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
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.
@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".
We've got three of our top five all-time ODI batsmen in one team and one of our best ever ODI bowlers at the peak of his powers, plus a decent supporting cast. Now is the time to shine.
@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.
Well, there's definitely a growing movement / school of thought around Labour having gone too hard, too soon. The 'Jacinda is a bleeding heart' at the expense of the economy insinuations are mounting, that kind of thing. Our response is being compared to Australias' which after a rough start has flattened the curve whilst not paralyising their economy to the same extent as we have. What Qantas has done as compared to Air NZ is an interesting sub-set which in some ways compares to each nations' governmental response.
I'm really on the fence.
There was always going to be an example or handful of examples of nations who found - either through good luck or good management - a better balance between economic ruin and death rate than others. Perhaps Australia may end up being one of these. And all others were going to be compared to these countries. Easy in hindsight of course; there's no playbook for this kind of event. So it's hard to criticise the Govt for going hard, early as a low death rate is commendable. But at what cost?
As it stands we have five deaths and - thus far - all among the elderly. So perhaps 20 families are mourning the (somewhat arguably) premature loss of a loved one. None of us wants that, and don't get me wrong it saddens me greatly. It's horrific that these loved family members are to a large degree dying alone also. But meanwhile, thousands of NZ families are facing financial hardship and in order to keep the death rate this low. What is the cost of this circumstance? Financial ruin for many, no doubt. A lower standard of living for many more. More people who can't afford to go to their GP and therefore a greater strain on the health sysytem in years to come? Likely. An increase in suicides? You'd hate to think so, but how can this not be a legitimate repercussion of some of the aforementioned factors.
When the Sky Tower was built, the contractor factored into their costs a number of accidents and deaths. Realistically, no matter how much you mitigate against accidents and death, on a project of that scale, it's highly unlikely you'll emerge unscathed. Ultimately there was one death, which is horrible of course. Could the Govt have looked at this pandemic along these lines? Could they (did they?) model based on a lesser lockdown (say level 3) and higher death rate (say 100 or 200 people, presumably predominantly elderly)? Was there even time for this?
I think what we're going to end up with - with the benefit of hindsight - is a drastic backlash against the Govt if the death rate remains low when all is said and done, but we're in recession and a large proportion of the general population is facing signficantly worse financial cirsumstance than pre-lockdown. Australia - and others - may well be in a far better economic position with a similar per capita death rate and some very difficult questions will need to be answered.
Actually, why shouldn't we do a Cricket Australia and relegate our neighbours to second tier venues for 30 years or so? We should in all seriousness send a message to the ARU and host the Wallabies next year in Invercargill.
@sparky said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Machpants 98th game against the Old Foe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_New_Zealand_and_South_Africa
100th could be a RWC final!
When do we get our chips embedded in our our necks??
I can't be fucked tending to it, aside from making the rub. I'd ideally like to be able to put it on at say 6am and by 6pm have some approximate Franklin BBQ level brisket ready to slice up.
@pukunui Yep, well, if only that were possible. Best of both worlds right there. I hoped for a moment that the Govt would deem the stadium worthy of further investment to stimulate jobs after the loxkdown, but I think that's a dead duck.
What's the best thing to buy if I just want to slow cook / smoke big slabs of brisket for a day? I want deep crust and a nice red smoke ring between the crust and meat.
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The commercial landlord went to the principal tenants and asked what they wanted before starting, just like every commercial landlord in the country would. Said tenants said they wanted a roof, so the landlord discussed the impact on budget and the number of seats, and the tenants still wanted a roof, so that's what they're getting.
Also, most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums. Obviously that's not the case 100% of the time, but it's a lot more common than not.
Your last paragraph is hocum. Elton John played his NZ gigs earlier this year outdoors. And in 2015 we saw him at the Cake Tin.
Springsteen played at Christchurch Stadium and we saw him at Mt Smart.
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
Hocum yourself - I specifically said not 100% of the time.
The truly big shows are at outdoor stadiums. U2, the Foo Fighters also. Quite a lot of them.
The point is, is the MUA actually even big enough to attract these acts?
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I think you're overdoing the whole FIFA thing but I agree with you about the roof.
How many concerts do they think they will get anyway?
Given the choice my priorities for a stadium would be 1 A rectangle - fuck all this multi sport shit 2 Correctly aligned vis a vis prevailing winds 3 Great Viewing lines from every seat. 4 Steep stands see 2 above but also for atmosphere 5 65% of spectators stay dry 6 Good amentities for spectators 7 Good links to public transport 8 Covered stadium 9 Pretty design
Someone talking sense.
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The commercial landlord went to the principal tenants and asked what they wanted before starting, just like every commercial landlord in the country would. Said tenants said they wanted a roof, so the landlord discussed the impact on budget and the number of seats, and the tenants still wanted a roof, so that's what they're getting.
Also, most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums. Obviously that's not the case 100% of the time, but it's a lot more common than not.
Your last paragraph is hocum. Elton John played his NZ gigs earlier this year outdoors. And in 2015 we saw him at the Cake Tin.
Springsteen played at Christchurch Stadium and we saw him at Mt Smart.
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
@Kiwiwomble It's knee-jerk in that a huge part of the reasoning behind the MUA is to get concerts which may otherwise go to Dunedin, and by far the concerts which have attracted the most publicity in this regard are the series of Ed Sheeran gigs Dunedin got a couple of years back. From that point on, the momentum swung unequivocally towards the MUA concept and those concerts remain a focal point whenever anyone promotes the economic benefit of the MUA.
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Waste of money, on this dump.
not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy
It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.
How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.
this, seems like a weird strawman augment to accelerate building a new stadium "wont someone think of the tourisim!"
most people from anywhere outside Aussie will only come to NZ once, maybe twice if they do north once and south the other....if theyve already been and seen the "shitbox" as you call it (an awesome feat of engineering being design and built in like 6 months for me)...there was probably little chance of them coming back even if coming to see a stadium was the reason the travelled
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Waste of money, on this dump.
not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy
It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.
How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.
People travel to cities because of iconic buildings and landmarks. I went to Dallas last year largely because of a cool stadium which was the shop window. And I can tell you the city itself - aside from a neighbourhood called Deep Ellum - is a bit of a bore. You don't think the inverse can be the case?
you may do that but you cant think thats the norm for everyone, and we're talking chch, world renowned buildings of significance were never on the cards other than some of the clever emerancy works done after the earthquake...like the shit box you hate so much
chch is the gateway to the south island, thats its main draw card, people expecting Wembley or the Camp Nou have delusions of grandeur
You're kidding, right?? The entire argument for the MUA which is going to be built is tourism! It's about Ed Sheeran concerts. The fact that it creates a dry sporting arena is secondary. If you're not abreast of that then you have no place in this debate.
no one is travelling from outside Nz to come see a concert in chch, doubt too may people will be coming from outside the south island and if they are they coming to see the concert and not the stadium as you alluded too as a tourism pull earlier, maybe pick an argument and stick to it
and as for "Knee jerk decision"...its taken the better part of a decade...i cant imagine anything less Knee Jerk if i tried
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums.
Because most acts go to Auckland and that's it. Before Spark Arena was built that stat would have been completely different. It might still be so if Eden Park could hold concerts.
As I said how many concerts do they think they'll get? How many acts want to book a 25k seat stadium in a city with a population of less than half a mill and a broader catchment of under 1 Mill?
Dunedin normally gets a couple of big ones year plus lots of smaller local events and thats a much smaller population base
You're obviously not familiar with my standpoint on this. That combined with the fact that the debate has become a little convoluted over the last few posts.
I'm certainly not arguing for a MUA, let alone for the ludicrous reason that it might attract the occasional big gig. You've just made the sound point that very few people would travel to Chch for a gig. This is another reason the MUA is a major fuck up.
I'm not saying people will travel to Chch for a stadium. I'm saying people can be put off travelling to Chch due to a shit stadium - the existing one - being their sole vision of the city.
