So called Auckland bias

So called Auckland bias

Post by Bobs » Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:32:15


I am waiting for some Cantabs to challange the following paragraph is my
feature article! Can you please explain the following to me.

 Bias. Something that mainlanders have taken to an art form. Why is it

Quote:
> that when Auckland DOMINATED NZ rugby (85-97) we only had one AB coach
> from Auckland? From the years of 85-95 we NEVER had an AB coach from
> Auckland despite Auckland romping stomping any hick team from NZ.
> However, as soon as Canterbury FINALLY get a good team, they get a
coach
> from their province straight away! Why? Is it because we must amuse
> these pathetic clowns from sheepsville and pretend that we actually
> respect their (lack of) importance? Well, maybe, but I think we have
> another more sinister reason. Corruption and ***. How else can you
> explain the high % of AB coaches from Canterbury despite Auckland
having
> the best record and nearly three times the population? However, people
> still accuse Auckland of having an "Auckland mafia" and only picking
> themselves in the AB's. EXCUSE ME, but how can we pick ourselves when
we
> have a low representation in the selection process?? Have you biased
> fools looked at yourself lately?

This is a killer point, and I think this needs to be answered. What are
you afraid of?
 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Roger K » Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:38:54

Quote:

>I am waiting for some Cantabs to challange the following paragraph is my
>feature article! Can you please explain the following to me.

I think you may only find the solice you require by talking to your
imaginary friend ..

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Andy » Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:39:56

during that time if you look at the selection committee for the Coach and in
fact look at the NZRFU Committee / Board you will find that in fact for many
years there was not a single Canterbury representative as the South Island
was represented by people such as Tim Gresson from Timaru and John Spicer
from Otago also Mark Peters from Buller.

Now i know you are very informed but a bit of homework on this one would
show that the bias is a load of bollocks.

You will also find that John Hart (Auckland) two main choices as his
assistant in 1998-99 (because he believed they were the best coaches
available) were Wayne Smith and Robbie Deans.

Your "point" requires little further comment because it is ridiculous.  For
instance should Graham Henry not be the next All Black coach in 2 years time
because Auckland are not performing well then - no you look at HIS coaching
record not the current team.  Bollocks bollocks bollocks to you.

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Bobs » Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:50:09

Quote:

> during that time if you look at the selection committee for the Coach and in
> fact look at the NZRFU Committee / Board you will find that in fact for many
> years there was not a single Canterbury representative as the South Island
> was represented by people such as Tim Gresson from Timaru and John Spicer
> from Otago also Mark Peters from Buller.

You had the coach you foolish oaf! Not to mention Canterbury were so terrible
they were regarded by many as lucky to be in the first division.

Quote:

> Now i know you are very informed but a bit of homework on this one would
> show that the bias is a load of bollocks.

> You will also find that John Hart (Auckland) two main choices as his
> assistant in 1998-99 (because he believed they were the best coaches
> available) were Wayne Smith and Robbie Deans.

That's because the corrupt NZRFU made sure Henry was out of the picture.

Quote:

> Your "point" requires little further comment because it is ridiculous.  For
> instance should Graham Henry not be the next All Black coach in 2 years time
> because Auckland are not performing well then - no you look at HIS coaching
> record not the current team.  Bollocks bollocks bollocks to you.

That's the difference oaf. You one eyed little sheep shaggers would never allow
an Auckland coach unless we were the best. Even then, you would moan and moan
about it until the pressure on the coach would be terrible. Just like John Hart
in 1992. Funny how Mr Mains got to be coach. It must have been something to do
with Otago winning the NPC in 1991. Stuff the fact that Auckland had won the
previous four and had 14 starting AB's.

Pathetic. Back to 'milking' the goats for you, farmer boy.

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Andy » Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:22:27

Quote:


>> during that time if you look at the selection committee for the Coach and
in
>> fact look at the NZRFU Committee / Board you will find that in fact for
many
>> years there was not a single Canterbury representative as the South
Island
>> was represented by people such as Tim Gresson from Timaru and John Spicer
>> from Otago also Mark Peters from Buller.

>You had the coach you foolish oaf! Not to mention Canterbury were so
terrible
>they were regarded by many as lucky to be in the first division.

Who do you think appointed the coach?  A committee made up of
representatives elected by the 27 provincial unions.  Unfortunately there
was not a Canterbury representative as the other unions did not vote for
one.  Therefore if a Canterbury bias was present it was a pretty big
*** including the majority of rugby unions in the country.  Yet if
Canterbury was that popular you would have expected their representative to
have been selected.  A bias requires a fair amount of affiliation to the
province that the bias is for you OAF.  Sometimes I even wonder where you
dream these things up.

Quote:

>> Now i know you are very informed but a bit of homework on this one would
>> show that the bias is a load of bollocks.

>> You will also find that John Hart (Auckland) two main choices as his
>> assistant in 1998-99 (because he believed they were the best coaches
>> available) were Wayne Smith and Robbie Deans.

>That's because the corrupt NZRFU made sure Henry was out of the picture.

I think any educated rugby follower knows the chances of Hart wanting Henry
or Henry working with Hart were realistically as likely as Hart choosing
Grizz Wyllie as an assistant.  Nothing to do with whether he was available
or not.  There is not a lot of love lost there.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>> Your "point" requires little further comment because it is ridiculous.
For
>> instance should Graham Henry not be the next All Black coach in 2 years
time
>> because Auckland are not performing well then - no you look at HIS
coaching
>> record not the current team.  Bollocks bollocks bollocks to you.

>That's the difference oaf. You one eyed little sheep shaggers would never
allow
>an Auckland coach unless we were the best. Even then, you would moan and
moan
>about it until the pressure on the coach would be terrible. Just like John
Hart
>in 1992. Funny how Mr Mains got to be coach. It must have been something to
do
>with Otago winning the NPC in 1991. Stuff the fact that Auckland had won
the
>previous four and had 14 starting AB's.

>Pathetic. Back to 'milking' the goats for you, farmer boy.

My personal view is that at the time John Hart was the best choice.  He had
done so well at provincial level that we had to see if he could foot it.  At
the time there was no-one else with their hand up except Henry who would
have done well enough in the job.  Henry would have been alright with me
too.

This last selection I would have taken Smith, Gilbert or Boe.  And I think
that the NZRFU of the candidates available to them this time had no choice
but to pick the coach that had won the Super 12 three times in a row.  Not a
case of Canty bias - Henry was not in the frame - who else are you
suggesting?  For there to be bias there has to be a better alternative.

Now correct me if I am wrong but Grizz was from Canty and so is Smith who
are the others?  Grizz was a choice in a straight out slug fest with Hart
and I think you will find it had a lot more to do with Hart's personality
and politicking than any Auckland bias.

And finally for the record I predict that Grant Fox will make a damn fine
All Black coach in the future and that Sean Fitzpatrick will be one of the
best managers we have ever seen.

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by ...To » Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:09:18


Quote:
>I am waiting for some Cantabs to challange the following paragraph is my
>feature article! Can you please explain the following to me.

No I can't, because I don't read most of your articles Bob. They're
invariably a complete load of shit, and you've got such a big chip on
your shoulder I spend the whole time wanting to add sauce.

...Tom

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Alan Luchett » Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:30:15


Quote:
> > Bias. Something that mainlanders have taken to an art form.
> > Why is it that when Auckland DOMINATED NZ rugby (85-97)
> > we only had one AB coach from Auckland? From the years
> > of 85-95 we NEVER had an AB coach from Auckland despite
> > Auckland romping stomping any hick team from NZ.
> > However, as soon as Canterbury FINALLY get a good team,
> > they get a coach from their province straight away! Why?
> > Is it because we must amuse these pathetic clowns from
> > sheepsville and pretend that we actually respect their (lack
> > of) importance? Well, maybe, but I think we have
> > another more sinister reason. Corruption and ***.
> > How else can you explain the high % of AB coaches from
> >  Canterbury despite Auckland having the best record and
> > nearly three times the population? However, people
> > still accuse Auckland of having an "Auckland mafia" and
> > only picking themselves in the AB's. EXCUSE ME, but
> > how can we pick ourselves when we have a low representation
> > in the selection process?? Have you biased fools looked at
> > yourself lately?
> This is a killer point, and I think this needs to be answered.
> What are you afraid of?

Nothing, Bobs.  I have a two-word answer for you.  John Hart.
 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Ni » Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:00:04

Quote:
>I am waiting for some Cantabs to challange the following paragraph is my
>feature article! Can you please explain the following to me.

> Bias. Something that mainlanders have taken to an art form. Why is it
>> that when Auckland DOMINATED NZ rugby (85-97) we only had one AB coach

>> from Auckland? From the years of 85-95 we NEVER had an AB coach from
>> Auckland despite Auckland romping stomping any hick team from NZ.
>> However, as soon as Canterbury FINALLY get a good team,

You call winning three Super 12s in a row FINALLY getting a good team.
Just *** off idiot and feel the pain.

Nik

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Ni » Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:01:19

Quote:
>> during that time if you look at the selection committee for the Coach and in
>> fact look at the NZRFU Committee / Board you will find that in fact for many
>> years there was not a single Canterbury representative as the South Island
>> was represented by people such as Tim Gresson from Timaru and John Spicer
>> from Otago also Mark Peters from Buller.

>You had the coach you foolish oaf! Not to mention Canterbury were so terrible
>they were regarded by many as lucky to be in the first division.

You and your imaginary friends.

Nik

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Bobs » Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:44:09

Quote:

> >I am waiting for some Cantabs to challange the following paragraph is my
> >feature article! Can you please explain the following to me.

> > Bias. Something that mainlanders have taken to an art form. Why is it
> >> that when Auckland DOMINATED NZ rugby (85-97) we only had one AB coach

> >> from Auckland? From the years of 85-95 we NEVER had an AB coach from
> >> Auckland despite Auckland romping stomping any hick team from NZ.
> >> However, as soon as Canterbury FINALLY get a good team,

> You call winning three Super 12s in a row FINALLY getting a good team.
> Just *** off idiot and feel the pain.

Auckland waited ten years and dominated a lot more than the current
Canterbury team.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong once again. As I already posted, the Brad
Thorn (from Broncos in the NRL) issue proves me to be correct. Everyone
admits it costed the NZRFU a fortune to get him to switch to.....Canterbury.
Meanwhile, Mr Collins from Northland looks to be heading to Aussie where he
will wear a Wallaby jumper within two years. Same goes for Cashmore. Expect
to see him playing for Japan in 2003.

I don't expect Thorn to play for the AB's and neither do most people.

Pathetic.

Quote:

> Nik

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Andy » Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:17:30

I think you will find that NZRFU paid a fortune for Craig Innes to switch to
... Auckland.  Their fuller intention though was for Innes and Thorn to be
available for the All Blacks.  Then they let them go to the province of
their choice.  Thorn from Dunedin made it clear the only 2 he wanted to
consider were Otago and Canterbury.

Do you have two shadows?  You see an awful lot that isn't really there.

Quote:


>> >I am waiting for some Cantabs to challange the following paragraph is my
>> >feature article! Can you please explain the following to me.

>> > Bias. Something that mainlanders have taken to an art form. Why is it
>> >> that when Auckland DOMINATED NZ rugby (85-97) we only had one AB coach

>> >> from Auckland? From the years of 85-95 we NEVER had an AB coach from
>> >> Auckland despite Auckland romping stomping any hick team from NZ.
>> >> However, as soon as Canterbury FINALLY get a good team,

>> You call winning three Super 12s in a row FINALLY getting a good team.
>> Just *** off idiot and feel the pain.

>Auckland waited ten years and dominated a lot more than the current
>Canterbury team.

>Thanks for proving yourself wrong once again. As I already posted, the Brad
>Thorn (from Broncos in the NRL) issue proves me to be correct. Everyone
>admits it costed the NZRFU a fortune to get him to switch
to.....Canterbury.
>Meanwhile, Mr Collins from Northland looks to be heading to Aussie where he
>will wear a Wallaby jumper within two years. Same goes for Cashmore. Expect
>to see him playing for Japan in 2003.

>I don't expect Thorn to play for the AB's and neither do most people.

>Pathetic.

>> Nik

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Miz » Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:37:53

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that the only Akl
coach that could have taken on the coaching role pissed off to Wales the
previous year.
Who from Akl would you have coaching the ABs instead of Smith?
The Blues had Jed Rowlands last year you pathetic little bastard! Are
you suggesting HE should have taken the role?
People like Fox are good prospects for the future but hardly have the
experience at the top level yet do they?
You really do talk a lot of shit Bobs.

Miz

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Bobs » Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:05:50

Since you have not quoted what I said, I have no idea what you are talking
about you oaf.

Anyway, the only reason Henry pissed off to Wales was because the NZRFU said
that he wouldn't be the next coach. Despite him having great success with
Auckland at NPC and S12 level.

Lets all thank the NZRFU for that one. No doubt pressured by the Canterbury
faction who only care about themselves...even at the expense of the national
team.

Quote:

> Well, it might have something to do with the fact that the only Akl
> coach that could have taken on the coaching role pissed off to Wales the
> previous year.
> Who from Akl would you have coaching the ABs instead of Smith?
> The Blues had Jed Rowlands last year you pathetic little bastard! Are
> you suggesting HE should have taken the role?
> People like Fox are good prospects for the future but hardly have the
> experience at the top level yet do they?
> You really do talk a lot of shit Bobs.

> Miz

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Miz » Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:06:31

Quote:

> Auckland waited ten years and dominated a lot more than the current
> Canterbury team.

What exactly is your problem?
Akl's success was reflected in the AB selections during this period.
You can't claim a *** when the top Akl players were being chosen by the
coach regardless of his provincial origins.
If you want to talk bias look a some of Hart's selections during 98-99: Carter,
Mika, Blowers, M.Jones, and Brooke. All Akl players who were either no longer
up to AB level or were never up to it in the first place. These players made
the ABs at the expense of players like Ian Jones and A. Gardiner who would have
offered a whole lot more.

Quote:

> Thanks for proving yourself wrong once again. As I already posted, the Brad
> Thorn (from Broncos in the NRL) issue proves me to be correct. Everyone
> admits it costed the NZRFU a fortune to get him to switch to.....Canterbury.
> Meanwhile, Mr Collins from Northland looks to be heading to Aussie where he
> will wear a Wallaby jumper within two years. Same goes for Cashmore. Expect
> to see him playing for Japan in 2003.

> I don't expect Thorn to play for the AB's and neither do most people.

> Pathetic.

So far the NZRFU have contracted three former league players: M. Ellis (NH), C.
Innes (Akl) and Thorn (Canty). Big $ were likely to have been spent  on both
Innes and Thorn which shows a NZRFU bias towards the major provinces rather
than a Canty one.

Miz

 
 
 

So called Auckland bias

Post by Ni » Thu, 14 Sep 2000 04:35:12

Quote:
>Since you have not quoted what I said, I have no idea what you are talking
>about you oaf.

>Anyway, the only reason Henry pissed off to Wales was because the NZRFU said
>that he wouldn't be the next coach. Despite him having great success with
>Auckland at NPC and S12 level.

>Lets all thank the NZRFU for that one. No doubt pressured by the Canterbury
>faction who only care about themselves...even at the expense of the national
>team.

Its great to see Bobs feeling pain -  as he should.

Nik