Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Gee, all the websites use the term 'Association Football' don't they!!
As I said, we've had this discussion long before your time bud.
Get used to it.
Out of sheer interest, who were the people on the side of referring to a match played 20 years before the AFL existed as an 'AFL grand final'?
Other than your good self of course, to which i'm sure you take your role as a history revisionist very seriously.
Rob wrote:Out of sheer interest, who were the people on the side of referring to a match played 20 years before the AFL existed as an 'AFL grand final'?
Other than your good self of course, to which i'm sure you take your role as a history revisionist very seriously.
Coming from you... where the AFL doesn't even exist yet considering in your little part of the world, Perth, you're 30 years back in time.
I love your tone & attitude in regards to suggestions to the site, you really make me want to listen to your advice and volunteer even more of my time to make changes.
You could argue either way in regards to the 1970 Grand Final, yes obviously back then it was the VFL Grand Final, but mention that today to someone from NSW and QLD, and they'll probably think you're talking about the current VFL (former VFA). Out of principal, I reckon I'll leave it as it is. And I'll give you a tip, next time you have a suggestion, maybe don't be so aggressive or don't make it at all, mate.
Rob wrote:FFS, at least get the terminology right man. 'AFL' is not a type of football, in any case the AFL wasn't around in 1970, and that particular game was most certainly not an AFL grand final.
Get a grip Rob. I'm more of a "Australian Rules Football" person than you. However, we've had this discussion on here before. As a Melburnian, I refer to the sport as "Footy" or "Football", however calling it that is going to confuse the hell out of everyone isn't it! Soccer is now Football. If the term "AFL" is used, everyone knows what we're talking about. As for "Aussie Rules", that's a sh*t Sydney term. "Australian Rules Football" is too long winded to be used on a website. Think: AFL, AFL Victoria, AFL Queensland, AFL Sydney, etc.
Maybe send an email to the two biggest Australian sports websites: www.foxsports.com.au and www.sportal.com.au , get them to change it from "AFL", then I'll follow. In the meantime, get over it.
The correct name of the game is 'Australian football'.
The correct name for soccer is, and has been for a long time, 'Association football'.
'Aussie Rules', 'Australian rules' and whatever other name, much like 'soccer' is a colloquialism.
I don't mind the term AFL football if you're talking about football played in the AFL. But if you're talking about the sport, clearly the term 'AFL' is not appropriate, simply because it's incorrect. It's not even an appropriate colloquial name of it anymore than soccer is called 'EPL' or American football is called 'NFL'.
And just because some latte drinking knobspank from Sydney with blonde streaks through his hair sitting in the fox sports offices calls the game 'AFL' doesn't mean you have to as well.
It's really not that hard to get the correct names of sports right. the way you talk it's like a fcuking chore to do so.
This isn't a sport vs sport thing, it's simply a matter of what purports to be a credible sporting website getting the name of Australia's most watched game right.
The AFL are the authority on Australian Rules football, and hence they have the right to decide the name of their game.
They have been heavily involved in starting organisations like "AFL Queensland", so clearly they have decided that AFL is now the name for the sport. Take a look at this link: http://www.afl.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=10244 - the title of that page? Play AFL. The page is not talking about playing in the national Australian Rules Football competition, it's talking about playing the sport called AFL.
One of the interesting things about the Telstra Stadium tour, was that crowds that had been publicly announced, they recounted and got a different figure. Think there was around 130,000 for the Opening Ceremony.
Egan wrote:One of the interesting things about the Telstra Stadium tour, was that crowds that had been publicly announced, they recounted and got a different figure. Think there was around 130,000 for the Opening Ceremony.
The Olympic football final crowd was announced at around 98k at the time only to be amended to 104k at a later date.
Egan wrote:One of the interesting things about the Telstra Stadium tour, was that crowds that had been publicly announced, they recounted and got a different figure. Think there was around 130,000 for the Opening Ceremony.
Cant see how they do that...
The official opening ceremony figure is just under 100,000....and even adding the athletes and performers on the actual figure,it has to be well short of that...
Remember the opening ceremony had many seats taken out for the stage area and cauldren/waterfall zone...As for the Closing ceremony,the seats were back and there was no stage apart from the centre on the field....Official figure for the closing was just under 115,000...so with all the athletes/performers on the field,125,000-130,000 is more realistic.
Egan wrote:One of the interesting things about the Telstra Stadium tour, was that crowds that had been publicly announced, they recounted and got a different figure. Think there was around 130,000 for the Opening Ceremony.
thats because they count the athletes aswell i think