Originally posted by Mickey
The tackling style in AR is different to the RL style due to the rules.
Effeminate would be a good term to use for the AR tackling style.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Originally posted by Mickey
The tackling style in AR is different to the RL style due to the rules.
Originally posted by hirdy_is_champ
bring it on league!! it shows that league is also crap coz u have to get a team from another country to play in an aussie based rugby league comp. thats just stupid if u ask me. but its probably coz qld, act and nsw r the only rugby states (and afl is becoming very popular in qld with the sucsess of brissy).
afl is played in vic, sa, wa, tas, and nt. thats y we have such good supporter bases. im sure none of the league clubs could get 40,000 members.
I dont think this argument has been put in place before but "do all those 52% people support league?".Originally posted by littleduck
big f**king deal if you can claim twice as many States for AFL, thats just a meaningless simpleton argument.
4 AFL States = 48% of the population.
2 NRL States = 52% of the population.
Big f***ing deal if you have twice as many States.
Originally posted by Crooked Rain
Effeminate would be a good term to use for the AR tackling style.
Originally posted by dyertribe
How would you term Ian Roberts' tackling style then?
Not that there's anything wrong with that
Originally posted by holc
yep and the replyers end up looking as bad as them
Originally posted by dyertribe
How would you term Ian Roberts' tackling style then?
Not that there's anything wrong with that
Of course not. The other 48% don't all support AFL either. It's impossible to attract 100% support, it hasn't anywhere in world sport ever, and never will.Originally posted by Sid
I dont think this argument has been put in place before but "do all those 52% people support league?".
Big f***ing deal whether they are jammed into a small geographic area like sardines or "more wide spread".Also, "twice as many states means more wide spead".
AFL have always had bigger aggregate crowds, still do, and always will. AFL now attracts more revenue, but hasn't always dominated revenue to the extent crowds have dominated.AFL has more crowds, AFLs got more money, cop that in the forehead people.
Originally posted by Crooked Rain
One of the biggest hitters seen in the game. His bedroom habits aside, Robbo was a man not to be messed with.
Well i reckon it is a bit of a deal because u guys seem to hit back when we say we are national.Originally posted by littleduck
Big f***ing deal whether they are jammed into a small geographic area like sardines or "more wide spread".
AFL is more national, nothing to argue against there, other than to say its far from truly national.Originally posted by Sid
Well i reckon it is a bit of a deal because u guys seem to hit back when we say we are national.
Originally posted by nicko18
i've posted it before in this forum somewhere, couldnt be bothered digging it up, but the NRL would never breakdown their figures like that. They are much less transparent for some reason. I've only ever found the total figure before, and the only reason that figure was even released was because of the fracas with the RLPA
Well why don't you dig it up E.A. You come up with all these other figures, how about these ones?Originally posted by E.A.
Yeah, sure.
"I can't be bothered" = I'm talking ****e.
Originally posted by littleduck
AFL is more national, nothing to argue against there, other than to say its far from truly national.
and you had a go at him for being lazy.........all I was doing was asking if you could post the figures, now I know you cant so thats the end of that.Originally posted by E.A.
I wasn't the one claiming to have posted the figures.
And to my knowledge, they aren't available to the general public.
Next stupid question?
HAHAHAOriginally posted by E.A.
Yeah, sure.
"I can't be bothered" = I'm talking ****e.
no, i wouldnt deliberately play a game just because no1 else in the world does, and nor would i deliberately not play a game bcoz its australian and invite the cultural cringe response from some of you.Originally posted by hirdy_is_champ
true there little duck. but wouldn't you rather play a game that is aussie and is only played here?
that is what makes our game unique.
yeah, issues were raised as to where exactly the revenue was being spent, but as we know, the NRL are not transparent in such details (alarm bells?)Originally posted by AuckMel
Wasn't the figure around 80 mil or something like that?
IIRC, the % to players was a tad over 30. I could be wrong though.
Originally posted by nicko18
HAHAHA
typically, you just dont want to believe it. You musnt follow the game very closely if you hardly know anything about, or didnt follow the RLPA dispute.