watch. No, he's not off the mark. The difference is massive in terms of quality. Though I would add that the difference between men's and women's RL is also massive. Men's and women's sport should never be compared in terms of quality. In all team sports (the netball might be a coin toss as the sport inherently restricts physicality and freedom of movement) an under 15 boys team would batter a women's senior team. The only reason you don't see a difference is cos you're watching women compete against women at a similar level, and when two teams are playing on a similar level, it can deceive you and give you a skewed impression of their true quality.
  13. Because there are levels of quality and other determining factors. People watch Super League because it’s what they’ve grown up on, it’s the highest quality rugby played in a timezone that most people can watch at a normal hour. NRL may be high quality, but it’s not really accessible as a live sport in Europe. In football at least, the championship really isnt all that different a spectacle to Watford Newcastle in the Prem, so even the question of difference in quality is debatable. But youll still find the largest audiences feature one of the big six, so even in the Prem people gravitate to higher quality at the top. What I am is saying is that most professional sports fans are men. So any sport that is going to have big crowds, tv audiences and money needs men as a core base of support. The women arent going to get that outside of marquee tournaments. To put in perspective the quality of international womens football, the US womens team (most successful team in history) were beaten 5-2 by an under 15s boys team from Dallas. You only have to spend 10 minutes watching to realise how inferior it is. Men, who have access to one of the best leagues in the world, are now going to spend their weekends catching up on the womens league, comparable to a boys sunday league game? I dont base my opinions on what Id like to see happen. I base it in evidence presented. Nothing I have seen to date suggests womens football is going to be anything of any significance outside of the world cup. But You can believe the 6 million people that tuned in are going to buy tickets to see Arsenal Ladies next season.
  14. Is that not what we've been saying? Except to say that those seeds that were sown were the most important part of that process.
  15. It won't. There's no agenda to push with RL, and it actually goes directly against the agenda of pushing union. It's not going to change anytime soon, if ever. So growth has to focus on grassroots movements, word of mouth, social media, that sort of thing.
  • Create New...