Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

258 | 259 | 260

 ... 954

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

priapus

priapus

I'm lost
January 2004

JAN 13, 2006 09:57 AM

Anton said:
Let's just forget the whole deal, on the proviso you never mention that tragic loss or Johnny bloody Wilkinson ever again, hehe.



I was actually rooting for the Wallabees in that match.

And he whose name I will not mention won't be in France for 2007.

But then, the All Blacks will.

Lyam

Lyam

Vatican City
May 2005

JAN 13, 2006 02:11 PM

As a (former) Rugby Player in Italian second division I must agree with the other guys who posted before me,that I like it best.But It's clear tath if wetalk about predictability,Rugby hardly provides surprises.The stronger team wins,there isn't much more to say.

BUT:


priapus said:
Fuck them both and watch rugby.





And yet the Rugby World Cup attracts more worldwide viewership than the Soccer World Cup or the NFL's Stupor Bowl.



Really?I dont' understand how they can say this.RWC is doubtless one of the most expensive,well organised sport event in the world,but I don't think there are so many viewer.I'd like to see some article about that,if you have. smile


Lyam

Lyam

Vatican City
May 2005

JAN 13, 2006 02:31 PM

priapus said:

holymonkey said:

priapus said:
Fuck them both and watch rugby.

The Rugby World Cup attracts more worldwide viewership than the Soccer World Cup ...



[Edited on Jan 10, 2006 by priapus]



I would LOVE to know from where you got that statistic. Fox News?



I don't watch Fox News, but I would LOVE to know how you made that presumption.



I do that find that incredibly hard to believe. Rugby: Not Actually That Globally Popular Since 1876.




I got it from the 2003 RWC website, admittedly biased and I suppose questionable as to it's accuracy and veracity given the host was Australia.

The 2003 site is no longer up, the Aussies in charge all pissed off after that final loss to Wilko's foot. wink

A little googling produced this:

"With a worldwide television audience of 3.5 billion, the Rugby World Cup was the world's biggest sporting event in 2003."

http://www.microsoft.com/singapore/services/Microsoftservices/case_rugby.aspx

I don't think microsoft has a dog in our fight.

More Aussie propaganda in pdf:

http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/resources/RWC2003_IRB_report.pdf

However, I seem to be undone by the more forthcoming Kiwis:

"The RWC is the third largest event in the world after the Olympics and Soccer World Cup (by TV audience)
and this event is important to New Zealand and New Zealanders. The global television audience for the RWC 2011 is expected to be 3.5 billion viewers."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0505/S00254.htm

So, I guess it might not be more popular than the Soccer World Cup, but I think its global popularity might have increased since 1876.

blackeyed



Ok,this answer my previous question.

So,as we all know those are extimated audiences,referred to the population of the countries whose tv (no matter if public,private,satellite or cable) have bought the rights to broadcast the matches.It means that they are meaningless,cause if for example an Italian satelite tv buy the rights they consider that the whole country is watching the match.The average actual number of people watching RWC 2003 in Italy was about 1.5M for an Italy match,and something around 1M for the final Australia-England.

For Soccer matches,the average is of 7-8 millions,up to 25 for a World Cup Final (as Italy-Brasil at USA 94).

In the whole Europe,excepts UK,Ireland and France,Rugby is even less popular.In Africa and Asia there are almost only soccer fans,so it'sclear that those figures are nothing more than propaganda.

On the other end,we can't eny that the popularity of Rugby is growing up all around the world.When I started playing 15 years ago nobody in my country knew what rugby was,now it's a movement that has acquired popularity and visibility,and I think in the states it's quite similar.

bijoux

bijoux

Los Angeles, CA
June 2004

JAN 14, 2006 11:17 AM

i could have told them this.

Lyam

Lyam

Vatican City
May 2005

JAN 14, 2006 11:52 AM

ExtraTerrestrial said:


Say what??

False

France beating the New Zealand All Blacks in the 1995 World Cup was predictable and a case of the mighty beating inferiority?

no




You are talking about 1999 World cup,aren't you?

We all know how AB's usually lose their mind at RWC,and France was a very strong team.
Come on,let's take a look to the 2003 quarter finalist:the three team playing Tri nations and the Five traditional team playing the Six Nations.Italy was the only team playing one of the main tournaments not being able to qualify,just because was in a group with AB's and Wales.

Not a single surprise among 8 teams,this is much more than a coincidence:the stronger wins.

On the other end,the inaugural match of Korea/japan 2004 was Senegal-France,and Senegal defeated France (the defender team and European champion) easily.

FrankMask

FrankMask

Saint Paul, MN
June 2003

JAN 14, 2006 09:19 PM

I believe the large red-headed bodyguard in Mighty Max once commented that football would be an excellent sport if only it was played with swords. I concur, and will refrain from paying any attention to it until edged weapons are introduced to the field.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next