This entry was posted on Thursday, August 2nd, 2012 at 5:37 pm and is filed under Humour, Sport.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I guess the photo’s show the response to the result, but not the response to the challange of doing better. The latter is the real test. As j_w said above, to be happy just to participate has become something of a cultural norm. It starts with warm fuzzy feelings of happy participation at school, and ends with someone else more highly qualified/experienced taking that job you want.
This coming from a nation still howling and wailing to anyone who will listen that the rest of the World somehow ‘conspired’ to rob them of the Rugby World Cups in 1995 and 2007…(Suzie the Waitress,Wayne Barnes etc etc)
Not to mention Andrew Nicholson throwing his toys out of the cot in London this week…
As others have noted above, we have plenty of medal chances yet to come, starting with the double sculls final in about 25 minutes; two more hot chances for gold at the rowing tomorrow and then the cyclists and yachties to come.
@jims_whare – what an idiotic post – we are 32nd on the all-time medal charts for the Olympics, yet are one of the smallest, most isolated countries in the world, with only semi-professional athletes.
Your post says more about yourself than anything in NZ – we are world champions across a host of different sports.
And to DPF – I know you didn’t come up with this picture, but anyone that belittles Mark Todd for celebrating an Olympic medal at the age of 56 is banging on the wrong door – out of 7 billion people on this planet, he is the only 50+ year old winning an Olympic medal – so he has every right to get out there and party like its brilliant.
[DPF: I don’t think it is belittling Todd in anyway. Winning any medal at the Olympics is a huge achievement. I think it is poking the borax at Australia]
I think it is great to have high expectations but you also need to learn to accept defeat graciously and celebrate your success. When I first saw this picture I assumed it had been taken out of context but then I saw the interview and it makes you wonder about her mental health to be honest!
DPF did not jump the shark.
His photoshop has been read wrong. It shows Kiwis celebrating becoming third best team in the toughest of all equestrian events. And it also shows an over-rated Ausssie, disappointed because excessive media BS failed to produce a result she was TOLD was hers as of right. Aussies have enormous self confidence, often in excess of an ability to deliver.
We have had both surprises and disappointments over the years. We will have more in future. The only trouble with last night’s rowing gold is that the buggers left it to the last 100 m. They must be in league with the great cardiac arrester !!!!!
@ flipper, tell me flipper, what’s all this aggression towards the Ozzie swimmer? How do you know she is over-rated? Seems a very mind-spirited thing to be saying. Have you ever met her, do you know her story? She does look upset, but I’d say the reasons are a little more complex than the simplistic ones you have offered. It takes a certain type of person to knock someone when they are down. You don’t feel in anyway ashamed saying such things? I don’t mind a bit of emotional honesty from time to time.
jesus you’re a miserable fucker mutton. It must really suck to be you waking up every morning thinking how can I pick on all those nasty right-wingers on kiwiblog today – then resorting to something as infantile as that.
That’s why you’ll forever remain a poor down and out loser, because you don’t aspire to be something, or do something great with your life. Whilst all the rest of us carry on being successful, you’ll continue to be an envious loser.
Maybe time you had a look in the mirror and asked yourself why you’re such a loser in life….
Nothing inherently wrong in celebrating a bronze. Nothing inherently wrong with being sad if you do not win gold. It is a matter of perspective and it seems tenuous to link with the Aussies are “winners” and Kiwis only care about “participation” meme. If we were not rated as favorites but come out with a medal – why not celebrate a bronze. For the Aussie swimmer – if she was rated as the favorite it would only be natural to be disappointed.
No ,the problem is how this story is portrayed,presentation,context.
There is a huge problem in the NZ media with Oz bashing. It is pathetic and petty,exactly what one would expect from second rate small minded wannabes.
She cried,so what?
The horsey folk celebrate ,good on them. End of story,why juxtapose those 2 to create a nasty story.
Our rowers do well. Good on them too. However the back story is about taxpayer money being channelled into a few chosen events that elites have decided where the gold is. It’s got very little t do with sporting prowess and the Olypic spirit of participation ,it’s about winnning. Not really sporting at all.
The Olympics have become corrupted by big business,sponsorship and misguided nationalism.
It is amusing but not “so true”. We are about as successful as Australia in sport, allowing for funding and population differences. We have some of the toughest athletes in the world. And if Bond and Murray get silver, their reaction will likely be huge disappointment too.
As for RWC 2007, anyone with a clue about rugby (i.e. not Big Bruv) knows we were absolutely cheated in that match. Either that or it was the most incompetent refereeing display in history. Henry wrote a book on his career. Why would he not mention such an important event? That is why it’s come up again. If he didn’t even mention it, haters would find a way to criticise that too.
To get to the top you need to aim for the top.
One of the reasons why so many smart and gifted you people leave NZ is because our school system has this “its good to participate but its bad to strive for excellence” attitude.
If i were good enough to get gold but didnt then Id be pissed off too.
As for bronze – well 3rd in the world is pretty good – but silver is better and gold is the pinacle. Todd and asscoiates have had other pinacles in the past – some being off field and achieved by the help of shall we say chemical compunds.
Gold is still the one to aim for.
A few facts. NZ spent about 180 Million over the last 4 years preparing for these games(Alex Baumann interviewed on the Murray Deaker Show). Funding wise, we are one of the richest in the world (in fact very much comparable to Oz on a per capita basis). We sent about 180 athletes to these games, which on a population basis would make the team one of the largest sent. By comparison the US sent about 550 athletes, with about 75 times the population (a fact not taken into account when the alternative medals per population tables are created). While NZ has always enjoyed portraying itself as the little guy in world sporting terms, this is not really accurate any longer.
While the ABs were unlucky at RWC 2007, they can consider themselves fortunate in 2011 to have a referee in Joubert who appeared reluctant, or scared, to make any big decisions. The Froggies were the better team in the final, while the ABs were best in the tournament.
out of 7 billion people on this planet, he is the only 50+ year old winning an Olympic medal
@seanmaitland Without wanting to be a pedant, the coxswain in the silver winning Canada Woman’s rowing eight last night is 52.
But yeah, Todd is doing well.
Weirdly enough sometimes Gold and Bronze are “mentally” the best positions to finish. Gold means you won, bronze means you got in the medals. Silver means you didn’t win gold, and 4th means you’ve got nothing to show for it. I know Olympians and world Champs competitors whose 4th place is the one that haunts them the most (more than 6th, 8th, 12th).
>The Froggies were the better team in the final, while the ABs were best in the tournament.
Don’t agree. The AB’s played a risk free 2nd half of rugby not conceding a penalty. That took a huge amount of focus and discipline which is a characteristic of a world champion team. If you think otherwise you haven’t watched the final objectively and can lable yourself a tall poppy chopper. Or a league supporter.
Dean, so 180 selected out of 4 million will have more quality than 550 selected from the USA? All that tells me is we send too many athletes who won’t get remotely close.
Having watched the 2011 final upwards of 50 times, I’ve found 2 occasions when France should have gotten a penalty but didn’t and 2 when NZ should have but didn’t. A couple of missed knock ons each way. One sending off offence committed by France missed. While France held the ball for extended periods in the second half, they were going sideways. In the first half the same applied to us as we missed scoring chances. It was a good match that could have gone either way and the All Blacks put it all on the line to hold on. 2007, we still should have won despite the ref and all the injuries.
My daughters went through the NZ school system, and excellence was encouraged and celebrated, BUT not at the expense of the broader goal of participation by as many as possible. The point of such a philosophy is to raise _everyone_. Now I will be the first to admit that that is nigh on impossible, but the point is to try to raise the level – sporting, music, art, scholarship – for as many people as possible. That does _not_ eliminate the excellence that many achieve. They are separate but to some extent linked. It is why NZ does so well on the world stage PERIOD. Kiwis are welcomed in England, the USA and so on, because of their breadth of skills, knowledge and, most importantly, work ethic. I hear this all the time from former students who are working in London, for example.
Yes, there are lots of areas for improvement, but the glass is half full, not half empty. (Of course, the consultant would tell us we had the wrong size glass. )
Going back to the juxtaposed photos – the Aussie girl’s chances were talked up, likely beyond what could happen given the overall level of the competition this time around. The Kiwi team’s chances were given an outside shot, so winning a medal exceeded expectations. Hence the different responses. So I agree with everyone else who has made the same comment. Different expectations = different responses.
Our Eventing team are terrific. We are a small Eventing nation that consistently produces world class riders and horses. To get into the medals and only just a whisker behind the Poms and Germans is an achievement not often equalled in any sport.
Did you guys actually see the cross country and jumping?
NZ may have “only” won the bronze for Eventing but they sure as hell (as they always do) win the gold for partying.
Just to follow up on grumpy’s comment, and of course NZ has long been a great producer of excellent horses, going back to before Phar Lap. Our horses are regularly snapped up by foreign buyers, and we have a grand rural tradition.
@ David in Chch -you didn’t see closeup the day before, I take it? Because I got the distinct impression from that that a gold for Toddy was a mere formality.
anyone who watches, dispasionately, and without bias, the last quarter of the RWC 2011 finale, can see that the Froggies were the better team. Kaino for one, should have been penalised in those last few frantic minutes. But hey, that’s not to take anything away from the ABs. If you are going to claim they were robbed in 2007 then you have to accept they got lucky in 2011. And while Parra attacking Sir Richie’s knee with his head was typical froggie filth, I’m glad he wasn’t sent off for it as it would have been a pity to ruin such an excilting game.
So Dean, France played better for one quarter of the match. That’s your argument that they were the better team? Wow. During that quarter they held the ball, but never looked like scoring. And why did they hold the ball? Because the All Blacks were petrified to compete in the ruck for fear of a kickable penalty.
Richie wasn’t even looking at Parra, he was focused on the ball. It was an unfortunate accident, much like the Cruden injury in a tackle. Rougerie, however, is a piece of scum who first headbutted someone pinned in a ruck, then put his fingers in his eyes. Richie gets up and leads us through the last 5 minutes (when we held the ball and went further forward than France did during the quarter they were the better team).
I accept we were lucky in 2011. Lucky the ref wasn’t Wayne Barnes and was instead fair to both teams, and lucky France couldn’t break the line.
It was indeed an unfortunate incident, and very unlucky for Parra that it just so happened to occur in a RWC final. But Sir Richie clearly had no idea Parra was there. I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often. I’d say France were the better team in the second half, and deserved at least an opportunity to score in the last minutes. But they were never going to get that from Joubert. But we should really be thanking Paddy (Sir Paddy?) for the superb way he managed the referee appointments to give the ABs every possble chance. Bryce’s performance in the quarter was especially noteworthy, given the way he had relentlessly pinged the Oz scum in the pools games. So, with the Saffers still seething, it was indeed proper that a Saffer be allowed to ref the semi and final. Joubert duly repaid the faith put in him by Paddy, in the semi and the final. Hopefully we can in time reward Joubert with an NZ honour.
I no longer support any NRL sides, OTGO. In my younger days it was the Raiders (big Mel, Clyde), but those days have long since passed by. I’ll watch snippets of games these days, but the only time I might sit through an entire game is at finals time. I’ll be supporting the Sharkies come the Super 15 final.
Okay, I see you’re an All Black hater now that logic has gone out the window. That South African team wouldn’t have gotten close to us. They were unlucky to lose to the Wallabies, but Australia was more of a threat. Although now you’re also implying refereeing won us the semi-final. The semi-final that we won 20-6 and the score flattered Australia. And you’ve adjusted to say France dominated the half instead of the quarter.
So anyway. France lose 3 matches at the world cup but dominate 20-30 minutes of one match (but don’t score any points while they dominate) and suddenly they are robbed. Brilliant.
LOL at Jim’s Whare comment #1…
This country is RIDICULOUSLY over-obsessed with sport in general and the cult of being recognised by your peers to be slightly better than someone else at doing something completely pointless. It’s elevated to the level of a religion – and a pretty unhealthy, dogmatic one. Olympic Games is just about the only sport I bother watching – so many of the things these people train themselves to do are simply mind-blowingly awesome.
Hair Removal Specialist said it all at 9:28am…
I can imagine being that pissed off if you got all the way through to the big final, and then you lost and you know you only lost because you cocked up something you’ve done right time and time again in training and in lesser competitions. I can’t imagine being that upset if you’d done everything the best that you could do, and someone else was just better – that’s life and you’d be pretty stoked with your silver medal for being better than everybody else bar one.
How can you possibly claim the South African team wouldn’t have gotten close to us, given the way the ABs struggled against the French? The 20-6 was a fair score in the end, but I’d hardly say it flattered Oz. Joubert practically took Pocock out of the game in the first 5 minutes. Zapper, it is not just me claiming the French were robbed. It also happens to be the general consensus of the majority of overseas rugby scribes.
The French lifted, the ABs played well but not as well as usual. How can you claim the South African team would get close? They were an average team. Much like us in 2007, they weren’t helped by a ref having a shocker but with 75% of possession and territory they still should have won.
And 20-6 absolutely flattered Australia. They were never in that game and we had a second string goalkicker missing everything (much like he did against the French).
You and Stephen Jones are welcome to an opinion. As I said, mine is based on watching it way too many times. The final was very even but France never looked like scoring points – the 7 they did score came from a ruck that clearly should have resulted in an All Black penalty! And then Weepu was too lazy to dive on the ball. So if a team that can’t score points deserved to win is your opinion then fair enough.
There was no penalty there Zapper, you are clearly very biased. Why have you watched it so many times? Nothing is going to change that fact that the ABs were lucky, and the French were hard done by. That of course doesn’t take the gloss off the AB win, but it is important to keep some perspective. Sir Graham bringing up 2007 again in his book should be embarrassing for the majority of AB fans, the fair minded ones at least.
Sorry but 1:22 is THE most laughable thing I have ever seen on a rugby field- Craig Joubert was simply too bloody terrified to give France the penalty! (I would make allegation of “match fixing” but only people with dubious ‘Knighthoods’ can get away with that)
As for RWC 2007, anyone with a clue about rugby (i.e. not Big Bruv) knows we were absolutely cheated in that match. Either that or it was the most incompetent refereeing display in history.
I prefer the latter…after all Barnes is the best blind block runner in the game. And we were shite with lousy selections…Robinson shouldn’t have been there at all let alone playing, Howlett was the form winger…Henry shot himself in the foot.
As for 2011, the frogs just weren’t good enough against a team that won in spite of the gr8 redeemer. France weren’t robbed, they didn’t have enough flair to finish the AB’s off. Don’t push the bull that they were that dominant, it was a close match played between the 22’s.
@Longknives – France were absolute shite in that game – they only got close to our line once. You must have been watching a different game – and its already been proven since that there were just as many decisions in that game that went their way.
It looks like you have an eyepatch on, or you’re legally blind.
Look, guys…. perhaps we can get some bloody perspective on this. Sad as it might be for individual families etc etc blah blah, how about if we remember that one source gives Allied casualties in the Gallipoli campaign, including deaths from drowning and accident, as about 265,000, of whom some 46,000 were killed in action or died of wounds or disease.
If the people who are in charge of this idiotic Afghanistan adventure could get the idea of ‘reconstruction’ out of their tiny minds for a moment, they might come to a conclusion about whether they want to be there or not, and what they hope to achieve. If they want to be there, then the only real course of action is to bring every type of fire onto every man, woman or child who even farts in that country until the whole population is begging for mercy. This is called ‘conquering’, but it only works if there is some sort of will, or aim to achieve something. If they don’t want to do that, then they should jump into their choppers and humvees and piss off out of it and stop embarassing themselves.