To say the least. The Sky divs would've had a field day

What game ! Those last 25 minutes were breath-taking and that was just watching !

I always barrack for Queensland because they have such an unquenchable spirit, never throw in the towel no matter what theodds. But it's not such a bad thing for NSW to finally win one with a chance of a first series win since 2005.

The only negative was the sight of Bob bloody Fulton in the Blues' coaching box - the very man who disparaged Origin and said it was all a 'waste of time' and 'would never work' back in 1980.

Hypocrite.

Queensland lost that game in the halves. First tactical kicking maestro Cooper Cronk was forced off with a broken arm. Second, Johnathan Thurston played probably the worst game of his career. Josh Reynolds played very well. However Hodkinson didn't.

Jarryd Hayne was at his brilliant best and a worthy Man of the Match.

JT will not play that badly again. The Maroons will be pumped up for revenge in the next game.

The Blues will be foolish not to find a place for currently suspended Greg Bird, the former Catalans captain, who is a tremendous SoO performer.

I expect Queensland will win in Sydney and then win the series.

I reckon that 3 of the tries would have been disallowed under the obstruction video ref rules in Super League.

Also Queensland have sam thaiday to come back as well which will add some more strength and sixe to their forward pack.

I don't think they would, because the dummy runners ran through a gap in the defensive line and so didn't actually obstruct any defenders. Unlike what often happens in SL where lazy dummy runners just run at the line regardless of where the gaps are and don't run all the way through.

TV ratings for SoO were amazing. 4.053 million viewers tuned in around Australia. That means one in five Australians were watching. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zrrtv.html This is amazing when you consider that the game is popular mostly in only half of the nation. (yet 420,000 people watched in Melbourne, which is more than one in ten people in Melbourne!). Translate that to the British population, it would mean that 11 million Brits were watching. Rugby league can only dream of such attention. But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?

TV ratings for SoO were amazing. 4.053 million viewers tuned in around Australia. That means one in five Australians were watching. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zrrtv.html This is amazing when you consider that the game is popular mostly in only half of the nation. (yet 420,000 people watched in Melbourne, which is more than one in ten people in Melbourne!). Translate that to the British population, it would mean that 11 million Brits were watching. Rugby league can only dream of such attention. But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?'" Yes talksport.com/magazine/features/ ... 172675?p=1

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?'" Yes talksport.com/magazine/features/ ... 172675?p=1

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"TV ratings for SoO were amazing. 4.053 million viewers tuned in around Australia. That means one in five Australians were watching. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zrrtv.html This is amazing when you consider that the game is popular mostly in only half of the nation. (yet 420,000 people watched in Melbourne, which is more than one in ten people in Melbourne!). Translate that to the British population, it would mean that 11 million Brits were watching. Rugby league can only dream of such attention. But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?'" The TV figures are always a complete work of fabrication based on averages which do not tally. But it is the only thing they can go on. One in five. Yeah Really.

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"TV ratings for SoO were amazing. 4.053 million viewers tuned in around Australia. That means one in five Australians were watching. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zrrtv.html This is amazing when you consider that the game is popular mostly in only half of the nation. (yet 420,000 people watched in Melbourne, which is more than one in ten people in Melbourne!). Translate that to the British population, it would mean that 11 million Brits were watching. Rugby league can only dream of such attention. But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?'" The TV figures are always a complete work of fabrication based on averages which do not tally. But it is the only thing they can go on. One in five. Yeah Really.

Great game.
Backed NSW half time, Qland full time and still wondering how I didn't collect.



Did make me nearly vomit a bit when they ran through the teams pre-match with a comment on each player.



So and so was raised by a single mother who used to drive the team bus to all games.
So and so helps little old ladies across the road.
So and so does lots and lots of work for animal charidies.

Etc, etc.

I quite liked that, as a bit of fun, ("Gallen has had three fights as an amateur boxer and won them all. So there"icon_wink.gif but some of them were a bit cringey.

They do put on a good show overall though.

Or where defensive players move into that gap because of a poor defensive read and throw themselves to the floor.

For some reason we then need to look at whether the ball was caught on the outside of the passers shoulder.

Booked 18th June and 9th July off work, be headin for Walkabout in Glasgow.
C'MON BLUES!!!

The overall audience ratings are extremely reliable, with a margin of error of a few percent, at most. Why do you think broadcasters pay a billion dollars for rights? Or advertisers pay multi million dollars for their brands? Do you think they would invest so heavily without very reliable data behind their decisions?

I doubt it mate, W'about don't subscribe to Premier Sports. Try an Irish bar.

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"TV ratings for SoO were amazing. 4.053 million viewers tuned in around Australia. That means one in five Australians were watching. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zrrtv.html This is amazing when you consider that the game is popular mostly in only half of the nation. (yet 420,000 people watched in Melbourne, which is more than one in ten people in Melbourne!). Translate that to the British population, it would mean that 11 million Brits were watching. Rugby league can only dream of such attention. But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?'" I had reported TV ratings of over 4 million based on an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The actual capital city TV audience according to OzTam ratings, as reported in [iThe Australian[/i was just under 2.5 million: [iOf the 2.487 million viewers who tuned in to watch the Blues win at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, 1.288 million lived in Sydney. There were 747,000 viewers in Brisbane, 426,000 in Melbourne and 86,000 in Adelaide. The game was not screened in Perth.[/i If the SMH figure is correct then the rest of the audience must have been from rural areas. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... 6935580404

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"TV ratings for SoO were amazing. 4.053 million viewers tuned in around Australia. That means one in five Australians were watching. www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... zrrtv.html This is amazing when you consider that the game is popular mostly in only half of the nation. (yet 420,000 people watched in Melbourne, which is more than one in ten people in Melbourne!). Translate that to the British population, it would mean that 11 million Brits were watching. Rugby league can only dream of such attention. But has a British soccer game ever achieved 11 million viewers?'" I had reported TV ratings of over 4 million based on an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The actual capital city TV audience according to OzTam ratings, as reported in [iThe Australian[/i was just under 2.5 million: [iOf the 2.487 million viewers who tuned in to watch the Blues win at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, 1.288 million lived in Sydney. There were 747,000 viewers in Brisbane, 426,000 in Melbourne and 86,000 in Adelaide. The game was not screened in Perth.[/i If the SMH figure is correct then the rest of the audience must have been from rural areas. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... 6935580404

You are talking to a brick wall. RoosterBooster does not think. He is the water carrier for the Newtown Jets and has trouble with abstract issues like audience ratings.

Absolute gash calls from the ref helped keep it exciting to the last second.

Aussie refs and no better than ours just more arrogant.

Aussie refs more arrogant than Ganson?

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE" If the SMH figure is correct then the rest of the audience must have been from rural areas. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... 6935580404'" Not rural - regional. There is nothing rural about Newcastle, Wollongong or the Gold Coast. Slanted reports love to quote only the capitol city figures, but the strongest support for Rugby League in Australia comes from regional NSW and Queensland, where SOO is watched by well over half of households - some figures going close to 80%.

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE" If the SMH figure is correct then the rest of the audience must have been from rural areas. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... 6935580404'" Not rural - regional. There is nothing rural about Newcastle, Wollongong or the Gold Coast. Slanted reports love to quote only the capitol city figures, but the strongest support for Rugby League in Australia comes from regional NSW and Queensland, where SOO is watched by well over half of households - some figures going close to 80%.

Good points. I should have used the word regional.

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"I had reported TV ratings of over 4 million based on an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The actual capital city TV audience according to OzTam ratings, as reported in [iThe Australian[/i was just under 2.5 million: [iOf the 2.487 million viewers who tuned in to watch the Blues win at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, 1.288 million lived in Sydney. There were 747,000 viewers in Brisbane, 426,000 in Melbourne and 86,000 in Adelaide. The game was not screened in Perth.[/i If the SMH figure is correct then the rest of the audience must have been from rural areas. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... 6935580404'" I have no idea why they talk about capital city ratings here and not total audience. You were right on the 4mill total audience. Also they are wrong about Perth, it was shown live and drew 107,000 audience.

Quote ="JEAN CAPDOUZE"I had reported TV ratings of over 4 million based on an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The actual capital city TV audience according to OzTam ratings, as reported in [iThe Australian[/i was just under 2.5 million: [iOf the 2.487 million viewers who tuned in to watch the Blues win at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, 1.288 million lived in Sydney. There were 747,000 viewers in Brisbane, 426,000 in Melbourne and 86,000 in Adelaide. The game was not screened in Perth.[/i If the SMH figure is correct then the rest of the audience must have been from rural areas. www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... 6935580404'" I have no idea why they talk about capital city ratings here and not total audience. You were right on the 4mill total audience. Also they are wrong about Perth, it was shown live and drew 107,000 audience.

Also why do they focus on capital city ratings? I don't understand the relevance or point? Surely total audience is what matters?

It makes AFL look good. They only lose ratings from a few middle sized cities like Geelong and Ballerat, but League loses Newcastle, Wollongong, Gold Coast, Cairns, etc etc etc - adding up to about 3 million potential viewers in the strongest league areas in the world, because League is the only game in town in NSW and Queensland country areas.

Of more interest than who watched and where, is that Brett Morris fractured his shoulder and damaged ligaments when he scored, but played on and stopped Boyd scoring a try to equalise.

That's what RL and Origin is about, and as a proxy Maroon, I salute him.