Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I also love the fact that this year's Tri-Nations looks like a battle between three pretty even teams.
Agreed.
Our worst tackler was Corey Jane (attempted four and made one, with no assists) not a good look for our fullback cover
Not good and I'd not noticed - he did take a high balls well though I thought he had a quiet game. I wonder if he'll be picked for the Boks since I understood he was picked to specifically counter the Wallabies anticipated kicking game.
Also, though I think Thorn's doing great in defence, I wonder if he's as good in the line-out as he needs to be. When I watched the game a second time, it was very noticable that the lineout forwards deliberately don't look at the thrower, presumably to disguise their intentions. Perhaps if they all looked at the thrower, the disguise would be as effective but the timing would be improved?
If you're reading this Steve Hansen, I'm happy to accept a couple of tickets to the Sydney game for the hot-tip...
We've allowed our worship of Deans to blind us to the glaring deficiencies in Australian rugby. Henry has now out thought & out coached Deans for at least the start of a second season - in particular, Deans poor use of the bench compared to the AB's coaches was striking.
I don't know about this ... yet. The Wallabies could well have won that game were it not for a missed pass (Barnes) and mistake at a tap-and-run (Palu) and less inexplicable penalties at scrum time (one for certain seemed entirely inexplicable). Deans bench didn't perform whereas Henry's did and they don't have the depth we do - Weepu and Mealamu were particularly effective. Still, I think both teams are as close as they've ever been only I expect we'll lift at a faster rate than they will (not least of all because of Carter's return).
-
Then I apologise.
My suggestion was only meant to be that if she took ownership of the story (that I mistakenly thought was genuine) then it would have had more impact.
I didn't mean to piss on anyone.
I did come off that way, good to clarify and apologise.
-
Morgan, I found the speculation about Emma's motivations offensive. It seemed to be an attempt to diminish the significance of the point she was making. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but that's how it came across to me.
-
Hey Morgan, good that you had a good childhood, really good, but I find some of your comment gratuitous and frankly offensive. I don't think for a moment Emma's suggesting all Dads are violent or that all separations are due to violence.
-
Thank you Emma.
-
I think Dr Worth goes against the grain, or at least against the reign.
Just so I'm clear about what I mean and don't. I don't think personal issues, marriages and kids etc, ought to be factors in assessing a Minister's competence. I think/hope I've been consistent on this score but if not, I'm prepared to be chastised. Criminal acts, be they of a sexual nature or otherwise, clearly are however. I did think it was the allegations of potentially criminal sexual offending that led to Worth resigning. And, I did think Key handled it badly to the extent that he didn't say why he was so ardently opposed to Worth having a future in National.
This is why I compared Key's (in)action with Clark's re Samuels. Once it became clear Samuel's could face a rape charge, he was stood down. When the matter was clearer up Samuels was restored, eventually. Compare the release Craig linked to with Key's equivocation; I think Key's fallen well short of what the public and his Ministry could reasonably to expect of him in the situation.
-
Paul: If you're linking them with my severely stretched credulity that Eddie's basing his claims on anything more than GOSSIP then yes -- really. But, hey, what goes around comes around.
Leaving to one side my conflation of "adultery" with "sexual misconduct", I did think Worth's sacking was to do with the allegations of criminal acts, not the questions about his business dealings (which I understood were matters to do with the Cabinet Office Manual).
Either way, and I know this repetition will annoy you, Key's refusal to say why Worth no longer has his confidence is what is fueling this. Regardless of what you believe Eddie's insights are, the absence of a clear reason for the sacking/resignation will only serve to encourage speculation.
-
Sofie, I think the fact that we're debating what led to his demise, allegations of sexual misconduct or improper commercial behaviour, is the most significant element of the situation.
Key's simply not addressed the public right to know what's led to a Minister being removed.
-
So not at all in fact for what Eddie is claiming. Just so we're clear on that.
... I see what you mean, yes...
-
I'd thought he was sacked/asked to resigned because of both (a) the allegations of sexual misconduct and, as Kyle's reminded me, (b) not being forthcoming about them when the PMs office initial investigated.