Field Theory: The Real Deal
60 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Apologies that this wasn't up earlier. Sunday was "no-work no-sport day".
-
For me it's one of those things I don't really care too much about because now we have to put up with arrogant England supporters (at least they're further away).
I was talking to a Scottish guy who couldn't believe I was going for the English, but we eventually agreed that what it boils down to is your general proximity to the tossers that inhabit the victor nation.
-
Even Chris Rattue was happy with Graham Henry, mostly
But isn't it absurd that if Carter had (quite understandably) missed that final kick, the calls for Henry's passport to be revoked so he couldn't return from Sydney would have been deafening and letting Deane go would be held up as the greatest loss to NZ statehood since Savage's funeral?
Winning may be all that's necessary, but a coach needs to be judged on relative performance.
-
I was talking to a Scottish guy who couldn't believe I was going for the English, but we eventually agreed that what it boils down to is your general proximity to the tossers that inhabit the victor nation.
I support whoever is playing Australia. With one exception, the English.
It was a strange series, and while Australia deserved to lose the last test, I'm not so sure about the series.
I have to say that the English deliberately playing slow in the first test was awful to watch, and they shouldn't have got away with it. Constant drinks breaks, putting the physio on the field, doing nothing between bowls and overs. They were fined for doing the same in the fourth, but slow play in a test should be a forfeit. And the pitch in the fifth was awful, and gave the English a significant advantage after winning the toss.
Still, it was only Australia losing, so nothing to worry about.
-
When you’re playing Australia you’re allowed to push the rules.
Agree it was a strange series though. Australia lost it on the back of 2 bad session / batting collapses and the fact they don’t have a spinner.
Otherwise they were the dominant team.
-
But isn't it absurd that if Carter had (quite understandably) missed that final kick, the calls for Henry's passport to be revoked so he couldn't return from Sydney would have been deafening and letting Deane go would be held up as the greatest loss to NZ statehood since Savage's funeral?
Quite. And the attacks on the referee would have been constant. The consistent Australian defence made slow play and penalties inevitable, which is unfortunate but a fact of life. And with a lot of penalties there will inevitably be wrong calls, even with such an experienced ref.
-
Much as I enjoyed the Sydney test, the two best games on the weekend for were Manawatu vs. Otago and BOP vs. Waikato. Whilst tests are absorbing matters of inches, the rugby was more entertaining in the two ANZC games. A full house watching a team of desperate locals produce a gutsy result and/or entertaining rugby on a sunny late winters afternoon is the real deal.
Some of the results are fantastic. All Blacks, Super 14 and chosen, red-carpetted first XV/Academy/ANZC players are getting taught all sorts of rugby lessons in desperation, committment and old fashioned work ethics. The look of incredulous entitlement on the Wellington and Otago player's faces were priceless to behold when they lost, and had echoes of the looks on the All Black's faces after they lost in Cardiff. Mini-Cardiff's are happening up and down New Zealand every weekend, and bloody good job to. Better for top players to be reminded on a cold night in New Plymouth they still put their shorts on one leg at a time and have to earn every win than rediscover than truism in a RWC quarter final.
To me, the ANZC is better rugby than the Super 14 and All Blacks because the competition is more even, it is rooted in real places with real fans, teams have distinct styles and the fans can understand and identify with the game - forwards are forwards, backs are backs. The N.Z. Super 14 teams all play the same style. According to professional layer, we don't have any first fives. The ANZC is making a mockery of that claim.
I heard on the radio that ANZC cup audiences are up 88% on last season. Conversely, I believe the last Super 14 was down by up to 25%. I am not sure if they were talking about crowds or TV or both, but either way the NZRFU is being sent a huge message - and a huge warning - by the New Zealand rugby public.
The success of the ANZC is challenging some of the basic assumptions of the way NZRFU administer game. The public is turning its back on a professional game that is seen as out of touch, over-paid and under-performing and no longer reflecting "real" N.Z. rugby values.
Finally, provincial success is cyclical. Teams are not forever strong or weak, and we need to find a mechanism that will translates the reality that four of the five Super 14 franchises are extremely weak right now in their ANZC base. How about at the end of this season, the bottom four teams ANZC should be relegated. No formulas, if Auckland, Waikato, Nothland and Counties-Manakau are the last four then drop them.
And if the top finishing non-super union finishes ahead in the ANZC of the worst performing Super 14 franchise base, then the Super 14 team should automatically lose its franchise to the better performing ANZC cup team. In other words, if say BOP comes second in the ANZC cup, it will replace Otago in next years Super 14.
-
I woke up on Sunday with a voice that sounded not unlike Brad Thorn.
Did Amy send you back ten metres?
-
Winning may be all that's necessary, but a coach needs to be judged on relative performance.
How's 5-1 for relative performance?
-
If the Australians were reeling a little from the Bledisloe, then the Ashes defeat was a nice kick in the sack.
Anyone watching Sky Sport 3 on Sunday evening would have seen their ice hockey team lose to New Zealand's Ice Blacks for the first time ever a little after 7pm, after 11 consecutive wins.
And seen my son moving goals around between periods and me jumping up and down yelling directly behind the goal when New Zealand won the penalty shootout to determine the winner of the split two game series.
-
Anyone watching Sky Sport 3 on Sunday evening would have seen their ice hockey team lose to New Zealand's Ice Blacks for the first time ever a little after 7pm, after 11 consecutive wins.
Ah crap! Was it close?
I woke up on Sunday with a voice that sounded not unlike Brad Thorn.
Did Amy send you back ten metres?
We did go to the movies which meant I couldn't talk, so maybe.
-
How about at the end of this season, the bottom four teams ANZC should be relegated. No formulas, if Auckland, Waikato, Nothland and Counties-Manakau are the last four then drop them.
I think more people here would agree with that, but...
if the top finishing non-super union finishes ahead in the ANZC of the worst performing Super 14 franchise base, then the Super 14 team should automatically lose its franchise to the better performing ANZC cup team. In other words, if say BOP comes second in the ANZC cup, it will replace Otago in next years Super 14.
I can't see this one working for a number of reasons. Financial ones mainly. And player contracts would be all over the place. It'd be far too messy.
-
If the Australians were reeling a little from the Bledisloe, then the Ashes defeat was a nice kick in the sack
In Australia, losing the Bledisloe is like losing your car keys, before finding them half an hour later. Losing the Ashes is when you realize your wife has run off with the keys, the car, the credit card and the mechanic.
-
In Australia, losing the Bledisloe is like losing your car keys, before finding them half an hour later.
Seven years and counting, actually.
-
I can't see this one working for a number of reasons. Financial ones mainly. And player contracts would be all over the place. It'd be far too messy.
A number of reasons? I fear you probably reflect NZRFU thinking. Like Napoleon's opponents, they see everything at once. They should try beeing more like Napoleon, and see the main thing only.
Off the field reasons are no reasons at all.
Part of the growing "peasants revolt" going on NZ rugby is a realisation that if you don't live in one of the Super 14 base areas, the current structure of the game has completely shut you out. Why should the people of Tauranga or New Plymouth give a toss about Super rugby and the All Blacks? The very heart and mainspring of NZ rugby is a ferocious provincialism.
Fans have decided that the professional game has become a cosy self-serving cartel dripping with complacency and entitlement. An ossified professional layer have booked themselves onto the gravy train express and they won't let anyone else have a ticket.
And that goes against a powerful New Zealand sense of fairness and giving someone a fair suck of the sav if they have earned it.
The bracing winds of consequence and accountabilty need to blow through our professional layer, and to hell with whether or not they've already let the stationary contract out and it is just to hard to change the letterheads.
-
Tom,
A better way for the peasants’ revolt to succeed is to ensure that the S14 franchises spread the games around more equitably. If BoP want to revolt, they’re better off marching on Hamilton than Dunedin.
But couldn’t agree more re the automatic relegation for the bottom 4. But what’s really doing my head in is the inference from The Establishment that it’s a radical idea.
-
tensure that the S14 franchises spread the games around more equitably.
That hasn't worked, you get a bit of tokenism for a year or two then splutters out again as "to hard". And wouldn't address the need of risk of failure to motivate and renew.
Let's imagine an NZRFU "worst case" scenario of the Auckland team getting relegated and the Blues losing their Super Franchise to, say, BOP.
First of all, it would be a real shake up for the jaded, moaning and saturated fan base in Auckland to lose top rugby for a year.
Secondly, it would be a disaster for Auckland rugby and they would be forced to really have to sort out their rugby - which would be fantastic for NZ Ruugby in the long run.
Thirdly, the NZRFU would just allocate more tests to Auckland to keep a public that would for once be hungry for rugby happy.
-
Oh and I forgot to add - and in the meantime, they'd be swinging from the rafters over in Tauranga and Roturua everytime the Super Steamers (plus 4-5 drafted Blues players) ran out to play.
The bottom line for is if someone wants it more, and earns it, they should get it.
-
@Tom when you say four of five super teams are struggling in their player bases, what do you mean? The Lions and Canterbury are up the top? And surely BoP being competitive is a GOOD thing?
And it's a real good idea you've got there. 'Hey Auckland, you're gonna lose your S14 side and your ANZC team is getting relegated, how does that make you feel? Nyehnyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh!'
Jaffa: 'Oh well, guess I'll just go watch the Warriors'/'Oh well, least it'll be cheaper to go see the ANZC team now'/'so what? I'm just happy with my nimbucinno'.As to getying rid of the Highlanders, Hadyn and I have had this argument before. There's no way cutting the lower half of the country will benefit rugby. A whole island represented by one team? And I don't remember calls for the Chiefs to be scrapped when the Highlanders were still good.
The only such 'remedy' I support is playing your first 3/4 home games in different parts of the franchise area. Whichever gets the biggest turnout gets the 4th/5th games and semis/finals. And that doesn't just mean the Caketin will beat HB/Palmy/'Naki, or Auck will beat Harbour/Northland.
As a side note; I love the fact some of the people (both media and publicks) who were anti-ANZC last year because teams were getting stomped on are now some of the biggest advocates for the current system. The NZRU has bowed to public opinion in announcing the changes, now public opinion is slapping them across the face for daring to change their mind.
-
BoP being competitive is a good thing for the Chiefs, I mean.
-
Ah crap! Was it close?
4 - 4 with a late goal to NZ to make it 5 - 4. Then because they split the games they had a penalty shootout to decide who won the series. NZ goalie Zak Nothling shut out both Aussie shooters, Chris Eaden and Brent Spiers both scored. Great game of ice hockey.
-
Off the field reasons are no reasons at all.
This is nonsense. Super 14 franchises, like any other sporting franchise, owns property, employs people, signs contracts. You can't shift these things around willy nilly in November for a competition that starts in February. Preparation for Super 14 2010 has already started now.
-
4 - 4 with a late goal to NZ to make it 5 - 4. Then because they split the games they had a penalty shootout to decide who won the series. NZ goalie Zak Nothling shut out both Aussie shooters, Chris Eaden and Brent Spiers both scored. Great game of ice hockey.
I totally misread your first comment and thought we had lost. Go the Ice Blacks!
-
You can't shift these things around willy nilly in November for a competition that starts in February. Preparation for Super 14 2010 has already started now.
Err, dude, if it is a business, then why should they be protected from their dismal on and off field performance? I never knew The Highlanders were the General Motors of New Zealand rugby - to big to fail no matter how useless they are.
Anyway, basically it seems to me that on PA you've got those for whom the geographic status quo suits defending the current rugby structure in New Zealand vs. everyone else. Which is a QED for my argument, if you ask me.
I wouldn't care if there was no Super rugby in the lower South Island (or even Auckland). Despite what seems to be a general attitude in the lower South Island, geography does not entitle them to anything, not even your own special moment from Toni Marsh during the weather.
If they want to watch Super Rugby at Eden Park or the new flash thing they are building in Dunners, get a good enough team to EARN it.
Oh yeah what is with the "Ice Blacks?" Couldn't they be a bit more racey and imaginative? How about the "Black Ice?""Australia hits Black Ice!" Is a great headline to me.
-
I did not realise this:
...the loss plummeted [Australia] from first to fourth in the world test rankings behind South Africa, Sri Lanka and India.
Awesome.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.