Off Topic

terryslovechild offtopic dump

62 replies · 1,089 views
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Feverish wrote:
Scottishbhoy wrote:
Why do you lot persist with such an inferior member?
 
bopman's not inferior -but  i just had to disagree with him though cos i thought it was wrong - not cos i care
 
 
Noooo TLC.

ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Feverish wrote:

that don't look much like NZ to me

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Scottishbhoy wrote:
Why do you lot persist with such an inferior member?

and what the f**k?

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
We wouldn't want to out anyone, then we'd get in trouble

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rodfarva wrote:
martinb wrote:
ballane wrote:
terryslovechild wrote:

Dont worry about rugby lads just worry about Football in New Zeland lasting at least 4 years without going bankrupt. 

Remember the following
 
1.Knights
2.Kingz
3.Phoenix
4.All Whites
5.The National League
6.Micheal Utting
7.The last time NZ played in Wellington - huge crowd
8.Capital Football
9.Any New Zealand team that goes to a World Championship or Olympics - its ok to be beaten in every game!!
10.Ryan Neilson - Something up at Blackburn is it Ryan? All of a sudden you love NZ again
 
Enjoy the Lions tonight - 6 from 6 coming
 

Remember this you muppet NZ has NEVER won a true world cup in rugby.The only one they could manage had there best opposition excluded. As for the next WC just watch the rules get changed so players outside NZ can be picked.

'I love the smell of troll in the morning, it smells like...'
 
Think we won the womens didn't we? That got more coverage than the football. errr...not.
 
Heck...Utts is a legend. Great keeper. And we drew with China- not bad on comparative populations, though we should have won. The Admiral is back for the world cup. Takes a 4 year cycle, not much in between.
 
Soon the rugby chaps are going to wake up to the fact that we might be the Brazil of Rugby, but that doesn't mean they rule the game.
 
peace out
 
no, they won't wake up to this "fact". who is saying we rule the game? we're consistenly the best team in the world, albeit without winning world cups. mate our rugby team beats countries with way bigger populations on a regular basis. yes we actually beat them, not just rubbish teams from the pacific islands. NZ are rubbish at football and we will be for a long time. narrow minded idiots wake up to that would you instead of spouting off all this crap about football taking over the country. not going to happen.


what I mean is we have all the best players in other rich peoples teams...


Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
bopman wrote:
Feverish wrote:

that don't look much like NZ to me
 
oh so NZ rugby fans are poorer than them?

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
That wasn't so much my point but i would hazard a guess those football shirts cost very very very very little, infact those kids may have made those shirts if we are being quite honest

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
giddyup wrote:
The lions have the same promtion as last home game, all adults can bring as many kids too the games as they like for free, three or four years ago that would be unheard of, somethings changing

 
this doesn't have as much to do with football as it does the over satuaration of product the rugby fans are getting. crowds have ben dropping all over the country for rugby over the last couple of years, i don't think it has anything at all to do with football. all the super14 games and all blacks games and then airNZ cup, that's a lot of good quality product right there. only the most intense supporters would attend every game.
 
think of it this way. if the hurricanes were the only rugby team in NZ and only had as many home super14 games per year as the phoenix, no other games of the same quality anywhere else in the country, i'd wager you'd get full houses at all the hurricanes games. that's the difference. phoenix struggle to get 10 thousand. when the phoenix have full houses every week, then talk about football being competitive to rugby's popularity.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
bopman wrote:
That wasn't so much my point but i would hazard a guess those football shirts cost very very very very little, infact those kids may have made those shirts if we are being quite honest
 
the people i know who go to the rugby here are loaded.I think its the complete opposite to what you were saying. The people who watch rugby are not the ones who play it. The ones who 'support' rugby and go to the games are 50yr old couples were the husband used to play a bit when he was twenty years of age. These type dont wear rugby tops - they could definetly afford them if they wanted to as they are prob partners in a law firm or something.
Footy supporters on the other hand prob have less $ but are more passionate about the game. I had about 5 kits during my teens - yet cant say my income was that big.
It has NOTHING to do with money. Those homeboys who play rugby prob spend their money on bling.
 
Please admit you were wrong in your theory when you get a few minutes

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Feverish wrote:
bopman wrote:
That wasn't so much my point but i would hazard a guess those football shirts cost very very very very little, infact those kids may have made those shirts if we are being quite honest
 
the people i know who go to the rugby here are loaded.I think its the complete opposite to what you were saying. The people who watch rugby are not the ones who play it. The ones who 'support' rugby and go to the games are 50yr old couples were the husband used to play a bit when he was twenty years of age. These type dont wear rugby tops - they could definetly afford them if they wanted to as they are prob partners in a law firm or something.
Footy supporters on the other hand prob have less $ but are more passionate about the game. I had about 5 kits during my teens - yet cant say my income was that big.
It has NOTHING to do with money. Those homeboys who play rugby prob spend their money on bling.
 
Please admit you were wrong in your theory when you get a few minutes
I still disagree. Certainly where i grew up, Rotorua, soccer was and still is a middle class game. Maybe not so much in the big centres.
Will take on board your point about who follows rugby, perhaps we can agree rugby attracts a larger cross section of demographics?

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
ok so i wasnt talking about Rotovegas

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I didn't realise there was a 'rich' and 'poor' sport for people in NZ.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Arsenal wrote:
I didn't realise there was a 'rich' and 'poor' sport for people in NZ.
 
Rugby and League?!?

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rodfarva wrote:
giddyup wrote:
The lions have the same promtion as last home game, all adults can bring as many kids too the games as they like for free, three or four years ago that would be unheard of, somethings changing

 
this doesn't have as much to do with football as it does the over satuaration of product the rugby fans are getting. crowds have ben dropping all over the country for rugby over the last couple of years, i don't think it has anything at all to do with football. all the super14 games and all blacks games and then airNZ cup, that's a lot of good quality product right there. only the most intense supporters would attend every game.
 
think of it this way. if the hurricanes were the only rugby team in NZ and only had as many home super14 games per year as the phoenix, no other games of the same quality anywhere else in the country, i'd wager you'd get full houses at all the hurricanes games. that's the difference. phoenix struggle to get 10 thousand. when the phoenix have full houses every week, then talk about football being competitive to rugby's popularity.


I would think that with one or two more NZ teams in the A-League would see increased crowds to Phoenix games due to increased exposure of football in media but also from regional rivalry which hypes the game up. So rather then diluting support, more teams i think would equal more support.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rodfarva wrote:
 
 mate our rugby team beats countries with way bigger populations on a regular basis. yes we actually beat them, not just rubbish teams from the pacific islands.

Australia: Three sports more dominant than union, of the four 'football' codes it is the weakest.
British Isles: Football is by far the biggest sport and Union is very much an upper-class sport and also has to compete with League, and in Ireland, Gaelic football.
France: Football is by far the most dominant sport, even in the supposed rugby stronghold of the south.
Italy: Football is even more dominant.
South Africa: Probably the largest Rugby-playing population but even then it is a stuggle for the poorer people to really get far.

Frankly NZ may have the smallest playing population out of any of those nations but it is not by much. We are simply very effective at turning 1stVI schoolboys into professional players of a high quality.
Critical_Lemon2008-09-10 18:19:55
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Don't forget Argentina, although I've heard a rumour they play football there too...
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
terryslovechild = danielsleftball?

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Critical_Lemon wrote:


rodfarva wrote:
�

�mate our rugby team beats countries with way bigger populations on a regular basis. yes we actually beat them, not just rubbish teams from the pacific islands.
Australia: Three sports more dominant than union, of the four 'football' codes it is the weakest.British Isles: Football is by far the biggest sport and Union is very much an upper-class sport and also has to compete with League, and in Ireland, Gaelic football.France: Football is by far the most dominant sport, even in the supposed rugby stronghold of the south.Italy: Football is even more dominant.South Africa: Probably the largest Rugby-playing population but even then it is a stuggle for the poorer people to really get far.Frankly NZ may have the smallest playing population out of any of those nations but it is not by much. We are simply very effective at turning 1stVI schoolboys into professional players of a high quality.

Im pretty sure the amount of registered players in the British Isles outstrips NZ by quite some way, as does South Africa. Australia i think have more but not by much.

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Sorry to butt in but I thought it might be interesting to provide some figures from the IRB website. Also provides an ideal excuse to procrastinate from the case I'm meant to be writing up.
 
1) There are 91 countries ranked in the IRB rankings
Interestingly, Finland have a team of sorts. I would never have guessed.
 
Registered players in the top 20 countries are as follows (with total population in brackets from Wikipedia):
1. New Zealand: 139968 (4 268 000)
2. South Africa: 511561 (47 900 000 )
3. Australia: (no data for players)
4. Argentina: 79348 (40,677,348 )
5. England: 698163 (50,762,900)
6. Wales 42000 (3,004,600)
7. France 282121 (64,473,140)
8. Ireland 114627 (5,981,448)
9. Scotland (no player data available)
10. Italy 61354 (59,619,290)
11. Fiji 22605 (853,445 )
12. Samoa 23179 (214,265 )
13. Tonga 7720 (112,000 )
14. Georgia 3198 (4,630,841)
15. Canada 18207 (33,371,000)
16. Japan 122672 (127,433,494)
17. Romania 7535 (22,246,862)
18. Russia 13505 (142,008,838)
19. Uruguay 4550 (3,477,778 )
20. USA 67398 (305,089,000)
Feel free to ignore this as you wish, or use it to furnish your argument. Kept me occupied for half an hour anyway.
 
For interest's sake, Finland has 402 players out of a total population of 5,318,196. Not a bad chnce of getting into the national team then.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Bullion wrote:
rodfarva wrote:
giddyup wrote:
The lions have the same promtion as last home game, all adults can bring as many kids too the games as they like for free, three or four years ago that would be unheard of, somethings changing

 
this doesn't have as much to do with football as it does the over satuaration of product the rugby fans are getting. crowds have ben dropping all over the country for rugby over the last couple of years, i don't think it has anything at all to do with football. all the super14 games and all blacks games and then airNZ cup, that's a lot of good quality product right there. only the most intense supporters would attend every game.
 
think of it this way. if the hurricanes were the only rugby team in NZ and only had as many home super14 games per year as the phoenix, no other games of the same quality anywhere else in the country, i'd wager you'd get full houses at all the hurricanes games. that's the difference. phoenix struggle to get 10 thousand. when the phoenix have full houses every week, then talk about football being competitive to rugby's popularity.


I would think that with one or two more NZ teams in the A-League would see increased crowds to Phoenix games due to increased exposure of football in media but also from regional rivalry which hypes the game up. So rather then diluting support, more teams i think would equal more support.
 
yeah i can't see that being the case. for starters there aren't even enough good players for one good NZ based team, let alone 2 or 3. so again, until the phoenix are playing in front of full houses every week then this debate is all a bit redundant.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
We can use australian players too remember. Would just dilute the talent of NZ players in the sides,which would probably disinterest the NZ public

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink