Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
Meanwhile, anyone who does the vege shopping will be noticing the sump in the retail price of produce: I have no figures on it, but it seems to me that January prices have arrived at the beginning of December; driven down, at least in part, by the plummeting price of petrol. Confused?
In my mind this now means that lots of farms were growing veges in barrels of oil.
I've got them growing in black 25 litre PVC bags against a fence in full sun - some of them are starting to behave like vines & growing along the fence. It looks cool.
Planting potatoes in bags this weekend.
Dude, there's this thing called 'the ground' y'know?
-
Dude, wtf are you feeding that penguin?
Baby seals.
The original image had red eyes. While this is an accurate representation of penguins, it looked too psycho for a logo.
-
Kyle, you should make your logo like this one so you can charge $170 a ticket.
Sadly, we've run into problems ripping off other franchise's logos previously. And, while the Pittsburgh logo is pretty famous, it's a silly cartoon penguin. We're going for 'angry penguin!'
Our design was done by a graphic artist in Toronto who designs alternative logos for NHL teams in his spare time. He posted this on the web and we asked him if we could use it, and he agreed.
-
The simple thing is - buying the shirts is not compulsory. If parents can't equip their kids with enough savvy to realise that they are still loved despite not being able to afford this season's strip then it is hardly the fault of the NZRFU or the franchises or Adidas or whoever.
I think that's a rose-tinted view of the way sports franchises work hard with the use of merchandise.
Redesigns every one or two years, horrendous pricing with no cheap replica versions available, and the way merchandising is tagged onto all the community work that sports franchises do. Plus the worship that these kids have for their sporting idols, they want to look just like them. All the NHL teams are currently launching 'retro' 3rd tops, which is simply an attempt to jump on the back of the popularity of the old style 70s and 80s ice hockey tops. Over $100 each, less than half of which is the actual cost of the top.
It's all very well to say that parents can teach their kids that they don't need a top, but they want to be at the games, support their team, wear the colours, and half their friends have the stuff. All of which franchises love.
Which I wouldn't mind, if they did it for the community and sold things for minimal profit. They don't.
-
Well this weekend there is a meeting with all the franchises where all the jerseys are laid out for each game and potential colour clashes are sorted then.
Maybe I operate at a different level of jersey creation than Adidas.
But wouldn't it make sense to do this at the draft stage rather than, after launch? Currently, any team with a home blue top, who plays the Blues at home, is going to have to wear their 'away' top to do so.
Or have a simple rule which gets around it (away tops predominantly white).
I'm currently redesigning tops for my sports club, starting with a new logo. One of the first considerations was "which teams do we regularly play against, what colours should we therefore avoid?
-
I'm absolutely in favour of league tables to decide league-style tournaments. The IRB rankings use league tables to find the winner of a non-existing league-style tournament, and that makes no sense to me (or anybody else really).
I view the rankings system as vaguely sensible, and useful for a number of things, not the least, pool allocation for the world cup.
I wouldn't say it makes us world champion, the best it would make us is the 'number one ranked team'. For which there should be no trophy. Maybe a certificate?
-
France’s record against NZ in the professional era hasn’t been that flash either.
Yup. And NZ losing to France isn't a complete surprise. France normally get their butts kicked by NZ, but occasionally, seemingly on big occasions, they play 'one of those games'. They're that sort of team. England aren't.
-
The 2007 All Black team was not going at full guns.
I should clarify my point.
I mean, putting the best available team on the field. As compared to what they did in that Northern tour a while ago where they drew to France and lost to England, which was leave some of the best players behind.
The only two games NZ has lost to England in the professional era were that game in Twickenham in 2002 (by 3 points), and the game in Wellington in 2003 (by 2).
So I don't see NZ losing to England unless England brings something at the level of that 2003 team (which 2007 definitely wasn't), or NZ puts a B team on the field (which they wouldn't have done in the semis).
-
My mum will be dead proud. :)
Robbery will be along shortly to encourage you to take up your copyrights Sacha.
-
We’d have struggled to beat England, who had sorted out their defence by then, and were clearly inferior to South Africa AT THAT TIME.
It's all guesswork, but I doubt we would have struggled to beat England.
The All Blacks have never lost to England at a world cup, though playing them in 2003 might have been interesting. Despite making the final and beating Australia and France it wasn't a particularly good English team.
I think that the All Blacks are a very talented team, and what beats the All Blacks when they're going full guns is another very talented team. That's France having it's crazy French top games and Australia and South Africa.
England in 2003? Maybe, that was a team built to win. 2007? Pretty average, bad going into the cup, well cleaned up in a pool match to finish 2nd etc. Did well to make the final.