Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Why we may well win the Cup

The All Blacks win over the French on the weekend was one of the most complete games I've seen in years.

Jerry Collins was magnificent as were the other Wellingtonians, So'oialo, Weepu, and Smith (who may have nailed the Centre spot). Jerry's quoted in today's SMH on keeping the French scoreless:

"It's like when you're little, 'last try wins in some cases'. It's a good way to leave Lyon, with a massive defensive effort".

That attitude is what will win us the Cup.


Anonymous said...

This is a familiar story - the All Blacks beating the rest of the world before the World Cup. The real question is whether you can resist choking yet again and make it to the final!

backin15 said...

Agreed. The only difference between this campaign and the last two is that the ABs can tolerate injuries in key positions although it would be very bad news if either McCaw or Carter were unable to play. In both the '03 and '99 campaigns, NZ had make-shift Centres. That said, the '99 loss to the French was not down to anything the ABs didn't do, it was the French pulling something out of their arses!

The '95 game final was a draw - I switched of the tele, didn't everyone else?

crasster said...

I posted a comment, but it seems to have gone awry. The gist of my earlier comment was that most NZers are discussing whether or not we will have a venue for the final ready or not. The choices have been narrowed to a new development on the Auckland waterfront or redeveloping Eden park. Both options have merits (and minuses). But the story I would like to see aired is why the decision-making on this has been left to the very last minute and that all parties are being asked to come up with options and decide on which is the best in a matter of weeks. It's an outrage really. None of this should have come to anyone's surprise. to have left such an important decision, like the venue, to the last minute is either an outrageous abuse of power to force decision-making or it's incompetence of the grossest kind. Frankly, given New Zealand has appointed a Minister to head up our preparedness for this event, I would have thought a more open, inclusive approach might have been taken on such an important decision. I believe Mallard should be sacked. Like I say, this is either a pretty gross abuse of power (to force all parties on the back foot) or it's incompetence - either way, he should be scalped.

backin15 said...

I've not followed it but am aware of the discussions. Eden Park is such a difficult location with little to recommend it as a destination - the best stadium I've been too is the Melbourne Telstra dome - it's got a distict around it that's full of resturants and bars and stuff to do. Neither Jade, nor Eden Park have this whereas the whalf option would. However, I'm told by engineering-minded family members the whalf option is logistically risky. Carlaw appeals to me.

I see elsewhere you've suggested Chch; that'd ensure I didn't go.

crasster said...

Almost all of the commentators and decision-makers have said Jade is the default backstop option. I've no view about Christchurch as a venue, but if Jade is everyone's second best option and there is no consensus on the best option, wouldn't sound decision-making suggest going with everyone's second best option? Carlaw's been bounced as an idea. As you could well imagine, I am not that interested in this debate except what it says about how the decision to expend millions and millions of taxpayer's funds was reached. This simply seems like a terrible decision-making process being driven (or not as the case may be) by the Minister in charge.

backin15 said...

Everyone's second best option don't make it a good one - Canberra for instance!

There has to be an agreement and it has to be in Akl.

The Minister may well have become too involved, I genuinely don't know (and am not being unduly sycophantic about an old boss) but the final cannot be played anywhere other than Akl.

crasster said...

Yeah, I don't know either. There's a lot of political mist covering all of this. Mallard was on the radio this morning saying that there were all kinds of problems at Eden Park, whereas Eden Park is saying it has advanced designs ("a book six inches thick of design detail") compared with sketches only for the waterfront development. According to the Eden Park proponents, this one thing puts Eden Park at least nine months ahead of the waterfront. Who knows. I agree though, that for long-term viability, Auckland is a much better bet than Christchurch or anywhere else in New Zealand, for that matter.

backin15 said...

I am fearful of a compromise, but not as much as I am fearful that we'll lose the cup because we screw this up.