NZ | Sports Thread - Page 11 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Local Projects & Discussions > KiwiScrapers

KiwiScrapers Kia Kaha » Auckland | Wellington | Christchurch | Hamilton | Regional Cities


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 5th, 2009, 08:02 AM   #201
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

I give up. These guys are ******* morons. If Sout Africa opts out we won't get the transtasman comp many of us have advocated. We'll get a "harlem globe trotters" team in melbourne and similar teams from Japan. Awesome i'll be reaching for the off button on my remote. I'm struggling to care now, that will trun me off for good, and i am a life long rugby fan. Why would i cheer for a composite team i don't really care about against a team that represents nobody. That's called an exhibition match.

Did anyone notice that the Heinekin cup semi final in dublin between Munster and Leinster(Where Rugby ranks third at best after gaelic football and soccer) attracted 80,000 to croke park (please don't mention population, Ireland has a similar population to NZ). Yet we struggle to get anyone to a super 14 game here where it's the national sport. Wonder why? Because they are not obsessed with attracting the casual fan, they have proper teams that supporters actually have a connection with. They realise that a game of rugby does not have to be a 100 point try fest to be entertaining, and that trying make rugby appeal to everyone just alienates your proper rugby supporters the ones who actually sustain the sport.


Melbourne-based Super team to include kiwis?
NZPA - May 5, 2009, 4:03 pm

NZPA ©

A Melbourne-based joint venture involving New Zealand and Australian players in an expanded Super rugby competition is being mooted by Australian Rugby Union (ARU) chief executive John O'Neill.

As the three Sanzar partners prepare to meet in Dublin on May 14 to try to thrash out an agreement for a post-2010 competition, O'Neill said Melbourne was a leading contender for an expansion team.

"Just thinking outside the square, if you're getting to market saturation point in New Zealand then that's something we should look at," O'Neill told The Australian newspaper.

"When a New Zealand team plays an Australian team in Super 14, the ratings are fabulous but when two NZ teams play each other, the ratings here also are very strong and that's because there are about a million New Zealanders living in Australia.

"When the All Blacks were based in Melbourne during the 2003 World Cup, they received tremendous support, as have Crusaders' pre-season matches against the Western Force."

Plans for the Super 14 in 2011 remain in limbo after fraught negotiations between the Sanzar partners, leaving Australia and New Zealand making contingency plans for a breakaway 10-team trans-Tasman competition.

If a Super 15 is approved, South Africa want a sixth franchise, the Southern Kings, as the extra team.

O'Neill said while Melbourne was the favourite if an Australian team were added, there was a formal expression of interest from the Gold Coast Rugby Union.

Prominent Gold Coast businessman Terry Jackman said preliminary steps had been taken to set up a consortium to challenge Melbourne for the licence. He said a new team would be a composite side made up of players from Japan, the Pacific Islands and Australia.

Queensland Rugby Union chairman Peter Lewis, meanwhile, questioned whether it was wise for Australia to pursue a fifth franchise.

"If you look at where the Australian teams are on the Super 14 ladder, you'll realise Australia will be lucky to get even one team into the play-offs," Lewis told The Australian.

"So it's a question that needs to be asked: do we have the playing resources to man a fifth Australian team. "

The Sanzar board meeting on May 14 needs to come up with a competition proposal for a new broadcasting deal to News Ltd and SuperSport by June 30.

South Africa hasn't budged on its wish to start the competition in February and keep it at one full round to accommodate its prized Currie Cup competition.

New Zealand and Australia want it to start in March and make it an extended conference-based competition, with the June inbound tests fitted in the middle.

"They believe we need to give and Australia and New Zealand believe they (South Africa) need to give," NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said last week.

"We are acknowledging that the impasse is still there and ... the clock is ticking."

South African Rugby Union acting managing director Andy Marinos has suggested arbitration or mediation might be needed to reach a solution.

Last edited by cambennett; May 5th, 2009 at 09:25 AM.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 5th, 2009, 10:14 AM   #202
Richard7666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Invercargill
Posts: 1,001
Likes (Received): 63

Melbourne Globetrotters vs the Japan Allstars eh.

Honestly, how the hell do they think people will even be remotely interested in this crap?
Richard7666 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 03:30 AM   #203
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not at Lancaster Park anymore :(
Posts: 858
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
I give up. These guys are ******* morons. If Sout Africa opts out we won't get the transtasman comp many of us have advocated. We'll get a "harlem globe trotters" team in melbourne and similar teams from Japan. Awesome i'll be reaching for the off button on my remote. I'm struggling to care now, that will trun me off for good, and i am a life long rugby fan. Why would i cheer for a composite team i don't really care about against a team that represents nobody. That's called an exhibition match.

Did anyone notice that the Heinekin cup semi final in dublin between Munster and Leinster(Where Rugby ranks third at best after gaelic football and soccer) attracted 80,000 to croke park (please don't mention population, Ireland has a similar population to NZ). Yet we struggle to get anyone to a super 14 game here where it's the national sport. Wonder why? Because they are not obsessed with attracting the casual fan, they have proper teams that supporters actually have a connection with. They realise that a game of rugby does not have to be a 100 point try fest to be entertaining, and that trying make rugby appeal to everyone just alienates your proper rugby supporters the ones who actually sustain the sport.
sums it up for me
could get rid of foreign player rules which have been holding the super 14 back instead of advocating this composite team crap
__________________
Of course you canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 6th, 2009, 04:09 AM   #204
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

Yeah i'd be keen to see foreign players allowed in a bit more. That would make things a bit more interesting. Although i'd want a quota. Maybe a maximum of four or five per squad? And rather than having this kind of communist centrally controlled system perhaps we could give the provinces more power to run their own teams, recruit their own players etc. The NZRU could slice up the TV money evenly and give it to each province.

I understand that the system at the moment is built around the All Blacks being the most important and our national team is important to us but that dosn't mean the domestic competition needs to be reduced to a series of exhibition matches.

I mean what's next? Perhaps swapping a few players to the opposite team at half time if the match is getting too on sided? Or maybe to make it faster rather than having pesky scrums, lineouts and penalty kicks it could just become a giant game of bullrush. The NZRU is probably running these ideas past focus groups as we speak.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 04:27 AM   #205
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not at Lancaster Park anymore :(
Posts: 858
Likes (Received): 37

why would want a limit?
so jimmy gopperth moving from wellington to harbour is fine but there is something wrong with otago trying to get juan hernandez?
what is actually the difference? displaying such bias on something so petty is just sad for the sport; its just encouraging players to lie about their nationality and turn national sides into club sides (although i could never say the all blacks are a national side anyway)
__________________
Of course you canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 04:41 AM   #206
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

Nope under my system Otago would be free to chase Hernandez and five other foreign players if they liked. Why would you think they wouldn't from what i wrote?

The fact of the matter is the All Blacks are still important to us and we still need to develop home grown players and keep them here with the opportuntiy to play professional rugby. There may come a day when pretty much every half decent rugby player in NZ heads offshore and we have to select them from there for the national team. That will mean the end of any professional rugby competition in this tiny country. Until that day comes we need to hold on to as many quality players as we can by giving them oppotunities.

So it's although it's bias. It's not petty there is a reason for it.

Too many foreign players can hinder this. Many think this is one of the problems the England team has had with the number of the foreign players in the Guiness premeirship there has been less English talent given the chance to develop at the highest level which has effected the preformance of the national team. It's the same reason that the Serie A introduced a quota in the 1980s.

I'm not against the fact that the NZRU runs the domestic game to serve the national good. I just think they are going about it wrong. We can have an intersting and relevant domestic competition without selling out all of our tarditions and have an All Black team that is the best in the world.

And could you clarify why the All Blacks are not a national side? I don't follow.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 05:27 AM   #207
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not at Lancaster Park anymore :(
Posts: 858
Likes (Received): 37

but you just said you wanted a limit on foreign players and that could hinder such a transaction if some of their island players shooce to play for their country. do you not think it is ethically wrong that employment is discriminated on the basis of nationality? i really do doubt the effect of foreign players on these so-called 'national sides', playing against better players is only going to help the players who do play and even those who are relagated to reserves still learn alot from their foreign counterparts (although there would be less new zealanders playing overseas if the nzrfu allowed private ownership in the game). more foreign player rules more rickey fluteys playing for england

professional rugby would not die if the all blacks didn't exist, think if the way you just mentioned the game in the republic of ireland.

i don't think that the all blacks are a national side because the notion of only playing for the all blacks when you have signed a contract with the nzrfu leads me to believe it is nothing more than a club side. think of luke mcalister being able to play for 'nz' in 2007, then in 2008 he wasn't able to, then in 2009 he all of a sudden can again; what has happened? is it him being a new zealander in 2007 and 2009 but for some reason not being a new zealander in 2008; or because of a contract with the nzrfu (similar to the one say christiano ronaldo has with manchester united). brad thorn australian one year, new zealander the next and then back to being a australian again and then just for kickers he decides he is a new zealander again; who the hell changes nationality like that? alot of players change clubs like that. seen joe rokocoko advertisements for 'his fiji' on television? sounds like someone who is proud of his country. i would say nick evans is a new zealander, would you say so? if so then why can't play for his country?
Also one oftern hears about the all blacks interact with various football clubs such as ac milan last year for sponsorship purposes or steve hansen recently visiting real madrid hq to see how they ran things. i wonder why they went to clubs instead of visiting national sides such as the spanish national team?
i also like steve tew talking about the 'all black brand' god defend new zealand huh?
does one go to a new zealand game with a new zealand flag and support new zealand or
does one go to a all blacks game with a all blacks flag and support all blacks (not that anyone actually goes to these games rather most just sit at home like schmuck and watch the game on tv)
what do players and various commentators say about the all blacks? its all about the black jersey, the pride it brings and other sentimental crap. never does new zealand get mentioned in such rubbish

and where is this country 'all blacks'? or 'qantas wallabies' or 'sasol springboks' or 'ireland' or 'british and irish lions' for that matter

also i'll ask you this question: what makes you think the nzrfu can run the domestic competitions in this country?
__________________
Of course you canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017

Last edited by IHaveNoLegs; May 6th, 2009 at 05:48 AM.
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 06:02 AM   #208
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHaveNoLegs View Post
but you just said you wanted a limit on foreign players and that could hinder such a transaction if some of their island players shooce to play for their country. do you not think it is ethically wrong that employment is discriminated on the basis of nationality? i really do doubt the effect of foreign players on these so-called 'national sides', playing against better players is only going to help the players who do play and even those who are relagated to reserves still learn alot from their foreign counterparts (although there would be less new zealanders playing overseas if the nzrfu allowed private ownership in the game). more foreign player rules more rickey fluteys playing for england

professional rugby would not die if the all blacks didn't exist, think if the way you just mentioned the game in the republic of ireland.

i don't think that the all blacks are a national side because the notion of only playing for the all blacks when you have signed a contract with the nzrfu leads me to believe it is nothing more than a club side. think of luke mcalister being able to play for 'nz' in 2007, then in 2008 he wasn't able to, then in 2009 he all of a sudden can again; what has happened? is it him being a new zealander in 2007 and 2009 but for some reason not being a new zealander in 2008; or because of a contract with the nzrfu (similar to the one say christiano ronaldo has with manchester united). brad thorn australian one year, new zealander the next and then back to being a australian again and then just for kickers he decides he is a new zealander again; who the hell changes nationality like that? alot of players change clubs like that. seen joe rokocoko advertisements for 'his fiji' on television? sounds like someone who is proud of his country. i would say nick evans is a new zealander, would you say so? if so then why can't play for his country?
Also one oftern hears about the all blacks interact with various football clubs such as ac milan last year for sponsorship purposes or steve hansen recently visiting real madrid hq to see how they ran things. i wonder why they went to clubs instead of visiting national sides such as the spanish national team?
i also like steve tew talking about the 'all black brand' god defend new zealand huh?
does one go to a new zealand game with a new zealand flag and support new zealand or
does one go to a all blacks game with a all blacks flag and support all blacks (not that anyone actually goes to these games rather most just sit at home like schmuck and watch the game on tv)

and where is this country 'all blacks'? or 'qantas wallabies' or 'sasol springboks' or 'ireland' or 'british and irish lions' for that matter

also i'll ask you this question: what makes you think the nzrfu can run the domestic competitions in this country?
What i said was professional rugby in NZ would die if you open the floodgates and select from overseas. There will no quality players left nobody is going to pay for the TV rights or tickets to watch a competiton of club level players. For example Mils Muliana has just knocked back and $850 million a year offer from Toulon, to resign with the NZRU so he can play in the next world cup. Without that there would be nothing to keep quality players like him here.

However to address what you said about the ABs not existing for the vast majority of NZ supporters the All Balcks are the most important thing. Put it down to national insecurity but the reason rugby became so popular and continues to have such a strong following is because it's the one thing we do that we can dominate the rest of the world in. We feel like it's our chance to get noticed. Like it or not that's the reality. So Rugby in this country would die without them.


All my quota system would mean is that teams would have to be more selective about which foregin players they choose. Players sitting on the bench will not learn as much as they would were they playing and testing their skills against others at the top level.

A contract with a club is nothing like a contract with the NZRU. One is a contract with a private organisation the other with a national sporting body. That's not the same thing. Our provinces are not clubs they are not private organisations they represent an area. As mentioned abpve to most NZrs a strong All Black team is the most important thing. Any domestic competition we have does need to facilitate this. That's why the NZRU should run it. The reason we can't slect overseas players at the moment is as i've mentioned if you make that rule the floodgates open and we have no more professional rugby here any more.



You can't compare it with European soccer it's a totally different situation in that to most soccer fans their club is more important than their national team. As mentioned above test matches are far more important to NZ fans than provincial matches.For this reason what works for European football is not going to work in NZ rugby nessesarily, fans over there want their club to win so they don't care where the players playing for them come from, we do here and as i've said a lot of our national pride and feeling (sad as it is) is wrapped up in how the All Blacks preform. The all blacks went and visited clubs in Europe because the spanish national team only assembles a couple of times a year for friendlies and qualifiers. They are not going to assemble just for a training run with the All Blacks.

I'm not quite sure with what you are getting at with Rockocoko are you saying you don't consider him an NZr and therefore him playing for NZ is wrong and again therefore the AB's are no a ligitimate national team? This sounds like "petty bias" to me Joe Rokocoko is proud of his Fijian heritage and why not . He is also a proud New Zealand rep who has lived in this country most of his life and represented NZ all through age group level. Are you saying that people are only valid national reps are people who are born in that particular country and have no other ethnic/national ties.

Also FYI All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies and Lions are nicknames the official names of those teams are New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the British and Irish Lions.

Last edited by cambennett; May 6th, 2009 at 06:12 AM.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 01:18 PM   #209
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not at Lancaster Park anymore :(
Posts: 858
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
What i said was professional rugby in NZ would die if you open the floodgates and select from overseas. There will no quality players left nobody is going to pay for the TV rights or tickets to watch a competiton of club level players.
nobody watches the air nz cup games anyway (think back to the harbour counties game last year, with 800 in attendance which is pretty awful compared to club rugby itself).

Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
A contract with a club is nothing like a contract with the NZRU. One is a contract with a private organisation the other with a national sporting body. That's not the same thing.
how so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
As mentioned abpve to most NZrs a strong All Black team is the most important thing.
if thats the case then why aren't the all blacks selecting their best players?
in a months time steve brett and steven donald will be preparing for a friendly against france when luke mcalister and nick evans will be sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs

Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
You can't compare it with European soccer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
It's the same reason that the Serie A introduced a quota in the 1980s.
doesn't take long to contradict yourself

Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
Also FYI All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies and Lions are nicknames the official names of those teams are New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the British and Irish Lions.
do you actually think thats a good thing though?

i appreciate most of what your saying though. your notion of rugby dieing in this country without the all blacks is misfounded; the justification of not picking all blacks from overseas is that as you said they wouldn't play in our domestic competitions but hang on, look at mulianas contract it gives him the first month of the super 14 off, add the fact that he will never play in the air nz cup and whats the point of even bothering this rule since they don't play in our domestic competitions anyway? and its always going to be tough to get these players to pack off and move to the other side of the world no matter how much money you throw at them (even when they do go they get homesick pretty quickly e.g. chris jack luke mcalister victor matfield and others).
i do actually wonder why so many nz'ers think that all blacks are 'their team' as a supporter one doesn't get to go see them play every two weeks (thats what i would call being a supporter rather than watching on tv) in fact they barely play in new zealand, in 2009 they have 6 games in nz in 5 different cities (thats hardly attracting true fans like you mentioned a few posts ago) and also the nzrfu is very blatantly saying that their priority is getting into the asian market which you would think would be a slap in the face for most all blacks fans.
i'm being a bit pedantic about rocokoco but still wonder why this guy plays for nz yet parades around that he is fijian; its like supporting both all blacks and the wallabies (and what kind of dickhead would do that?).

two questions about foreing play rules:
are you happy to see rikey flutey play for england?
where would argentina have come in the 2007 rwc if foreign play rules like in nz/aus existed in england and france?
__________________
Of course you canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 12:53 AM   #210
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

Ok we seem to be talking at cross purposes here on a few issues.

Firstly when i refer to our professional domestic competition i'm actually talking about the super 14. Ok it does have other countries in it so it's not technically a "domestic comp". It is however out highest level of professional rugby below international. What you say about the NPC actually illustrates my point. Many super 14 players don't even play in it any more TV numbers and audiences have dwindled to such a level that soon that competition will be ametuer. If you allow all of our top players to be selected for the All Blacks from overseas they will all go and there will be no professional rugby here. You might be fine with that but the vast majority of NZ rugby supporters that would not be great.

It's not hard for rugby players to "pack off" to the other side of the world. Thousands of average kiwis do it every year. If you have the lure of a huge salary it makes it even easier. My point is what keeps them here playing for a little less if the lure of playing for the AB's. That's why Muliana re signed. I'm not sure i can see what you are getting at with him having a few weeks off that does not seem relevant to what we are discsussing here.

Also if you read a bit further what i said was what works in Eurpean soccer will not "nessesarily" work here. I used the serie A as example of the thinking behind the import rule to explain the reasoning for it. It was not a direct comparision between the Serie A and the Super 14/ NZ rugby as competitions.

By the way, the reason Argetinian players are all playing in Europe is because there is no professional rugby in Argentina. Their rugby union is archaic and refused until recently to even play players for test matches. The argie players have no choice but to ply their trade in Europe. Ours do because we have a professional competition which we want to protect so as not to end up in the situation Argentina is in. They also have problems getting a lot of their top players for test matches in Argentina (of which there are not many now) released from the clubs. This is th reason we don't want to pick our players from a overseas comp. You personally may not like the ABs or consider them a true national team and that's fine, however most of us do and would still like to get the regular opportuntity to go along and see our team play the best in the world. If we open the floodgates we wont get this opportunity very often.

I don't get what you mean by they barely play in NZ? They play here probably 7 or 8 times a year. For an international team that's a fair bit every year.

You seem to be comparing international teams with club teams, i don't actually understand why. Like i said i professional club is usually a private organization owned by an individual like Roman Abramanovich. The NZRU is a national sporting body is kind of like a collective organisation which adminsiters the sport as a whole like the FA in England. Do you see the difference?

Ricky Flutey playing for England is a joke and just highlights what happens when your game is over run with forgien imports. A second rate import is better than any local english talent. Exactly what we don't want to happen here.

Reagrding Rokocoko, what's the problem? He is proud of his fijian heritage and still has strong ties to that country. He's also a NZr, he's lived here almost all of life.

What's wrong with those national team nicknames? the All Blacks have been called that since 1905, the springboks about the same. These are traditional nicknames that have developed, sure they have been seized on by the marketing people as brands but i still don't get your point.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 12:57 AM   #211
Milan Luka
stupid sexy flanders
 
Milan Luka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Out in the West Texas town of El Paso
Posts: 3,523
Likes (Received): 1175

I'm always amazed at how some otherwise passionless people get so emotional about the state of Kiwi rugby. Anybody here ever listen to radio sport? I can not believe people lie awake at night in New Zealand worrying about the demise of rugby!

To be fair would it really matter in the whole scheme of things? Not trying to be nasty but NZers seem to think the All Blacks are a better side than their record actually confirms.

Maybe they were a good team in the 40s or 50s but now? Come back in 50 years you might find this country is successful in and goes nuts for AFL, baseball or maybe even football. Once upon a time even Canada played cricket to a respectable level apparently. Now no one there can explain it to you. Maybe the same will happen to rugby in NZ?

edit: I should point out- Im not calling anyone here passionless. Just farmers in Te Kuiti.
Milan Luka no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 01:08 AM   #212
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

For an international team the All Blacks record is outstanding i really don't think we are overstating it. Yes we have stuffed up at World Cups but over 100 years have maintained a record of over 80%. Could you tell me another team in international sport that has a better record than that? (Don't say the Kangaroos because they only ever play two teams) teams like Ireland and scotland have not beaten us in 100 years and Wales have not beaten us for 50 and they have fielded some reasonable teams over the years.

I don't think this country will ever go nuts for AFL. As i mentioned in a earlier post part of the reason we are so passionate about the ABs is because we have been successful internationally. Our national pride is wrapped up in it. I can't see NZrs feeing the same way about regular games against a Victorian selection. you might as well say that Melbourne will be nuts about Rugby Union in 50 years.

People in NZ being passionate about our game is no different to people in Europe and South America loving their soccer, Indians loving cricket and Australians (in some states) loving AFL. It's a passion that you grow up with. For me it's in the blood i don't think that's bad thing unless you have nothing else in your life. Sports fans should be passionate that's the whole fun of following a sports team in my opinion.

BTW when did Canada play cricket to a reasonable level? I don't think they have ever been a test playing nation have they?
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 01:47 AM   #213
Milan Luka
stupid sexy flanders
 
Milan Luka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Out in the West Texas town of El Paso
Posts: 3,523
Likes (Received): 1175

Points taken. And passion is a beautiful thing by the way. Kiwis dont seem to do it right. Every country stands by their teams even (sometimes especially) when they are losing. Here every once loves their team when they are winning but jump ship when the Tall-All-Black-Sticks-Caps-Munters etc get a string of bad results.

I kinda liken NZs relationship with union to Englands relationship with Football.

Both have had success back in the day. Have won world championship once and somehow seem to think every trophy should be theres now even though they are both basically crap have been overtaken by many other nations.

Apparently Canada pretty much gave up the cricket thing about 100 years ago in an orchestrated attempt to follow more US sports. Can anybody confirm? Im such wiki will have erroneous info regarding this.

And of course I dont believe ........... shit just felt and earthquake........ anyone else get that???????????????

....um where was I? yeah 50 years time Im sure Kiwis no 1 sport wont be AFL, but who the hell knows what shifts might take place in the national psyche. Basketball? Badminton? Thai Kick Boxing? Sheep Shearing?

And re results for dominating a sport over the years where there is more than a smidgen of competition. I think the record MUST be held by the Australian Cricket Team.
Milan Luka no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 02:33 AM   #214
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

Yep totally agree with you there. We do jump ship when the going gets tough. We almost hate the ABs when they lose whihc is pathetic.

I wouldn't say we are comparable with the English football team. No we have not won the world cup in a long time much like them but we do still regularly win tri nations, bledisloe cups and have completed grand slam wins over the home nations and series wins over the British Lions. The England football team have not won anything period. Also many players in the ABs line up would make a world XV, I ca't think of one English footballer (Rooney maybe??) that would make it in their sport.

I would argue other teams have not overtaken us. None of them beat us on a regular basis and none of them beat each other as often as we beat them. We choke at world cups for sure in sudden death matches no argument there but that does not mean the rest of the world has over taken them. Far from it.

I'd stack the ABs record against the Aussie cricket team. I'll wager (Although i don't have the stats with me) that the AB's win ratio is at least as good probably better. Does anyone have the stats?
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 06:24 AM   #215
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not at Lancaster Park anymore :(
Posts: 858
Likes (Received): 37

Notice how the top players over the last 15 years have slowly been fazed out of the NPC/Air NZ cup and look at what’s happening with this country’s top players and the super 14, first they miss the first seven rounds in 2007 Dan Carter doesn’t play at all in 2009 now Muliaina gets to miss the first month; do you see where this all going? I imagine it probably will go down a similar path the NPC/Air NZ cup has gone.

I just don’t see how one can say I’m supporting my country when this team isn’t named after a country, or they aren’t even a country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cambennett View Post
...Not composite franchises with stupid pseudo american sports team names like Blues, Chiefs etc
Could add All Blacks to those two you named if you like.

With foreign player rules you will see more Rikey Fluteys playing for England. If foreign player rules are players more likely to turn down a hell of a lot of money (especially compared to the amount one could earn playing rugby in say Georgia $0) or be honest about their nationality? Does Juan Hernandez say: “I’m not going to turn my back on my country therefore I won’t be a professional player” or does he say “for that price tag call me French”?
I don’t know what exactly you mean by a casual fan and the proper supporters of rugby; but I would say proper supporters go to games on a regular basis while the casual fans sit at home and watch on TV. Look at the All Blacks schedule for this year, there are 6 games in 16 weeks in New Zealand, compare that to the Air NZ Cup where there are 94 games in 15 weeks; which one is encouraging people to go to games?
Problem with Putting the emphasis on a team whose supporters rarely gets to see is that it creates a culture of watching games on TV instead of going to games and this leads to the game in truth being run by Television companies and not the NZRFU.


All Blacks have won about 75% (72% against the major 8 (Australia England France British Isles Ireland South Africa Scotland Wales), 67% if you take out the Celtic nations) of tests while the Australian cricket side has only won about 48% (it does go up to 63% if you take draws out); so one would say the All Blacks are better. But then again the All Blacks are only about the world cup and a bit behind the Australian cricket side in that regard
__________________
Of course you canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 07:19 AM   #216
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHaveNoLegs View Post
Notice how the top players over the last 15 years have slowly been fazed out of the NPC/Air NZ cup and look at what’s happening with this country’s top players and the super 14, first they miss the first seven rounds in 2007 Dan Carter doesn’t play at all in 2009 now Muliaina gets to miss the first month; do you see where this all going? I imagine it probably will go down a similar path the NPC/Air NZ cup has gone.

I just don’t see how one can say I’m supporting my country when this team isn’t named after a country, or they aren’t even a country.

Could add All Blacks to those two you named if you like.

With foreign player rules you will see more Rikey Fluteys playing for England. If foreign player rules are players more likely to turn down a hell of a lot of money (especially compared to the amount one could earn playing rugby in say Georgia $0) or be honest about their nationality? Does Juan Hernandez say: “I’m not going to turn my back on my country therefore I won’t be a professional player” or does he say “for that price tag call me French”?
I don’t know what exactly you mean by a casual fan and the proper supporters of rugby; but I would say proper supporters go to games on a regular basis while the casual fans sit at home and watch on TV. Look at the All Blacks schedule for this year, there are 6 games in 16 weeks in New Zealand, compare that to the Air NZ Cup where there are 94 games in 15 weeks; which one is encouraging people to go to games?
Problem with Putting the emphasis on a team whose supporters rarely gets to see is that it creates a culture of watching games on TV instead of going to games and this leads to the game in truth being run by Television companies and not the NZRFU.


All Blacks have won about 75% (72% against the major 8 (Australia England France British Isles Ireland South Africa Scotland Wales), 67% if you take out the Celtic nations) of tests while the Australian cricket side has only won about 48% (it does go up to 63% if you take draws out); so one would say the All Blacks are better. But then again the All Blacks are only about the world cup and a bit behind the Australian cricket side in that regard
Ok i don't think we are going to agree here and as i said in my last post we seem to be having two seperate competitions here. I'm not sure i understand all of your argument but i can agree that television dictates what's happening at the moment. That's a fact of all sport i'm afraid to say.

One thing that you are not acknowleging is that if Juan Hernandez has a profession competition in his own country then that would not be an issue either.

You are also dismissing the fact that overseas imports have taken over the British game to such an extent that they cannot field a genuinly english second five eigth. However personally i couldn't give a toss about the English national team. This debate was about what was best for NZ rugby and why we should restrict foreign players in the Super 14 and not select NZ players based in Europe. The Ricky Fluty situation illustrates why we shouldn't. I know you don't like/support the ABs or think they are a ligit national team but the majority of NZ rugby fans do and to them the ABs are the most important thing therfore any professional comp below that needs to facilitate a strong All Black team. Why can't you accept that?

BTW they are named after a country. They have had the nickname for 104 years. Are you saying for this reason they have never been a national team?

To answer your question about casual fans and real supporters a casual fan is someone who has a passing interest in sport who will go to any sports match for the "event" they may not know much about the game but they enjoy the atmosphere and watch the occasional match. These people will go to (and watch on TV) Rugby, League, Soccer or whatever because of the hype of the event. Real supporters are people who genuinly love the game the people who see it as their sport and will always watch a game if it's on. They know the game and players.

The NZRU (or so they think)does not have to chase the real supporter they will always watch because rugby is their game. They will chase the casual fan because that's where the extra dollars are, that's where growth is. My beef is they are going about this wrong. I believe any profession rugby competition we have can still attract new fans while being relevant to real supporters. (These terms are just a means of differenciating between the two types of rugby watchers).

Last edited by cambennett; May 8th, 2009 at 07:28 AM.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2009, 07:37 AM   #217
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHaveNoLegs View Post
All Blacks have won about 75% (72% against the major 8 (Australia England France British Isles Ireland South Africa Scotland Wales), 67% if you take out the Celtic nations) of tests while the Australian cricket side has only won about 48% (it does go up to 63% if you take draws out); so one would say the All Blacks are better. But then again the All Blacks are only about the world cup and a bit behind the Australian cricket side in that regard

They may choke at World Cups but that is an outstanding record anyone would have to admit that. The fact that that has been maintained for 104 years makes it even more remarkable. 75% home and away is very good. According to this link below their win ration under Henry as coach has been 88% which in answer to what Milan was saying about them being better in the past proves they are even better at the moment especially considering they play a lot more games. Also regardign the world cup nobody can say our record is poor but we seem to cop more stick than is fair really. After all Brazil did not win the football world cup for 24 years (1970 - 1994) nobody bagged them as being over rated. Just a thought.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news...ectid=10517656

Last edited by cambennett; May 8th, 2009 at 08:09 AM.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2009, 05:20 AM   #218
IHaveNoLegs
No Fat Chicks
 
IHaveNoLegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not at Lancaster Park anymore :(
Posts: 858
Likes (Received): 37

this isn't going anywhere.
its easy to say hernandez wouldn't be playing in france if argentina had a professional competition but is argentina going to have such a competition in the next 20 years? (maybe but what about the pacific islands, or some of these eastern european countries who have a large amount of players in france) and if argentina did have such a competition would it be able to sustain the kind of salary hernandez is getting in france?

australia has begun introducing some marquee player crap and look at what the rules are:
"Provinces will be allowed to sign one marquee foreigner that will never be available to play for the Wallabies and a developing player that has yet to represent his country at Test, Sevens or A-team level.

The developing player will be allowed to play for the Wallabies after three years of consecutive residency as per IRB regulations."
thats just going to see australia steal going to steal alot of new zealanders to play for australia

i'm just interested how you earlier said you could never support a team one a psuedo american sports names, yet there is nothing wrong with supporting the all blacks; remember alot of these american teams have been around a pretty long time and i do struggle to remember the last time when anyone referred the all blacks to being new zealand, or even from new zealand.

henrys winning record is 88% (very very impressive) but that didn't stop most of the country wanting him fired 18 months ago.
__________________
Of course you canterbury 1977 1983 1997 2001 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
IHaveNoLegs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2009, 03:35 AM   #219
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

You are right we are quite obviously not going to agree on this better to leave it. This debate seems to being going off on tangents, for example the Hernandez issue has nothing to do with the NZ situation we were discussing and the reasons for it being run by the NZRU etc. Now you are talking about Australia's player quota systems and how that will cause NZ players to leave? I do find it hard to follow the thread of your argument.

Anyway to answer your question the names Chiefs, Blues and Crusaders are names made up by marketing people (probably after being tested on focus groups) they have no real meaning or history they are only a means on identifying a regional franchise which is an amalgamation of provinces only one of which is ther team i have always followed and feel an affiliation with.

The All Blacks is a nickname commonly used by supporters and opponents for the past 100 or so years despite being most commonly referred to by this name they are the representitive rugby union team of New Zealand. Ever since the 1905 tour of the UK the moniker "All Blacks" has applied. I support the All blacks because they are an always have been the representitive team of the country of my nationality. I know you don't feel it is a legit national team or see it as being any different from a franchise or club. That's fine but i can't see us ever agreeing on this.

You appear to see no difference between a national representitive side and either privatley owned club or a regional franchise playing in a domestic (for want of a better term) league . I do so lets stop banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall and leave this alone we. We could argue this for years.
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2009, 06:50 AM   #220
cambennett
Registered User
 
cambennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 2,249
Likes (Received): 171

O'Neill calls SA Rugby's "bluff"
Yahoo!Xtra Sport / Neil Reid - May 11, 2009, 2:00 pm

Getty Images ©

The fuse has been lit before this week's crucial Sanzar showdown, with Australian Rugby Union boss John O'Neill describing SA Rugby's approach to Super Rugby expansion as a "bluff".

Sanzar top-brass will make a late bid to agree on a consensus when they are gathered in Dublin this week for the International Rugby Board's council meeting.

The IRB council will vote on rule changes, to be introduced globally from August 1.

Officials from the New Zealand, South African and Australian rugby unions are also using the timely meeting to try and make a last-ditch effort to agree on the future shape of the current Rebel Sport Super 14.

Sanzar has until June 30 to present its template for the future of the Super Rugby arena to its broadcasters.

However, at present the NZRU, ARU and SA Rugby are yet to agree on a shared vision.

It revolves around SA Rugby's insistence of an earlier start to the season, combined with a break during the June test window.

SA Rugby also wants hosting rights of the expansion side, despite the fact it would logically be based in Australia to enable the mooted three five-franchise conference system to take place.

South African officials have stated they won't be bullied into changes that don't suit them, saying they would look to enter their teams into European competitions.

In turn the NZRU and ARU have worked on a South African-free model to be introduced for 2011.

But O'Neill has called SA Rugby's bluff, saying he doubts the body has a future in Europe if they are cut from Super Rugby.

"That's been a long-held bluff, in my view. From all the enquiries we've made, we believe there isn't an exit for them in the north," O'Neill told Sydney radio station 2KY.

"What has happened is Australia and New Zealand, out of pure frustration, have worked on a trans-Tasman competition which does work, with five or six teams from Australia and five or six from New Zealand.

"It's a Super 10 or Super 12, played over two rounds, and bringing in Japan in a couple of years time. It's a pretty elegant solution.

"The roles have changed in that we have a plan B and I'm not sure South Africa do."

SA Rugby is insistent of an late-January/early-February kick-off, saying it would not allow an expanded Super Rugby arena to clash with its domestic Currie Cup competition.

It has also called for a month-long break in Super Rugby play to allow for a break during the June test window.

However, both the ARU and NZRU have proposed that the Super 15 be played through that period.

The tests would be played mid-week.

"On a couple of occasions we thought we'd had an agreement but the South Africans have changed their minds,' O'Neill said.

"They're very unpredictable.

"We don't want South Africa to drop out of Super rugby, we want them to stay in, but the conditions they're attaching to their participation are, in our view, unreasonable."

O'Neill added of the laws vote: "We're basically going to get up on 10 out of 13 (ELVs) but we've lost out on the sanctions, the short arm (free kick) versus the long arm (penalty).

"Those votes will go along party lines. England, Ireland and Wales never even trialled those ELVs so the likelihood of them voting for them was never going to happen.

"It's time to move on, just settle on one set of laws."
cambennett no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us