AFL is winning hearts and minds because the NRL just does nothing

AFL is just the better product and a lot of people outside of Victoria are seeing this

go to a local rugby league game in younger ages. Its not about talent its about bulk. Some ethnicities develop more quickly and are twice or even 3 times the size of other players. In AFL it wouldn't register because they can't keep up athletically. In Rugby league they are human cannonballs 10m off the line and can't be stopped. Not because they are skilful but because they weigh double or triple the other kids weights. AFL is winning because it is a better product. More athletic kids can stand out without being obese

Clipper - is that your alt-account? It was far from realistic. Can we get the mods to be on the lookout morose comments and propaganda

Only found this thread. Nonsense! You sound depressed for a start. Everything you have said is shaded too much

This post uses the language and tone of military or commercial campaigns, and to some extent this is OK, but isn't there one core difference - that this (supposed) AFL campaign will succeed only if enough 'consumers' (to employ a rather ugly modern term) of Foot Ball personally change their preferences? Haven't we seen the mixed results of such campaigns before, in League's 1990s efforts in WA and SA for example, which clearly failed, whereas with Melbourne Storm, NRL has clearly established a viable presence in Victoria? And isn't Association Football's "It's football, but now as you know it" another such campaign, but one which has clearly failed to convince hundreds of thousands of Australia's Foot Ball consumers to with brands? (Actually, it has not even won over the hundreds of thousands of soccer participants and enthusiasts themselves.) As for AFL campaigns north of the Murray and west of the Darling, as Zhou Enlai said in the 1950s about the effects of the French Revolution "It's too early to tell".

These couple of comments show what the AFL are doing, they are going after the weakest in the flock - Union. They are currently going after the code where corporate dollars will come from, who is in the most perilous state, where the base will never turn to the game of the plebs (league), where the parents are more likely to prevent their kids playing a high contact sport. Once they get their foothold in Sydney, and the private school kiddies become members and parents, they can build on this base and attack league.

Which doesn't soothe the" concerns "of the original complainant.And he is not the first to complain,about such abbreviation. One cannot complain about a shortened version ,when the administrators choose to flog said product under that "brand". Either way ,they can call it plain X AFAIC,it will still have the same effect on me ,zero.Although some still call it VFL North of the Murray. BTW when decimal currency was in the throes of discussion the name Royal was another(think Menzies).The thought of calling it a Roy,makes the mind boggle.

Hope that my impression of a sneeringly contemptuous in Kulturtrager (and ever so slightly in Crosscoder) is, as they say, 'just me' - I reckon 'vox pop' gets things right far more often that it gets things wrong. When decimal currency was being mooted in the early 1960s, one official choice for our new notes was 'Austral' which, yes, made some sort of 'national' sense UNTIL YOU SAID IT AND HEARD IT, especially after 'an' & 'ten'! 'Vox pop' often shortens longer words, particularly ones more often used: google how we got 'bus' and 'mob', and note how 'app' & 'diss' has become everyday words. More to this point, google the origin of 'soccer'.It's just too long to use 'Association Football' It's also too long to keep saying full / official names such as 'Australian Football' and 'American Football' - 'AFL' (and earlier, north of the Murray, 'VFL') and 'NFL' is quicker as an instantly recognisable identifier. Just like 'soccer' is. (But 'gridiron' does not seem to have followed the same path, although the Herald Sun uses it.) BUT, the longer names are often more suitable in formal writing.

It appears they do. Whilst ever AFL promotes their code in schools calling it NAB AFL Auskick ,and the kids say they played AFL,then I suggest you write to Gil and lay down the law.You see signs on fields and schools asking kids to play AFL. The tail wagging the dog? It is called as it's promoted ,don't blame the consumer or the person in the street who pay little regards to history, only interested in the now.

Children don't play AFL. They play Australian Rules Football, or Aussie Rules. AFL is the name of the national competition, that is why we have comps with titles like the VFL et al. Oh yes, the AFL certainly know how to market themselves; they have otherwise rational adults conflating a corporate label with the name of a sport. Please, everyone, call the game by its name. It's a glorious part of Australian history. Not a corporation.

About "soccer is easily the most expensive junior sport in our region" - my inner Julius Sumner Miller wants to know 'Why is it so?' Shouldn't soccer be the least expensive-per-player of the four main codes - a shirt, shorts, sox, boots, and the lowest number of players per team? And all those hundreds of thousands of registrations pouring in from the nation's (claimed) highest participatory sport and the most PC-approved of them, especially in the top socio-economic quintile ('Bogans R us - NOT!)? Plus FIFA's billions to call on!

PB. In the case of Rugby 7s , it indicates a big international interest in that code. In the case of Women's RLWC rl,the TV ratings beat the A league, and the exposure of the National Team has encouraged more girls to play the sport. The female version of rl is the fastest growing segment of the code ,and has been for the last 3 years. The GB,French,NZ and jillaroos are not cherry picked to play Internationals.There are now women playing rl in italy of all places ,albeit just started. You see mate rugby league had women playing their code at International level, well before the AFL decide to play their local comp. That's my point, your inference was somehow that AFL is the pioneer of women playing a contact sport.Historically it "ain't " so. Women's and girls contact comps as well as tag are springing up all over NSW and Qld. And sure money has not been outlaid to any great extent in the past, because the money was not available.It is from this year. And I am happy to concede the AFL has many more females playing AFL .But you forget Touch Football;l the non contact version of rl, has been around for yonks, and it is becoming evident that those who have played touch, more and more are giving rl contact a go.Especially in country and regional NSW and QLD. And I can assure you League Tag is making its presence felt, in my area alone in the burbs.

And I’m sure you think you aren’t a boring afl fanboy clip old thing!

I'm sure you think your figures are 'real', there's no denying that.

Perry - the could haves and should haves are all well and good, but it looks like the AFL has got the runs on the board with women's teams at the moment. Whether it's sustainable, whether league can do anywhere near those figures is up in the air.

#Crosscoder And we saw a Rugby 7s womens gold medal won last year by a team made up by players cherry picked (like a winter Olympics Bobsleigh team!!) for the purpose. It doesn't illustrate a domestic strength in womens RU, let alone a domestic league. The Jillaroos - well, that's a different kettle of fish entirely - isn't it - outside of tag and touch there is a massive Australian base of women's RL comps/teams and players. I'd suggest the ARL/NRL haven't focussed any great amount of resources towards the womens game. The Sydney comp with 13 teams across 2 divisions somewhat illustrates that. When you consider that with the focus on female participation in AFL circles in the last 3 seasons the number of dedicated female teams has risen from (nationally) from 629 in 2015, to 983 in 2016 and 1690 in 2017. Just what the NRL can unlock I would suggest, remains to be seen and that's about to happen.