Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Mixing it up, with stats like

195 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • Bob Munro,

    Just one nit-picking quibble--I don't think you really mean "homogeneous." That means "made up of identical components." I think maybe you mean "indigenous"?"

    I dunno that you can even pick this nit really. 'Indigenous' usually refers to people who are the original inhabitants eg. Maori in NZ and for instance Zulu in South Africa. I think the Dropkicks have gone for a less loaded word.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 418 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Roseingrave,

    Oooh...now we're getting into semantics (and potentially charged discussions)! We went for "homogeneous" as in "uniformly born in the one place". Weak, yes, and another in a long line of our mangling of the English language, but we hooked onto it and wouldn't let it go: we Dropkicks have one-track minds. Maybe we should've used "home-grown".

    And Simon G absolutely nailed it with his points about not getting sucked into the whole "born" argument. People out of the know (e.g. the NH journos) don't bother to get in to the know and therefore generalise, either because they're lazy or it sells more papers or pagehits. Whatever.

    That they latch on to the large number of players of Polynesian and Melanesian descent in New Zealand rugby (ah, the racist undertones) and use that as proof of "poaching" is sloppy journalism and it's infuriating. You can't prove anything based on where someone was born - heck, they don't even do that; if someone looks like they should have been born somewhere else, they've been "poached"!

    Wellington • Since Sep 2007 • 12 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    absolutely. i agree with my dropkicks comrades hadyn and m. roseingrave.

    born somewhere means nothing.

    i was born in sydney, for example. i had extreme trouble convincing australians i was anything other than a new zealander.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    You mean you weren't born at Tauranga? You're Australian! Woot, woot, woot!
    Just kidding, just kidding. Serious questions, are the AB's still a national side? Who owns the AB's now? Are the Maori AB's an indigenous side? Why can't the Maori AB's play in TWC?

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    Yeah Che, and to think I called you "bro".

    i had extreme trouble convincing australians i was anything other than a new zealander.

    You should've had a criminal record, then they'd believe you.

    And hooray for Mike's first post!

    Merc: the NZ Maori have never been a test playing team. they are a New Zealand representative side, like the English Saxons. To play for the Maori you need to show an affiliation to an Iwi. It was mooted a few years back that they should be able to play. But i don't think it was rugby players who suggested it.

    New Zealand's first ever team was called "the Natives" which was largely Maori (Native meant born in New Zealand). the team later evolved, after the All Blacks were created, into the NZ Maori.

    There's a really good fact sheet about the NZ Maori here (pdf). The guy who wrote it is a bloody genius. Also give Matt Te Pou's bio a read.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Didn't a Maori Rugby League team play in the Rugby League world cup a while ago? Came... 4th?

    Google tells me it was in 2000: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/world_cup_2000/group_4/1006739.stm

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    you're assuming i don't have a record.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Irvine,

    Kyle, I went to see NZ Maori play Ireland in Dublin, a game notable only for Tawera Nikau being sent off about three seconds after he came on. That world cup had a team from Lebanon also, and wasn't a great advertisement for allowing minnow sides to play from memory. I guess countries like ours are in that hamstrung position where our provincial sides would be competitive with many internatioanl teams at sports like rugby, league or netball.

    Auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 242 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    Nice to know the stats, once and for all. And with the added bonus of the frisson of cyber flirting. Bonza.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • stephen clover,

    Somehow it doesn't seem enough to post the "facts" and congratulate ourselves; I wish someone would print Sideline's piece out, roll it up into a baton and give Stephen Jones and his colleagues a comprehensive swatting about the head with it.

    (that's not an erotic fantasy, by the way).

    wgtn • Since Sep 2007 • 355 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Miller,

    Living in London as i do, I've come to dread opening a newspaper when the ABs are over, as I know I'll have to read yet another tedious ilinformed rant about our PI players.

    Trust me it's not just Stephen Jones, all four major national papers have been at it.

    The saddest thing is it's been repeated so many times without challenge, it's basically accepted here as gospel. If you strike up a conversation with anyone in a pub about rugby, it's not long before you get the 'well they're not really NZers are they'. To be fair once you've explained things most people tend to be ok & even a bit embarassed, but it's still incredibly annoying.

    I know loads of Kiwis have written to the papers with the facts so it's not merely ignorance, and I'm sure they're well aware what they're printing is nonsense but print it anyway. Sadly I doubt a trip to school in South Auckland or the like would change much.

    London • Since Jan 2007 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Marcus Turner,

    Not strictly relevant, but I must share this with someone.

    Great photos of French rugby players.

    Check out http://www.rouvre.com/main.php?lang=en and go to the exhibition called "broken faces".

    It's really worth a minute or two.

    Marcus

    Since Nov 2006 • 212 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Rugby in France holds a special place. During occupation in WW2 there was a restriction on men gathering in groups. Round my brother's village the only thing you could gather to do was play rugby. It followed that this was seen as a very powerful statement, to be able to gather at all.
    Rugby in France is imbued with things such as this, including inter-village rivalry, much perhaps like the Maori Iwi competitions here in Taranaki and on the East Coast.
    BTW the penalty for gathering during the occupation was death.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Robyn Gallagher,

    By the way the new Dropkicks podcast is up.

    Out of curiosity, I subscribed in iTunes, and listened to about half of the latest podcast on my walk to work this morning.

    I rather like it. It's not muntery and doesn't rely on the listener having encylopedic rugby knowledge to understand what's going on. And it's really nicely edited, if I do say so.

    (I feel like I'm being initiated into a cult.)

    Raglan • Since Nov 2006 • 1946 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Hosking,

    Robyn G wrote:

    (I feel like I'm being initiated into a cult.)

    You are.

    Gathers in groups at night around flickering fires /screens....stange language of its own....

    Just watch for the pamphlets and the funny underwear....

    South Roseneath • Since Nov 2006 • 830 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Roseingrave,

    I think I can see a new tag line: "Listen to the Dropkicks. We're not muntery."

    I like it.

    But we're not a cult. Most of the time.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2007 • 12 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    But we're not a cult. Most of the time.

    No, you're a bunch of cults.

    Boom boom!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22834 posts Report Reply

  • Bob Munro,

    (I feel like I'm being initiated into a cult.)

    Great Robyn. You’re well on your way. Now a few points about the breakdown, (forgive me if this is old hat ) The tackle situation is the most obvious example of this. If the ball is on the ground it is a ruck , if it is off the ground it is a maul. Now in the ruck the tackled person must release the ball and the tackler or those arriving at the ruck through ‘the gate’ obviously as you will be aware- can only play the ball if they are on their feet. The tackler must also allow the tackled person to release the ball even if at the same time the tackled person is actually trying to slow up the release until more teammates arrive. No doubt you are already excited by the potential of the new Stellenbosch rules that may come in 2008 in which hands may not be allowed in the ruck and we will be able to revert to actual ‘rucking’ again. Welcome to the club!

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 418 posts Report Reply

  • Robyn Gallagher,

    No doubt you are already excited by the potential of the new Stellenbosch rules that may come in 2008 in which hands may not be allowed in the ruck and we will be able to revert to actual ‘rucking’ again.

    This sounds obscene. I think I will have to have a cup of peppermint tea and calm down.

    Raglan • Since Nov 2006 • 1946 posts Report Reply

  • noizyboy,

    And it's really nicely edited, if I do say so.

    why, thank you.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 171 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Fitzgerald,

    Marcus nice link to those French Photos.
    Reminds me yesty Rosemary McLeod said Rugby was like Gay Porn.
    I think she ment Pro Rugby players are camp.

    Didn't Tonga do well! No Honiss there obviously.

    Anyone out there able to tap the Paddys on the shoulder and get them to form a Fighting Wedge when facing a challenge/haka?
    I'm told it was the trad battle formation of the Irish & would add something to the pre match size ups.

    Since May 2007 • 631 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    (I feel like I'm being initiated into a cult.)

    So you're saying the subliminal messages are just a little too loud?

    We'll get the indoctrination engineers right on that.

    all hail Xenu

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Jim Welch,

    I dunno that you can even pick this nit really. 'Indigenous' usually refers to people who are the original inhabitants eg. Maori in NZ and for instance Zulu in South Africa. I think the Dropkicks have gone for a less loaded word.

    i'll give you an inch, but that's all. you're right that "indigenous" has another, loaded meaning, but "homgeneous" is just wrong. it is nonsense to say that something is 90% homogenous. then it's 10% hetereogeneous? wha'?
    can we agree on "native born"?
    (ok, i know no-one else cares about this, but this is language, people! words have meanings!)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 43 posts Report Reply

  • Jim Welch,

    of course, i meant to spell homogeneous right, as well.... not so good for my credentials as a pedant....

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 43 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Fitzgerald,

    Native has a pejorative meaning in NZ although positive meaning in the States.
    The use here attempts to usurp indegenous status from Maori etc.
    Just go for the political sense of citizenship, although I like heterogeneous.

    Since May 2007 • 631 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.