Jeremy

I agree with this. I worry that when England plays NZ in a friendly the real loser will be the clubs with guys playing for England. The clubs should disallow their players from playing these futile games. It will take just one agricultural hack from behind by a nobody NZer who is either just useless, with with an inflated ego or with a chip on his shoulder to do some real damage. With no crowd (would only get a really small one anyway) call it off.

Agreed.

Just saw really brief highlights on Youtube and RH interview post match. 4 absolutely superb goals. Vestergard (sp?) goal to get the team's general confidence going was really impressive. I know he's taken a lot of criticism on here but even I, who knows nothing about football, can see he's a really dedicated team player. RH says Ings hopefully not too bad.

Totally agree with both of the first two points. NZ is a pretty racist country. That's why I gave my party vote to the Maori party in our recent election. I'm not Maori.

@ Verlaine - you've got to know about local history first and, yes, "tamed" is probably the right word contextually in the sense of subduing a general proclivity towards aggression and innate warring qualities. Also, for the record, I'm not religious at all. I agree that much destruction was caused by missionary christianity. But not all missionary christianity was destricutive ie some of it was constructive. There is an argument for that case in at least parts of NZ. You'd have to google this but some of those missionaries were instrumental for the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi between Maori and the Crown which, again, was partly motivated by a desire to avoid the genocide that was inflicted on Australian Aborigines at about the same time (especially Tasmania). I imagine some Australian posters on here may object to this generalisation. Again, contextual. Anyway, I gave it a shot.

This is an interesting thread because many posts are thoughtful, even if I disagree with them. There's no right answer or panacea to the way people are or how they think. There's always going to be political arguments about social and distributive justice. I am largely centre-left but I'm also not an apologist for historically bad stuff perpetrated by caucasians (of which I am a member). I had no say in what's happened in the past so I'm not responsible for it. Over here, for example, there is a myth from social marxists that Maori were some unified race who lived together in peace. Think again - they really dealt to each other and it was the introduction of missionary Christianity that eventually tamed that (but only after the musket wars when some Maori tribes got muskets and "settled" inter-tribal grievances). Incidentally, this is where the haka originated from. That said, I also believe in fairness now and for the future. Many things in the past were unfair. That needs to change. How, is the question for me. Personally, going back to the first post in this thread, having a quota system in sport is not the way to go.

I agree with this (and similar posts) and have stopped betting on a PL game (invariably SFC). Ten bucks a week adds up I suppose.

Guys (Turkish and iansums) I'm agreeing with the general proposition that it's just PC to select any team based on some ideal of positive discrimination such as a quota system favouring some minority or a class of individuals who traditionally have been prejudiced. Sort out the system which is the cause, not the selection process and team profile which is a misguided effect. Walk it, don't talk it.

@ Turkish: Not sure what your point is. In sport generally the best players with the best attitude and application do make the top. There is no need for a quota in the England football team for example, 50% of them are black. Just saying I don't believe in any discrimination but using sport as a way of changing systemic prejudice (racism or sexism) is not necessarily the right way to go. I was a protestor in 1981 because the Springboks were a racist team from a racist society at the time. Basically, we wanted them to f@#* off and sort ouf theirr country.

The Springboks rugby team had (not sure now) a black quota system policy and their standard dropped for a while (they are currently rugby world champions). This may have coincided with a general lessening of overall quality that included white players of course. Hard to say. However, people follow sport generally because they want to see the best competing against the best. Maybe this is a poor example, given South Africa's well-known history. I was one of the young demonstrators against the 1981 NZ Tour. But, I believe top quality sport is compromised if the best players aren't involved regardless of what's happening in the wider community. Society needs to change. After that, the changes will be reflected in sport. However, it's not right if somebody who clearly is good enough is not selected on the basis of race or ethnicity. Moh Salah is an obviousl example of how things should work. He's there on merit, not as a token.

And on this, my only concern is that this win and the way the game was played has set a very high benchmark that will be very hard to maintain over a long season. When the team goes through a bad patch, as it probably will at some point, I hope critics don't then say stuff like "what's happened since Everton?", certain players are useless (depending on the view of the particular critic) and RH should get the chop. Success can breed expectiations. That's good, of course, provided it's balanced and realistic. As for me, I intend betting $10 for a Saints win every game for the rest of the season.

Just watched the highlights. Could have been accidental but it was such a bad "accident" it didn't matter. You've got to punish players who go after feet and ankles regardless.

Totally agree but how long will it take for the vultures to start circling with the tempting deals?

Ta

Unusually, I'm thinking about watching this one live. Any ideas where i can stream it for free from outside the UK? Much appreciated.

This one happened agai n yesterday. Driving along the open road and somebody pulls out from an intersection forcing you to slow down when there is nobody behind you for miles. Why some people can't wait a few more seconds beats me.

Really balanced post. If Saints lose (probably likely but obviously hopefully not) then don't lose bad ie get smashed.

Yes. Realistically I'd say the odds favour Everton so I'll be looking to place my usual small bet elsewhere.

This result is why somebody from the other side of the world brought up on rugby who has never been to a Saints game is on here. Saints paid $4.33 at the TAB for a draw. I picked a draw. Labour won the NZ election by a landslide yesterday. Good days.

I really don't know enough about football to contribute much to this thread except for one thing: Leicester almost being relegated and then winning the next season. The current competition allows this to happen (albeit very, very rarely). Would this ever be realistic under the proposal where the big clubs will just get more powerful and it is just a case of what order the top five or six come in? If that happened I could find plenty of other things to do with my time.

Butchering the English language such s pompously saying somebody in authority was "tasked" to do something eg make a decision. How about "authorised" or "required".

Time for a tea break gents.

Agreed. A usual optimiistic $10 on a draw for me.

YES, stunning form from the Villains. My mate from Birmingham will be rapt.

I know this is a digression, but the figures mentioned on this thread about transfers and weekly payment/salaries for a 31 year-old footballer are pretty astonishing. What's the average salary over your way? I assume people with real jobs (plasterers - see the Lounge, police, teachers, people in the NHS and plenty so on) don't get this. The All Blacks get paid well over here, but I doubt the difference is as big as footballers. Is Messi really worth what he gets paid (presumably a shed load)? Just saying.