Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hang about, this from a nation that produced such personalities as Jonny Wilkinson, Becks and Princess Anne? FFS!
Though I think you're right, NZ is a team of all-rounders; a few dibbly-dobbly bowlers and a class paceman and finger-spinner combined with a single but fragile stroke-maker and a handful of belters. That said, cricket seems dominated by bowlers who strangle oppositions, McGrath for instance, and unorthodox batsmen so why shouldn't we win?
The English cricketing media have bugger all to feel good about - Freddie's been spayed and their only real personalities are a Saffa and a Sikh.
-
One thing that never gets said when people bitch and unfavourably compare New Zealand's sporting attainment with Australia is that our participation in sports is notably higher than theirs.
I didn't know that and have to say I'm a little sceptical about it - in inner Sydney at least, I've not lived elsewhere in Aust so won't comment, I'd have thought club memberships were very high based on the extensive use of facilities. Not disagreeing per se, just a little surprised - pleasantly too. I'm not going to set any records (although my netball team was runner-up this season - mixed grade C - c'mon!)
-
Great post Sarah. Did they at least allow the Mexican Wave?
The latest madness in crowd control is to ban the Mexican Wave in Australia - why not deal with the source issue; drunken gits who fuck it up for everyone else by throwing up stuff intended to hurt others...
-
Commercialisation of sport is such a mixed blessing.
On the one hand there's improvements in technology, stadia, careers for the players and, frankly, enhancements to some games (I'd argue rugby has been considerably enhanced by professionalism) on the other the exorbidant price of taking the family... the stadia that also ban people from bring their own food further discourage attendance.
Though its slightly off topic, I don't have Fox but Australia at has anti-siphoning legislation that ensures big competitions are free-to-air (someone explain to me however why this doesn't always include Netball?). I remember the debate about this in NZ when Sky was just starting to gain real penetration - is it too late, too much of a drain on the profitability of the broadcasters? Could there not at least be some games free-to-air - that's the case with rugby league here (not that I bother to watch it).
-
Fleming is timing his return to form superbly…
I very much hope you're right, and it's not just form against second-rate bowlers (is that unfair to the side that beat India?). If Fleming, Bond, Vettori and Oram all play well, we're a good chance to win however I can't remember many games when all played their best.
-
Firstly the methodological problems of an internet survey run deep
And here's where I get pissed with the media... too much credence is given to the tag "research" by the media. A webpage, cute corporate logo and bodgy survey appear to be sufficient to elevate what would otherwise be soapbox splutterings to the first 3 pages of the newspaper. Is it possible that rather than only reading the Exec Summary, journos also spend a few minutes looking at the methodology - sample size, survey instrument would be enough I'd have thought.
-
Superb. I wonder if you'd care to speculate on Stephen Flemming's thinking? He appears far more confident as a fielding captain than he does as a once-glorious first drop? Imagine the bliss of a perfectly executed on-drive (I have to imagine, having never come close to such a feat).
-
Poor Lou Vincent - injured by friendly fire no less. I feel sorry for this bloke since he seemed to be finding his feet after many years on the outer. Who'll open with Flem now, McCullum perhaps? I know the top order haven't really fired against a quality attack, but I was hopeful that Vincent and Flemming had the class to do it when required, I'm not so sure now...
Aussie's are quietly (shock) confident now having dispatched the Proteas so easily.
-
With that catalogue, it certainly appears to be an unhealthy past-time. I agree with your sentiments however.
-
If Obama is nominated then I think he will win no matter who he runs against
Danyl, why so confident about Obama? I'm not closely following the race (yet) and I can see Obama's obvious appeal but I'm not so sure that that will be sufficient? I'd have thought, after 8 years of a very poor Republican administration, the Dems were more likely than not to win but I've figured that Edwards is the strongest candidate compared with Clinton and Obama. Interested in your, and others, views.