Field Theory by Hadyn Green

Read Post

Field Theory: Beatniks

49 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Emma Hart,

    Both. "yay. go crusaders. woo."

    From the other side of this, I don't know who to support, Chiefs or Hurricanes, to make it through to get beaten by the Crusaders in the final. I'm sort of leaning towards the Chiefs because we've beaten the Hurricanes in the final before.

    But I'm open to persuasion.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Poole,

    Emma: You want to support the Chiefs. Not those nancy-boys from Wellington, but men of the land; much like those blokes from Canterbury.

    Or something like that.

    Since Dec 2008 • 161 posts Report Reply

  • Naly D,

    Both. "yay. go crusaders. woo."

    That's more or less how it was too, until 'Hey, here's some more exciting stuff to talk about!'

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 307 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    I'm sort of leaning towards the Chiefs because we've beaten the Hurricanes in the final before.

    You subtle bugger

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    That, and the undeniable presence of munters.

    I posit that at any event there are munters.

    For every drunk homophobic jerkwad at a rugby match, there is a pretentious cockface at an art gallery.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    There's a lot that's ugly about modern commercial sport:

    - the way a sporting contest becomes an excuse to whip up xenophobia; with the related attitude of a lot of commentators that the rest of the rugby world (for instance) ought really to play at about the level of Italy, such that NZ could guarantee a win every time.

    - the co-option of genuine community spirit to a commercial enterprise. Why do the teams have those twee names now? It's mostly so the promoters have the option to transplant the side off to Los Angeles with the brand intact, should that ever look like a smart financial move.

    - the whole hype machine that aims to get us all frothed up about a forthcoming event so we'll buy sponsor products and satellite telly subscriptions.

    In some places now, fans are starting to get sufficiently pissed off with this that they're forming they're own clubs, like AFC Wimbledon who, while they might not field the best players in the world, are at least a genuine community team.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    You subtle bugger

    Heh, so subtle we did it in the fog so you couldn't even SEE it happen. We just blew the full-time whistle and said 'hard but fair, full credit', picked up the trophy, sang the Reuben Thorne song, and left. You lost, just take our word for it.

    Disclaimer: I love the Hurricanes. They're so pretty and interesting. But the Chiefs have Richard Kahui. Usually.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Savidge,

    For every drunk homophobic jerkwad at a rugby match, there is a pretentious cockface at an art gallery.

    Without stats I'm gonna have to say your pants are on fire. The sports fan-to-arts supporter ratio in this heathen backwater is more likely to be 50-1*.

    *randomly made up number with the a strong possibility of being close to correct.

    Somewhere near Wellington… • Since Nov 2006 • 324 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    Without stats I'm gonna have to say your pants are on fire. The sports fan-to-arts supporter ratio in this heathen backwater is more likely to be 50-1*.

    Percentage-wise I think I'm right though. The munter to non-munter ratio will be about the same at any event. The jerks who talk loudly over the band, the idiot drivers on the motorway etc. It's lower than you think but they are so annoying it seems like there's more of them.

    Heh, so subtle we did it in the fog so you couldn't even SEE it happen.

    I'm a Chiefs fan so I don't care about that game (it was on during the 48 Hours anyway)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Yeah... I'm going to have to go with whoever fields the prettier team on the night. No, wait, in order to not look shallow we call that 'playing the more attractive rugby', right?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    Everyone knows the Hurricanes were the real winners in that final in the fog.

    In some ways it will be sad not having the final down there this time around. Fog one year, mad horses escaping during the Awards Ceremony the next... Ah, it’s a laugh a minute.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Naly D,

    the related attitude of a lot of commentators that the rest of the rugby world (for instance) ought really to play at about the level of Italy, such that NZ could guarantee a win every time.

    Yeah, like Tony Greig when any cricket team tours Australia, or those Aussie commentators in any league world cup, or ESPN when any team plays the US at the Olympics/FIBA champs [remember their shock when NZ made it to the quarter-finals?!]. Or the F1/A1GP commentators [who are British] favouring Hamilton and Button over any other driver over the past 10 years?

    Nationalistic bias is the given right of a commentator - Hell, Jedi is the worst of the lot.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 307 posts Report Reply

  • Naly D,

    And while you make sense here and I see the potential for it:

    - the co-option of genuine community spirit to a commercial enterprise. Why do the teams have those twee names now? It's mostly so the promoters have the option to transplant the side off to Los Angeles with the brand intact, should that ever look like a smart financial move.

    The Wellington Hurricanes dropped Wellington to acknowledge their geographic area included Taranaki, the Horowhenua, Manawatu, Hawke's Bay, etc [and the same with the other teams]

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 307 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    [remember their shock when NZ made it to the quarter-finals?!]

    Semi finals wasn't it?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    <quote>I think you're looking for causation when I'm not sure there is even correlation. <quote>

    It was the question mark wasnt it. I was wondering about sport as a metaphor, a microcosm, a niche ecology, if you will of the, of the human condition.
    But no, you are right, there's eff all rhyme or reason to it.

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1890 posts Report Reply

  • Megan Wegan,

    'playing the more attractive rugby'

    Without Kahui, the Chiefs are going to struggle.

    Welly • Since Jul 2008 • 1275 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Poole,

    The drafting post on Dropkicks raises some interesting points. What if the NZRU were to heavily reduce the number of players a Super franchise was allowed to "protect" for each season? The players are all centrally contracted anyway, so financially they have nothing to lose.

    Say, for example, how would the New Zealand side of the competition look if you could only protect 6 players from your 'home' unions?

    The Hurricanes could protect, for example, Tialata, Hore, So'ialo, Weepu, Nonu and Smith. Enough of their core to build a team off, but they'd have to draft well to get anywhere.

    The Chiefs could claim Messam, Leonard, Donald, Sivi, Masaga and Mils. Again, 6 good players, but a good set of draft picks would be required to make anything happen.

    It would cut down on the dynasty aspect of the New Zealand (OK, lets face it, Crusader) game, and would act as a great equaliser year-to-year. Of course, some teams will be stronger than others year in and year out, but savvy drafting could make quite a lot of difference. It would also avoid the issue we had a few years ago where the Crusaders protected Mehrtens, Carter and Mauger, and the Hurricanes and Chiefs struggled to find an adequate playmaker. It would also allow players the chance to learn under different coaches

    The Blues will still have a leaky defence though.

    (Oh, and I know the unions are all too retarded to look at this as anything other than a raid on their talent, rather than a gold-plated opportunity to reinforce a teams weakness season-to-season. Plus it'd stop most the rubbish like Chris Jack/Rico Gear trading to Tasman and never playing for them. Too bad it'll never happen.)

    Since Dec 2008 • 161 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    How many can you protect at the moment? 24?

    21 or 15 would seem much more logical numbers. I'd argue for 21 in the modern game, the bench player is as much a part of the team as the guys that start.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Poole,

    Kyle: That'd be 22 then - you're allowed a bench of 7.

    Six is a very small number to protect, I'll admit. But 20+ is far too high. I'm sick of the same-old same-old we see in the S14, and I imagine many fans are too. I want to see Tamati Ellison lining up in the midfield for the Highlanders and Stephen Brett as 1st5/8 for the Blues. Lauaki running around in Red 'n Black (please) and perhaps Kevin Mealamu lining up for the Chiefs.

    I believe the current number is 24. This is far too high - drop it to ten, make the draft a big occasion (First pick goes to lowest-ranked team from previous year. Who will the Highlanders pick in the first round of the 100 available players?!) and televise it. Players get a wider range of experience, people still get to see some of their favourites in home colours - if they're good enough - and it keeps things fresh for the viewers.

    But that's just me. I'm a Chiefs fan, and I wouldn't cry if half their players were different next year (Even though they're looking like they'll be good again) - I'm sure the Highlanders and Blues fans wouldn't be upset either.

    We've got a decent talent pool in NZ. I'f just like to see it spread around a bit.

    Since Dec 2008 • 161 posts Report Reply

  • Naly D,

    Yeah it's 24 Simon. The ARU has told the aussie teams they can only protect 22 players now, to allow more players for the new franchise.
    Me, I reckon that teams should be able to protect 15 players, everything else is up for grabs.

    It's pretty ridiculous at the moment - Hamish Gard wasn't even in the wider training squad at the start of the season, yet he was in the starting XV for some matches.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 307 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    Me, I reckon that teams should be able to protect 15 players, everything else is up for grabs.

    I am against "protecting" players, but I'm all for contracting players.

    With the NZRU's overarching contract system it's very hard for franchises to offer players new contracts when they become (the Super 14 equivalent of) free agents. In fact if players thought about it they wouldn't sign to franchises in the middle of the season, but wait and take bids from multiple teams at the end of the season.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Darlington,

    Alice Cooper used to covertly play golf in the '70s due to the prejudice against golf in the world of rock. Thought it might also have had something to do with his golf mate being David Cassidy.

    A golf game in the seventies with a pre-sober Alice and David Cassidy would be big fun. If Iggy could've been persuaded to come along as well it would be perfect.

    Nelson • Since Nov 2006 • 949 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Kyle: That'd be 22 then - you're allowed a bench of 7.

    Ah yes, my bad.

    I believe the current number is 24. This is far too high - drop it to ten, make the draft a big occasion

    I suspect you'd run into problems with both players and the players union. Players wouldn't want to have their lives be so unpredictable - many have homes and families and having to shift around the country every season based on which team happens to want them would be very disruptive.

    The NHL draft system (which is the only one I know) is an entry draft, not a reassigning of players that already play in the league (that's an expansion draft). The players need to agree to sign a contract with the team that drafts them. I suspect you'd have a lot of players refuse to move from where they live just for a six month contract.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    (With subsequent movements of players to Europe where they can sign a 2 or 3 year contract, earning three times as much money)

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.