TOPIC:

DG wrote:

Bazza wrote: If swans had played in the GF they would of been flogged by 20 goals and the ground would of beem half empty by 3 Qrt time.

Any team bar Peel would of got close to 30k given some decent weather and the promotion they did..A freo derby or ep v wp would of done well maybe 30 plus and a traditional clash would of been an additional terrific marketing tool for the Wafl.

As Peter North indicates WA people compared to SA people have an entire different out look on Wafl than Sanfl , peoole in SA cherish and value local footy much more than here, they have always pulled bigger crowds. Wa people walked away in droves years ago.

The stand alone reserves set up seems go well there , maybe its time for us to try it.

Royal Show numbers are dismal as well btw.

Its sad to see comments on social media by WA Afl footy followers who now refer to the wafl as the Woe...full..when players get dropped back there.

WA people don't want to watch shit standard lets face it a lot of the tv games were woe-full. Its not only an even comp required but also a high standard of football

Perhaps that is an indictment on Channel 7/WAFC selection of the games to telecast. Check out how many time "East Perth" and/or Peelmantle featured. Here is a tip for them for next year. MOST Swans versus Perth or Swans versus West Perth are close games; MOST Swans versus Subiaco games ARE NOT close games. I am sure there other fixtures which generally provide a good game to telecast. The secret is for Channel 7 and the WAFC to consult someone who knows a little about the match-ups and get them to advise on the telecast games. Patently, Channel 7 and the WAFC don't know.

Despite all that , more people are watching WAFL than ever , double oif not triple the ratings, maybe exposing so many people to the games isn't such a great thing, when the 7000 ch 2 views tuned in each week the sub standard/lack of atmosphere was hidden.

On another note , was good to see the Goal and Mark of the Year awards back for WAFL, 5000 bucks each, Tim Kelly picking up goal of the year,,,

And the SFFFC Stephen Michael Foundation won community award of the year ...well done to them.
When Ch 2 covered it they had 3/5 of SFA awards.

Bazza wrote: Despite all that , more people are watching WAFL than ever , double oif not triple the ratings, maybe exposing so many people to the games isn't such a great thing, when the 7000 ch 2 views tuned in each week the sub standard/lack of atmosphere was hidden.

On another note , was good to see the Goal and Mark of the Year awards back for WAFL, 5000 bucks each, Tim Kelly picking up goal of the year,,,

And the SFFFC Stephen Michael Foundation won community award of the year ...well done to them.
When Ch 2 covered it they had 3/5 of SFA awards.

Your figures comparing ch7 and 2 are factually misleading. Ch 7's current ratings figures include metro and regional combined wheras the ABC's rating figures were only ever metro, the regional was not included ( not sure why). At least you knew where and when the ABC coverage was on and for EVERY game but up against AFL as well. Sometimes the ABC's metro only figures beat the Ch 7 combined metro and regional and sometimes not. The ABC coverage and quality of commentators, local knowledge etc shits all over Ch 7 to be brutally honest

Swandog wrote:

Bazza wrote: Despite all that , more people are watching WAFL than ever , double oif not triple the ratings, maybe exposing so many people to the games isn't such a great thing, when the 7000 ch 2 views tuned in each week the sub standard/lack of atmosphere was hidden.

On another note , was good to see the Goal and Mark of the Year awards back for WAFL, 5000 bucks each, Tim Kelly picking up goal of the year,,,

And the SFFFC Stephen Michael Foundation won community award of the year ...well done to them.
When Ch 2 covered it they had 3/5 of SFA awards.

Your figures comparing ch7 and 2 are factually misleading. Ch 7's current ratings figures include metro and regional combined wheras the ABC's rating figures were only ever metro, the regional was not included ( not sure why). At least you knew where and when the ABC coverage was on and for EVERY game but up against AFL as well. Sometimes the ABC's metro only figures beat the Ch 7 combined metro and regional and sometimes not. The ABC coverage and quality of commentators, local knowledge etc shits all over Ch 7 to be brutally honest

Bullshit, both figures include ALL viewers state-side.

ABC was using 1970s technology and was embarrassingly backwards, and offered no prizes, its was like amateur hour.

Bazza wrote:

Swandog wrote:

Bazza wrote: Despite all that , more people are watching WAFL than ever , double oif not triple the ratings, maybe exposing so many people to the games isn't such a great thing, when the 7000 ch 2 views tuned in each week the sub standard/lack of atmosphere was hidden.

On another note , was good to see the Goal and Mark of the Year awards back for WAFL, 5000 bucks each, Tim Kelly picking up goal of the year,,,

And the SFFFC Stephen Michael Foundation won community award of the year ...well done to them.
When Ch 2 covered it they had 3/5 of SFA awards.

Your figures comparing ch7 and 2 are factually misleading. Ch 7's current ratings figures include metro and regional combined wheras the ABC's rating figures were only ever metro, the regional was not included ( not sure why). At least you knew where and when the ABC coverage was on and for EVERY game but up against AFL as well. Sometimes the ABC's metro only figures beat the Ch 7 combined metro and regional and sometimes not. The ABC coverage and quality of commentators, local knowledge etc shits all over Ch 7 to be brutally honest

Bullshit, both figures include ALL viewers state-side.

ABC was using 1970s technology and was embarrassingly backwards, and offered no prizes, its was like amateur hour.

7's coverage definitely is amateur hour have a look at the pathetic camera work...talk about 1970s!

Yeah there was nothing like those piss weak Ch 2 graphics, fark it was retro stuff, like the cameras and OB gear they used, sfa investment in new technology since 1977.

And the goal .,and mark of the year give away prizes were outstanding, so much so they never existed...lol

Bazza wrote: Yeah there was nothing like those piss weak Ch 2 graphics, fark it was retro stuff, like the cameras and OB gear they used, sfa investment in new technology since 1977.

And the goal .,and mark of the year give away prizes were outstanding, so much so they never existed...lol

Please explain why there were such great discrepancies in the number of times each club was broadcast. Aso, please explain explain why the South Freo vs Swans final wasn't broadcast.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Yeah there was nothing like those piss weak Ch 2 graphics, fark it was retro stuff, like the cameras and OB gear they used, sfa investment in new technology since 1977.

And the goal .,and mark of the year give away prizes were outstanding, so much so they never existed...lol

Please explain why there were such great discrepancies in the number of times each club was broadcast. Aso, please explain explain why the South Freo vs Swans final wasn't broadcast.

That and missing weeks are not good.. cant explain missing games, but Ch 2 did not broadcast every single live final either.

More importantly it was TREMENDOUS for the STEPHEN MICHAEL FOUNDATION to receive $5000 dollars, in these tough economic times that will be a huge help.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Yeah there was nothing like those piss weak Ch 2 graphics, fark it was retro stuff, like the cameras and OB gear they used, sfa investment in new technology since 1977.

And the goal .,and mark of the year give away prizes were outstanding, so much so they never existed...lol

Please explain why there were such great discrepancies in the number of times each club was broadcast. Aso, please explain explain why the South Freo vs Swans final wasn't broadcast.

Back a few years when it was just the final 4 the 1st and 2nd semi were both played on the same day so ABC would always cover the cut throat 1st semi. Now we have this final 5 and seems Ch 7 have spread the coverage so all teams get a broadcast in the early finals. SD v WP and SF v Peel were both broadcast being on different days, the next week both finals on the same day so they chose to broadcast the game involving a team that hadn't had finals coverage so far ie the SU v Peel game. That would have been their reasoning. IMHO it should always be the cut throat final that gets the coverage. I expect if the Ch7 sponsored east eagles were in finals they would have had all their games covered, just as they had the most home and away broadcasts.

The final 5 is a farking fiasco and should be farked off