S
He's just not funny. Wheeler is made out by many to be this hilarious larrikin but he's simply another bad example of the shallow talent pool in our small nation.
Racist though? Nah. Just a poor attempt at an accent mock, which is as common a joke as anything and pretty harmless in isolation.
The Chiefs will be rolling out in an updated adidas version of their 1996 jersey against the Canes this weekend. Only 300 of which will be for sale plus some signed ones to be auctioned on trademe. I like this. Hopefully all the fanchises do it and if the Crusaders do I’ll do all I can to get my hands on one of our wooden spoon classics,
https://www.chiefs.co.nz/edit/image_cache/181221chiefs0780edit_810x810c0pcenter.jpg
So this proposed Pasifika franchise being supported by Beegee Williams, despite being promoted to the contrary, can only take away from the already thinning depth of the five NZ SR squads.
They're saying they'll focus on bringing back European-based Pasifika players for 2022. Now given they're Auckland-based, commercially this makes zero sense as who is going to spring up out of nowhere to give them the money to achieve something NZ Rugby with much greater revenue streams hasn't been able to achieve over years and years? The only guys I would imagine they could afford to pay when competing with the Pound or Franc, would be guys at the end of their careers.
The other source of players - and the only one mentioned for 2021 - is fringe SR players of Pacifika heritage in the NPC. This only serves to undermine the five wafer-thin and increasingly youthful NZ squads.
They speak of developing Pasifika players in NZ. Sorry, but if they're worth developing they've already been identified and are in the system. Again, there's no undiscovered player well yet to be plumbed.
Lastly, this especially undermines the Blues, dividing their support base, further pressuring their development system and possibly costing them commercial partners.
Yuck.
Still struggling big time with the injustice of it all. This has been infinity times harder to process than getting reamed by Australia in 2015. We could have - possibly should have - won this final and title.
In 2015 I was consoled by being able to look forward and confidently expect we’d still have a pretty good side in 2019. We were always likely to still have Guppy, Kane, Rosco, Anderson, Henry, Southee, Boult and Milne from that side, and knew we were heading to a tournament played in conditions nearer to our own than anywhere else it could be held. I was confident we’d give it another tilt and distinctly remember predicting that on TSF in the aftermath of the 2015 final.
But fast forward and we’ve come as close as a team can possibly, possibly get without quite pulling it off, and I have little confidence in our team being as strong in the next tournament, to be played in far less suitable conditions. This year our team had three of our top five all time ODI batsmen in it, either at or near the peak of their powers, possibly our best ever ODI pace bowler, and a quality supporting cast with some fast improvers and only a couple of duds. You could say much the same of the 2015 side but throw in our greatest ODI spinner as well, plus a much better performed Southee.
In 2023 we’ll still have Kane and I have no reason to believe he’ll be any less of a player than he is now. So we’ll always be a chance. But I’m not sure how many of the current guys will still be around. Guptill, out of form this tournament but still only 32 currently, will probably be past it at 36. It’s possible we’re seeing him waning now, but I tend to think he’ll come right again and we’ll get another year or three out of him. Rosco will be around 38 and a very unlikely starter based on the longevity of NZ batsmen historically but stranger things have happened and he seems very fit. On balance though, probably not. Boult will be 33 and fairly long in the tooth for a pace bowler. Still a possible starter but highly unlikely to be operating at the same level.
Nicholls, Latham, Neesham, Santner, Sodhi, Ferguson and Henry will all be 32 or younger which helps the core. Add to that Corey Anderson, Tom Blundell, Will Young, Tim Seifert and Adam Milne. Ok I’m cheering up a little, but still need to see at least a couple of these guys develop into truly world class players in order to have any confidence. The Colins will be gone. One should never play ODI cricket again and the other will drift out of the side due to age prior to the next WC. Southee will also be a goner.
So the team for 2023? Well I’m assuming Guppy and Rosco will be gone, sadly. Boult may well be reduced to a Kyle Mills 2015 role as the experienced fourth seamer unlikely to play but in the squad. Kane will be there at first drop and I reckon Nicholls should have well and truly cemented a spot at 4 by then (same as in the test side) but may be needed at the top. Young shapes as a likely contender at 5 unless we stack the middle order with power allrounders in which case I can see Neesham batting there. There’s a chance Nicholls stays at the top of the order and Young slots in at 4, I guess. Latham will also contend for 4. At this stage the opening spots look problematic and particularly by then if Guppy is in fact history. Maybe Blundell takes one of these spots, or Seifert who appeals as a guy who can get us away to a flyer, McCullum-esque . I truly hope Anderson comes back as a true all rounder and reclaims a position. Santner will probably be there as a defensive spinner but hopefully not batting as high as 8 as he appears most unworthy of this spot in the ODI team at the moment. Team structure however may dictate that he stays there. Sodhi should play a lot more for NZ and should be in this squad. Latham looks likely to enjoy an extended run in the middle order. There will be new guys come in but it’s not hard to imagine a lot of our current quality performers still holding their spots. A possible 1st XI in India:
Seifert
Nicholls
Williamson
Young/Latham
Latham/Young
Neesham
Anderson
Santner
Sodhi
Henry
Ferguson
I’d love to see another hitter at 8. If Santners test batting develops and he starts not ducking under bouncers when we need runs then he may be more suited to 7, sandwiched between a couple of thugs.
@Bones said in All Blacks XV - New second tier team:
@shark is there quite a difference between Nth Korean ICBM's and others?
I'm relying on it not working.
@Kruse said in AB squad for the Bledisloe Cup?:
@shark said in AB squad for the Bledisloe Cup?:
@Machpants said in AB squad for the Bledisloe Cup?:
@shark you realise, of course, that the govt follow the advice of the health service, not the other way around. Unlike some countries,
It's the governments decision, ultimately. Doesn't matter a shit how much advice they take or from where. Actually, it does. When the only advice you seriously consider represents only one facet in a decision making process, it matters many shits.
Yeah, and that one “facet” being the relevant Subject-Matter-Expert. And, probably, consultation with indirectly-involved SMEs. Shit.
How dare they not consider consulting InfoWars and random reddit threads?
Sigh. Thanks for that, Jacinda.
Don't worry about enabling a solid economic boost at very minimal risk to health. Let's just create asinine rules around bubble limits which prohibit the event from happening. If you're going to limit team trainings to 25 or whatever then you need to limit workplaces in general to 25 as well. It's absolute OTT garbage from the Govt.
@bovidae said in Bledisloe II:
@taniwharugby Injury was not a factor according to the Stuff article.
"We wanted a specialist second five," explained Hansen. "Alby (Lienert-Brown) has been playing a lot of his rugby at 13. Whilst we're very happy with his performance [in Sydney], we love what he does for us off the bench.
"He brings a security, a sense of understanding of what's needed in that area and Ngani is more of a starting-type player. It just made sense."
Yep nice one Shag. You may as well put the NH contact under ALB's fucken nose yourself. You could have equally said: "We didn't pick Ngani in the initial squad and wanted him instead to go away and work on his communication, which he's done for an entire game. Alby was outstanding for us at 12 in Bledisloe 1 in what was virtually a starting role but despite that we've brought Ngani straight back in ahead of him".
@rotated said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@mariner4life said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
well, shit aye.
I'm actually not sure how to feel. We can't even fall back on being beaten by a better side on the day. Because we weren't beaten.
Get my rant in. What fuckwit came up with most boundaries as the 2nd tie-breaker? Effectively England have been handed the cup for having less scoring shots than us? In what way is that a good measurement? Get absolutely fucked. I am not having that. Celebrate you pommy (UN) fucks, we all know it feels hollow.
Two bad pieces of luck in the last couple of overs. But that overthrow 6 is about as unlucky as you can possibly get. Right there you know it is not your day. Fucking hell.
I thought we were 30 runs short, turns out we were one. Imagine if we didn't duck under the last ball of the innings?
This is about where I'm at with it too. Although in a way I feel bad for both sides as England will always have a bit of asterix on the title and the lack of closure will likely torment NZ more than a loss. I'm not entirely sure I would be that much happier if NZ had "won" on an equally ridiculous countback.
The NZ team can be very proud, they played great cricket and did not wilt under the pressure and in the last two games added more to the lore of NZ cricket history than other teams did in an entire four year cycle. I juts hope for the Black Caps that in time the absurdity and incredible nature of the result or lack thereof a little easier to swallow.
On the bright side I look forward to Kane on commentary at the 2039 CWC semi final talking about this game at length...
You're having a little tug on your own whizzer there if you seriously believe the Poms will give a second thought to the way they were awarded this WC. They won't give a flying fuck. It's in the record books, that's all that matters. And we'd feel exactly the same. At most they'll feel mildly sympathetic towards us but they'll feel completely justified in having taken this title, one way or another.
I wrote the following letter on 18.12.2019 and sent it to local and central government politicians and tried to get Stuff to publish it. Check out the last sentence of the first full paragraph.....
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing to express my concerns around the Christchurch Stadium / ‘Multi-Use Arena’ project.
Firstly, I was extremely disappointed to read in the news on Monday 18/11/19 that there was already a shortfall in funding and that this was in actual fact getting worse by the month as building costs rise. Disappointed, but not at all surprised. After all, of the initial $500m projection of funds required to build a fully enclosed stadium of approximately 30,000, the total available between the CCC and central government was only $485m. So there was immediately a shortfall which could only mean either a shrinking in size of the stadium or a reduction in quality (aesthetic and/or functionality), ala the Metro Sports Centre. Naturally over time, the deficiency in funds only grows as costs rise, inflation takes an effect and more and more feasibility studies and the like are potentially commissioned.
Subsequently, on Monday 09.12.2019 it was reported the stadium would take the form of a 25,000 seat, fully roofed $470m project. This is an immensely disappointing announcement for a number of reasons including the low capacity and the accompanying narrative around the removal of several features in order to save costs. I understand the “elevated walkway” referred to is actually a mid-level concourse including toilets and concessions which now means all the toilets and concessions will be at ground level. This is not an optional extra, but a basic pre-requisite of a quality, modern stadium. Reduction of the façade area can only mean an aesthetic/architectural feature is being discarded. Similarly the roof design has changed. More and more, it seems this stadium is becoming a very basic (‘plastic’ roofed) box and I’ve already heard it referred to as a “click clack container”.
A basic 25,000 seat stadium is not an investment in our future, nor a vote in confidence for our region. It’s the absolute bare minimum requirement and little more than a lemon.
This stadium – irrespective of the nature of the project in terms of fully enclosed or not (and I’ll get to this later) simply must be aesthetically pleasing as it will be a centrepiece of our largely rebuilt central city. It should look impressive when lit up at night for events and it should possess some architectural features akin to some of the interesting buildings which have sprung up in the CBD since 2011. You should want people who approach the stadium on foot to be drawn to it and those walking past it should want to stop and photograph it. It also must, must, be of a size which can a) attract top-shelf sporting events, and b) be future-proofed for a population which CCC figures project could top 700,000 regionally within 50 years (well within the lifetime of any new stadia).
Instead, based on the ever-reducing funds available, the stadium continues to shrink in capacity (original talk was of a 30,000 or even 35,000 seat stadium but this is now 25,000 seats) and in all likelihood it will evolve into a very simple design which certainly won’t enhance our city-scape and may actually detract from it. We will end up with a very basic design like Forsyth Barr Stadium (FBS), only smaller again and just as ordinary-looking, if not moreso. Apologies here to Dunedinites, but novelty value is one of the few things your stadium has going for it. It’s functional but relatively small, it isn’t fully surrounded by seating - and normally doesn’t have any at all at one end – and it’s far from an architectural marvel aesthetically with it’s vast plastic cladding and the two end stand areas looking like additions. Compared to the likes of the Dallas Cowboys’ AT&T stadium – aesthetically, not in size – FBS is very, very ordinary. Again, functional, but ordinary.
Looks aside, such a small stadium leaves Christchurch in a chasing pack of several stadiums who would bid for All Black tests, including FBS, Waikato Stadium, Albany/QBE, McLean Park and possibly even Trafalgar park in Nelson. The majority of the ‘Tier 1’ tests would continue to go to Auckland and Wellington due to their greater capacities. Christchurch would never see a Lions test or any RWC knock-out games should we host this tournament again. The rugby public might be sated temporarily should a deal be struck with NZ Rugby for regular tests for the first few years, but after that it’d be open season and big games would be as rare as hens’ teeth (all you need to do is review the stats around All Black domestic test venues since 2012 to see how few Tier 1 games are shared around the smaller venues such as FBS, Waikato Stadium and Albany). For New Zealands’ second-largest city, this is simply unacceptable.
Why is there such a drive to build a small, roofed venue? Is the bang for our buck equation there with the MUA option? I think not.
As far as concerts go our only advantage over Dunedin would be ease of access from other centres and their own accommodation issues. However, as far as promoters are concerned, are these concerns? I’d say no, given people travel to Dunedin in their droves regardless. Could events at our stadium charge more for tickets, making Christchurch more attractive than Dunedin as a venue to promoters? I don’t see any reason why we could, with the added issue potentially of a smaller capacity. I understand also that FBS is provided at no charge to promoters in order to encourage big acts to Dunedin. Is the CCC (or V-Base) going to offer this?
What about other events which might attract people to Christchurch outside of rugby and concerts? I can’t think of any other major money-spinners.
The alternative, making good use of the $470m now available to us? A state-of-the-art (or close to it), ‘open roofed’ (that’s no roof, but fully covered stands) fully seated, fully surrounded (ie the stands all join up without gaps) stadium of approximately 40,000. Bankwest Stadium in Parramatta, Sydney, was recently completed at a cost of AUD360m (NZD382m) and seats 30,000. Upgrades to this design could be enclosed concourses and an attractive solid wrap all around the stands and concourses for weatherproofing and as a design feature, but there may be other costly features which wouldn’t be required. At AUD12k per seat, a similar design seating around 40,000 could be completed for approximately what’s currently available to the CCC. And a bonus: this stadium only took 19-20 months to build.
Part of the reason for the lack of resistance thus far to the MUA proposal is that people are so used to the extremely uncomfortable stadium we’ve had to deal with at Addington for the last seven years. But that doesn’t warrant an extreme reaction in another direction ie an enclosed rugby stadium, for this is to all intents and purposes – and rightly so - a rugby ground which can be used for other stuff on occasion. A truly world class new stadium, a jewel in the city’s crown, would by default attract hordes of people including even the most casual of fans initially for the experience, before settling back to above recent average crowds for rugby games as has been the experience in Dunedin since FBS was built. I attended dozens of games at Lancaster Park/Jade/AMI Stadium and no-one ever lamented not having a roof over our heads. On occasion, sitting in the cold, rain (or even heavy fog!) is simply part of the experience.
The opportunity cost of an open stadium? A concert every two years perhaps? One or two other small events….perhaps? What exactly is Forsyth Barr Stadium hosting that is ‘hurting’ our local economy so badly and so often that so desperately makes the CCC want to abandon sane principles such as future-proofing and the economic boosts provided by regular Tier 1 All Black tests and other major rectangular field sporting events? Given such a large chunk of the economic boost provided to Dunedin by the likes of Ed Sheeran concerts is hospitality sector income from Cantabrians travelling and being forced to spend money on accommodation, food and beverage for a night or two, how exactly do we benefit from this when the same fans would simply be driving from their homes to a local stadium, and back again, with a far lesser percentage of visitors than Dunedin receives due to our much greater local population? Surely an annual All Black test – even if not always sold out – is a bigger boost to our economy than a biennial concert we might otherwise miss out on to FBS? The larger open stadium could also attract stadium concerts we currently miss out on such as U2, Elton John etc.
From a national stand-point, if we are to ever attract a global event such as a Rugby World Cup again, having another large capacity stadium in addition to Eden Park and Westpac Stadium would be crucial when competing with other nations/regions. But it’s not just rugby; there are FIFA events (NZ Football has just announced a joint bid with Australia for the 2023 Womens’ Football World Cup for an example of the type of even which can and will come up) and more which we would also be able to host, and we could host finals matches with a stadium of significance.
An under-sized, otherwise aesthetically boring but roofed stadium is simply not the way forward for a recovering and growing region. A decision to build a 25,000 seat stadium – and particularly a basic design – would soon be regretted and lamented on a large scale throughout Canterbury and New Zealand in general as it’s limitations became apparent. An opportunity to build a landmark project is on the verge of being lost to what seemingly amounts to ill-placed Dunedin-envy. At the very least, some serious due diligence should be undertaken re non-roofed stadium designs, or if it already has, make the findings public and a legitimate topic for debate based on arguments for both options being fairly represented in an open forum. Has there even been a feasibility study commissioned/completed for an open stadium option? How much consideration has been given to this option? It feels at the moment as if after 8 years of inaction, the first idea to be somewhat ratified by CCC is now being rushed through and to hell with what’s best long-term.
@sparky said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Machpants 98th game against the Old Foe.
100th could be a RWC final!
The way this is unfolding, I'd prefer a Super Ten with five teams each from NZ and Australia. If Australia can't sort it's shit out and four or five of their sides are consistently just fodder for the NZ squads, then so be it. I just hope the Aussie viewers don't mind if they don't have any semi-finalists year on year. But I want to see a full round robin or home and away RR. None of this conference bullshit which only serves to unfairly advantage poor Australian squads. Nine rounds and a bye week is too brief. With finals that's not even a three month comp. Double RR with two bye rounds is 22 weeks or a little more than five months. Mid Feb to late July.
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Whatever, let them have five but our red line is no guaranteed finals spots. Be careful what you wish for with no finals in Aussie at the pointy end of the comp.
Yep bang on. Enough with the cock measuring. Let's have on-field results determine who's right and who's wrong. But if there is ANY talk of conferences and automatic qualifiers, they can fuck off. Then come back a little bit, and fuck off a bit further.
There's nearly always gotta be something to be concerned about and what worries me this week is the following:
History of rugby union matches between New Zealand and South Africa - Wikipedia