By sheek
December 15th 2009 @ 2:25am
Loading ...Related coverage
New Zealand punches well above its weight
Here’s a disturbing thought for Aussie supporters: while attempting to find accurate records of the most Kangaroo Test appearances (until recently, World Cup appearances were treated separately), I came across our league record against New Zealand.
Combining this with our Wallabies record in rugby union, it provided a sobering statistic. So much for us Aussies boasting about our sporting prowess!
Here’s how the combined records looks:
Wallabies Vs All Blacks – played 136; won 39; drew 5; lost 92
Kangaroos Vs Kiwis – played 112; won 82; drew 2; lost 28
Combined – played 248; Australia 121; drew 7; New Zealand 120
Okay, Australia’s in front by a net result of one.
But considering our population is in the region of five to one, the Kiwis are obviously better rugby players – combined – than us Aussies.
In our defence, we also have AFL drawing talent away from the rugby codes, while our cricket and football teams are stronger than New Zealand.
Nevertheless, the Kiwis probably punch higher above their weight than we Aussies do.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(49)
Andy said | December 15th 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment
This is a stupid article, arguing about rights to brag about sporting prowess? and what is this bussiness of combining statistics? they are two different sports. What a meat head article.
Paul J said | December 15th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I’d guess that if you looked at the proportion of Kiwis playing rugby compared to Aussies and at the proportion of Aussies playing league compared to Kiwis then the results would look to be what you would expect.
oikee said | December 15th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Kiwis are good rugby players, always will be. Looking at the stats, i think the Kiwis can improve on those wins for rugby league. The All-blacks will always be better than the wallibies. As you know, our Wallibies draw from a limited pool of players.
You could also do this stat for Olympics, i think the kiwis are also are better per capita of population.
Siva Samoa said | December 15th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
And the Kangaroo’s will always be better than the Kiwi’s.
Mick from Giralang said | December 16th 2009 @ 6:19am | Report comment
SS: You do realise the Kiwis are world rugby league champions?
Conor said | December 17th 2009 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
and the wallabies have won more union world cups.
and more league world cups.
Corey said | December 16th 2009 @ 1:17am | Report comment
I think the last Olympics they beat us per capita, but the 2 Olympics prior Australia was highest per capita for overall medals and gold medals.
sheek said | December 15th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Andy,
Bragging rights has nothing to do with it, I simply found the stats interesting, & I’m an Aussie.
Anyway, no need to contribute if you don’t like it.
Bill said | December 15th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Sheek, do you know the number of Kiwis playing in the NRL? I would have thought this has increased rapidly over the last 15 years. I am guessing their results against the Kangaroos has substantially improved because of this and having an NRL team in New Zealand.
jus de couchon said | December 15th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
I would say that by per head of population Samoa produce the best rugby players by a country mile.
Republican said | December 15th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
This is NO revelation.
Can I suggest that Kiwis excel particularly when pitted against Oz, however on the World stage they fare less better with Union, League and Netball the exceptions.
NZ derives much idnetity from its sporting prowess, even more so than Australia. I have also read that NZ is rated in the top five nations in the world to overtly display nationalistic and patriotic fervour, whereas Australia hardly rates a mention.
I believe this is a telling factor in respect of them punching above their weight. I also believe Australia has matured as a nation, no longer placing such emphasis on it’s sporting exploits in deriving national identity, which is extremely healthy in my opinion.
Australian’s need think very hard about continueing to support NZ, by allowing that country veritable state like status in all and sundry. Kiwis are able to compete in our domestic leagues often at the expense of our home demographics, access our sporting institutes, tapping into our resources, natonal championships and nous without exception. This it seems is a result of their geographic proximity and supposed cultural affinity which is quite a misplaced sentiment in my opinion.
I sometimes wonder if we Australians should in fact be reviewing this Trans Tasman relationship across the board, since respective benefits are not at all reciprocal as far as I can ascertain. Many Kiwis for example would like to have their pav and eat it also in joining our Federation of States. This would be a union of mercenary intent rather than one based on cultural empathy and committment by being joined at the hip with Australia.
As I post, the NZ Swim team are preparing to again compete in our National Swimming Championships. They have also this week been allowed to muscle in on The Qld State Champs, Why? This only advantages NZ who are our competitors and a soveriegn country who are not at all economically disadvataged as some of our other neigbours ie PNG are. Surely they deserve more support than NZ do in this respect.
Many Australians seem either oblivious or benevolently predisposed to turning a blind eye to the priveleges afforded NZ by this country. It’s no good whinging about their increasingly rising status as a sporting nation, since we are in many ways, the catalyst for their success. We Australians have to accept that they will continue to increasingly out do us in any number of jingoistic sporting pursuits, as long as we continue to foster the mercenary relationship this proffers them.
Cheers
katzilla said | December 15th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
^ All typed whilst wearing the Australian flag as a cape and rubbing your brand new Southern Cross Tattoo.
Darwin hammer said | December 15th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
Same old tired argument with same old worn out examples – do you keep a proforma of this garbage on your desktop ?… the only thing missing is the use of the “diaspora” somewhere in the now familar rant ….
change the bloody record
Viscount Crouchback said | December 16th 2009 @ 1:31am | Report comment
What a bizarre rant. Is Republican an Aussie version of the Little Englander?
ohtani's jacket said | December 16th 2009 @ 1:35am | Report comment
Search any poll you like about the world’s most patriotic countries, Australia is in the top three in all of them. Seems you’re not very familiar with the Republic son.
rugbyfuture said | December 16th 2009 @ 1:52am | Report comment
maybe you should pay attention to the nz in ANZAC a little more, they are a part of our national identity as we are of theirs, our brothers that we are allowed toplayfully bag out, but in the end brothers must support eachother
Jaredsbro said | December 16th 2009 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
Is that more of your tripe Republican there, or is it just an underhanded compliment?
You’ve got a real anti-Kiwi streak mate, and in spite of what you think we Kiwis don’t hate you Aussies. We do however resort to stereotypes, just like you guys do!!!!
Also I doubt Aussies are less Nationalistic and I’m certain enough to bank on my soon-to-be CC home (
) that you Aussies care more bout sport than us. And your Govt actually gets involved in sport, which would be a travesty here. Oh wait I should add pumping in X number of dollars to see your nation perform at the Olympics, whereas we just pay to have big tournies played here (sounds a bit like the Melburnians personally)
As I stated on my last attack of your posts Republican, NZ is actuallt known worldwide more for our landscape than for any cultural prowess (and yes sport is actually a thing of culture…
)
Oh and the reason we’re in the NRL and will probably have an AFL team one day is because we’re family, also we’re a “State” that could be called bellweather if it were in the US. We like what is good and we trash what is bad more often than not. Making us a good guide as to what sports/cultural texts a la Packed to the Rafters have a wide appeal (which rated really well here in spite of the often overly Nationalistic jingoism which is the usual for Aussie TV programs that we get a la Sea Patrol) And we also tend to do things across the entire nation (tho RL might not apply here)
Mate reading your last paragraphs it’s obvious you won’t like it when a NZ-descended PM comes to rule the roost in OZ, which seems more likely now. Your rhetoric of competing nation states etc is actually a generation or two too old, as more NZers go over to OZ there will be an increasing flow of capital (financial but also Social-Cultural aswell)
Also in spite of what you think we do have a slightly different cultural millieu than the one you espouse, largely the fact that we are apparently quite a learned people at least in terms of the Anglosphere.
katzilla said | December 15th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Im not a big fan of the term ‘Punching above their weight’ It denotes underdog status and that is something the All Blacks have been probably less then a dozen times in 100 years.
I think people need to stop looking at Population and start looking at GDP, participation rates, and money allocated to sports, when talking about over achievement in sports.
Australia for instance does not punch above its weight at the Olympics because A. – Australia has a large swimming population and B – It spends a crap load of money on the elite swimming program.
And that is where most of Australia’s medals come from, the pool.
NZ does not ‘Punch above its weight’ In rugby because we have a huge participation rate and the money spent on it is substantially more then any other sport. Anything less then a win against all but maybe SA is a failure looking at Money spent and participation rates.
Rugby League – beating the Kangaroos is considered over achievement because OZ has a larger player base and greater funds to train players (Alot of which also helps NZ RL players as Pauline above me points out)
So in my eyes, NZ do as good as we should across these two sports considering the funds spent on both and the participation rates.
The Socceroos punch far above their weight to make into the top 20 of the rankings considering the particpation rates vs participation rates in England or Brazil and many other countries below OZ on the rankings. Not even going to mention the types of finance these other countries Football Unions must control. But apparently the England Football types are putting the partners of the players into a 5 star resort next year in SA. That says alot. 5 star accomodation for 3-4 weeks during a world cup? Probably costs more then what it will cost to house the Socceroos and feed them.
So i think a new measure should be used to rank over achievement rather then straight population,
GDP + Participation + Funds Allocated. I think Jamaica still comes out on top regardless of which way you measure it.
Republican said | December 15th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
I would have to agree with you in the main Katzilla
Swimming in Oz is worth deconstructing a little further however. This sport is widely considered to be Australias National sport when taking into account participation competitively and recreationally, history, knowledge and support thereof, by it’s sporting public.
Swimming may well have a high funding status in this country but this was not always so and has evolved for very good reason. Swimmings profile has always been huge in Oz compared to the rest of the world and in that respect the current funding has been earnt, over many years of ‘punching above our weight’ in this discpline.
Australia would continue to punch above it’s weight in Swimming, without this funding in my opinion, simply because this sport is so culturally ingrained. By the way, NZ spend a heap of $’s on all manner of sport proportionately, including Swimming and in respect of its GDP, albeit swimming has recently been considered an under acheiving sport in NZ and as such, stands to lose some funding and this is why there is a panic to integrate their programmes further with Australias domestic competitions.
NZ are also being ruthlessly rational in their funding approach, all in the name of Gold Medals, by funding those sports that they stand to glean some glory from. it is seen that these NZ centric sports are also culturally and historically beneficial to that end and Swimming is not one of those, unlike here in Australia.
Of course Australia would lag behind those countries who are financially excessive in their support of Swimming if present funding levels were not continued, however our status in this sport would be maintained according to the criteria you have enertained here. Testament to Australia’s Swimming pedigree are the numerous coaches some of which are national, from Oz working in other countries. This include the U.S.A, China, Brazil, the U.K and NZ who’s head coach is an Australian along with Talbot who now coaches in Otago I believe.
Hypothetically, if NZ were to cut funding to Union significantly, I reckon they would continue to excel for the same reasons that we would in Swimming.
Cheers
katzilla said | December 15th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
I completely agree with you Repub,
Australia no doubt had to over achieve at some point to force the Bean Counters hand in regards to swimming, but im quite sure that this was a long time ago. In this day and age Australia are seen (with the US) as one of the giants of world swimming, and for good reason.
The elite program of today has the pioneers of yesterday to thank, much like the Australian pole vaulters of tomorrow will have alot to owe to Steve Hooker.
But the established program for swimming and its participation rate at present make Australia a heavy weight in the pool, which as you say wasn’t always the case.
If you took away funding people would still swim, people would still race in carnivals and im sure OZ would still do well, but I don’t think as well.
If you took away participation then in 10-15 years time you would see a lessening in elite swimmers.
If you halved Australias GDP then of course there would be alot less taxes paid meaning alot less money to be spent by gov. on sports.
‘NZ are also being ruthlessly rational in their funding approach, all in the name of Gold Medals, by funding those sports that they stand to glean some glory from’
Im quite sure that most countries take this approach, there wouldn’t be much funding for the next olympics if 10 Million invested = 0 gold medals. Yet I believe this is the correct strategy, a rising tide lifts all boats.
Success will increase funding and the increases should be spread across all competing sports.
Jaredsbro said | December 16th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
True, but swimming is not a sport that is pereceived to be mainstream…but Rowing now is. It’s just the system Australia should be using and clipping the AOC’s ears every few years to keep it/them/Coates in check. The reality is not actually determined by results exactly but what is perceived to be the most popular sports. Thus RL lost out with its drop in numbers, I believe Soccer’s now more funded than it has been (Men and Women). The problem tho is that just like in OZ the media has a huge part to play in the popularity (perceived or just plain hallucinagenic) of a sport/sports.
But participation rates are not good enough as otherwise the RL situation could/will happen all over again
Republican said | December 16th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Katzilla
Thanks for your reply, you make some very valid points.
Do you believe physical environment and culture will continue to play a part in determining the status of sport in respective countries around the globe? NZ for exapmle have a great sailing tradition due in the main to their love of the sport and access thereof for mainstream Kiwis, not to mention a beautifully natural sailing environment.
Now the West has so much money to splurge on all manner of sport means in fact that a country i.e Oz can compete quite well in say, Aerial Skiing and any number of winter disciplines, despite not necessarily having a culture and physical environment that historically produces athletes of a winter sporting persuasion. I recall that Bob Sled team from the West Indies, now that would have been unheard of 50 years ago however this is not such an unusual sight at the Olympics these days.
I am always impressed when athletes from Ethiopia for example, who traditionally produce fine distance runners, continue to punch above their weight on the world stage despite an extremely poor economy and less than adequate living conditions. This has much to do with the historical, cultural and environmental criteria I allude to as well as DNA – perhaps, yet I wonder if these criteria will continue to allow us the privelege of witnessing such raw athletic triumphs, since sport is such a sophisticated and fiscally driven machine.
Australia continues to do well in H2O sports i.e Surfing and Swimming due in the main to our physical environment and the connection we have to it, however even landlocked countries are now competing on the WSC these days, because they have the $’s that allow them the mobility to pursue such whimsical luxury.
Cheers
katzilla said | December 16th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
‘however even landlocked countries are now competing on the WSC these days, because they have the $’s that allow them the mobility to pursue such whimsical luxury.’
Your right I think money (depending how much) can cancel out every type of enviromental advantage.
Just need to look at the Americas Cup – How a landlocked country won that? Buy out the other teams sailors and go for gold.
Americas cup bought. As you say NZ will always do well because alot of people (not that many but more then alot of countries) have access to sailing.
But of course Money should always lose out to Money + Enviromental advantages.
Jaredsbro said | December 16th 2009 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Wrong again. Sailing is not a mainstream sport, it is perceived to many be big (dirty) business and the media (even TV One, the provider of coverage for the America’s Cup etc seems to be tuning in to the rumblings out there) thus people are losing interest.
Also Republican to artificially-inseminate (pardon the lowly agricultural analogy
) a sporting culture that has never existed before and cannot hope to attain mainstream appeal is to deny the culture that has gone before. One wise man once said to me that the reason Australia are so good at Cricket is not your shrewdness in terms of your talent rosters, but the weight of tradition/legacies. Same apparently applies to Baseball in the US (particularly the Yankee half of NY) but my point is that by creating new cultures the end result cheapens the overall measure of success.
The DNA argument is becoming less and less valid. But y’know it is quite convenient isn’t it, if your people were convicts and your family line’s been free for generations…that the toughness they needed to cope is somehow transferred to you Aussies ten generations or so later
Sam said | December 16th 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
With the help of google I found some more interesting statistics. Here are the total participation rates according to the NZRU, ARU, ARL and for NZRL the NZ Sport and Recreation Council (SPARC). Note SPARC did an independent review of NZ Rugby League so their figure is very reliable:
Rugby League in Australia – 423,584
Rugby League in NZ (estimate from SPARC) – 17,000
Rugby union in Australia – 183,310
Rugby union in NZ – 140,279
Note all these figures are for 2008. I find the difference in participation rates between NZ and Australia in league staggering. The problems NZ Rugby League has had over the last couple of years has been covered pretty well in the NZ media but you can see why SPARC was sent in. Pretty incredible that they even come close to beating Australia as often as they do.
As for the rugby union figures, probably kills the myth that more people play rugby in NZ than Australia. On a per capita basis it’s clearly higher but overall it’s not. Comparing the winning record of the All Blacks and Wallabies is quite interesting when you look at participation numbers, one would expect them to be more similar.
Dave1 said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Those figures show a participating figure for adults playing rugby in New Zealand.
The Australian figure is for all ages because according to the ARU annual report in 2008
http://www.rugby.com.au/aru/images/aru_annual_report_2008_revised_reduced.pdf
37,179 adults played Rugby in Australia
Their are a lot more rugby players in New Zealand hence their great success at the game
Jerry said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Those numbers aren’t for adults in NZ.
Dave1 said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_New_Zealand
“…..Participation in Sport” states that 158,100 New Zealand adults participated in Rugby Union in the previous twelve months ……”
Jerry said | December 21st 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
That survey specifically isn’t a measure of registered players. It merely asks what people do for physical activity and it only requires them to have done an activity once in the last 12 months to qualfy. You’re not comparing apples with apples. When you do compare registered adult players (and indeed overall registered players of all ages) Aus has more than NZ.
If you could link to a study done in Aus with the same methodology perhaps you could make a similar point.
Sam said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
All numbers are for all ages. All are organised forms of the game as well (as opposed to random games in the back-yard). I don’t think the ARU have accurate figures for womans rugby, apart from that I think all the figures are pretty accurate.
Siva Samoa said | January 5th 2010 @ 11:24am | Report comment
I think those numbers are wrong. 140,279 are the numbers of rugby players who played the game in all level in NZ .
The 183,310 in rugby union and 423,584 in rugby league in Australia is the participation numbers which include kids attending coaching clinics and after school activities , There is no way that Australia has 423,584 rugby league players playing the game at all levels.
Republican said | December 16th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Sam
Not only is Union far greater on a per cap basis in NZ but so too is the quality of it’s domestic comps so in this respect, Australian Union numbers are quite misleading. The structure of our domestic comps and the limited demographic from which we derive our playing elite need to also be considered. We have two WC’s to our name which is incredible when compared to the expectation and pedigree of NZ Union no matter what the stats.
As far as League goes, I would have to say that Australia should be extremely concerned because League in NZ, if taken seriously, would decimate Australia’s status without a shadow of a doubt. Australian League has for too long been the big fish in a very small pond.
Now the ARL are about to experience decades of eating humble pie me thinks, courtesy of the Kiwis and a benevolence in being the catalyst to Leagues growth in that country.
Cheers
Sam said | December 16th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
I agree the quality of rugby in NZ is definitely higher. However an extra 40,000 players in Australia? That is significant. But the winning record of the All Blacks over Australia is pretty massive even when the quality and organisation of the NPC is taken into account. They didn’t even have an NPC 40 years ago, and the record was just as good back then. I’m just putting the stats up here, not trying to find a reason why NZ has a high winning percentage though.
I don’t know about Leagues growth in NZ, when looking up those statistics I found the SPARC report on the NZRL. It makes for pretty sober reading. Doesn’t give one great confidence in the admin of league in NZ. The state of the game, from an administrative point of view, is just shocking. It would be interesting to see what a little support from the ARL would do for the NZRL.
Jaredsbro said | December 16th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Nah uh, wrong again Republican. It’s not about the strength of the elite showponies it is mostly about the grassroots when it comes to the strength of a country’s sporting machine. Sure you’ve got to win medals/WCs ever so often or Premierships if you follow one of those unilateral sports, but essentially sport is about having strong grassroots. Of course if one’s measure of sporting achievement is sporting glory my above statement is irrelevant, but if sporting success is largely cultural as I presume it is, the overall apparatus needs to be examined. Now Australia hasn’t got the strongest roots in RU it seems but the numbers of people playing indicate that the problem is the administrators fault first and popular opinion/the media’s opinion second.
Sam, yeah I definitely agree that there is some factor we’re not taking account of…like maybe the demographics of RU in Australia, they are much the same as NZers Cricketers, ie they have a North Shore Mentality. Ambitous on the surface (ie so they can fit in with their trendy team mates) but not too much deeper they have an mentality of entitlement, believing that they’re owed much and that to get what they want they must only try as hard as is required of them, not willing to go any further than that. Sorry for the generalisations but the parallels between the Rugbies is barking up the wrong tree.
Republican said | December 16th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Yet they manage to be more than competitive with Oz in League despite this.
Is this inherent to their DNA, that they seem somehow predisposed to play the thugby codes with such aplomb?
I actually believe the Polynesian physique is well suited to both League and Union. The % of Maori and Islander players that make up the bulk of respective Kiwi national rugby sides is quite compelling indeed.
Cheers
Mick from Giralang said | December 17th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Might have something to do with the % of maori and islander players that make up the population.
Siva Samoa said | December 16th 2009 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
NZ didn’t have the NPC 40 yéars ago but théy did háve intér próvincial and ranfurly shield games among the proviñce.
NZ rugby league team is doing well because all of its players play in the Australian rugby league competition (NRL) and Superleague. The All Blacks are home grown players playing their rugby in ÑZ.
Republican said | December 16th 2009 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
rugbyfuture
All I can say is this is a tired and overstated sentiment fueled by years of politically exploitive pathos. Kiwis are in fact quite resentful of the attention Oz commands through ANZAC compared to them as with just about anything else you care to mention.
They have certainly come out of the woodwork again here.
Good night and good luck.
katzilla said | December 17th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
‘Kiwis are in fact quite resentful of the attention Oz commands through ANZAC compared to them as with just about anything else you care to mention.’
The only people that give Australia more attention in the ANZAC legacy are Australians.
And when I say that, I don’t mean the actually soldiers who can call themselves ANZACs, every Australian vet i’ve spoken to is immediate in their respect for the NZ soldiers they fought with once they find out im a Kiwi.
That same respect isn’t carried on by the Australian ANZAC day PR machine.
Everyday NZers give due respect to the contribution of our brothers across the Tasman, it is most definately not the other way round.
Its not resentment, its respect and the expectation that the same respect is reciprocated.
You can’t spell ANZAC without NZ, likewise with Australia.
Although NZAC looks better on paper then AAC
Republican said | December 17th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
The referance I made to patriotism was something I read in a very credible periodical that is dedicated to Australian social commentary, as opposed to some half baked googled poll.
This was actually referring to Australia’s lack of ‘overt’ patriotism, drawing analogies with countries that display their patriotism/ nationalism in a more public manner. The usual suspects graced this list of around twenty countries including the U.S, Norway, Korea, a few European and Middle Eastern countries and to my suprise NZ, which was in the top five to ten from memory.
I am not privvy to the methodology or criteria used in producing this particular list however I do respect the credibility of this publication and have been going through my back issues, in the hope of offering further referance in this respect.
I have no doubt we Australians are a patriotic mob, that was not the issue here, however what should be realised is that there exists cultural nuances that influence the ways in which patriotism is experienced and acted out.
NZ are a small country that punch above their weight in a sporting sense with a cultural profile to match, which can be attributed to an overt patriotic desire to be noticed despite this. For a country of only 5mill they certainly are ubiquitously in the worlds face and far from being the demure collective they inwardly profess to be.
Can I also reitterate that Australia and NZ are NOT the same culturally and it is about time that those on both sides of the ditch accepted this. I tire of this misplaced sentiment that says we are best mates, we are not mates at all. We are countires that share some quite looosley connected historic ties to England and we happen to be geopgraphically close.
For the main part we simply tolerate each other out of some sort of P.C. obligation which can be attributed to such dated institutions as ANZAC. This is an alliance of mythical proportion that has little relevance to the NZ or Australia of the 21st Century and as stated in a previous post, harbours some pious resentment from the Kiwi perspective, which should be no suprise to us really.
Cheers
katzilla said | December 17th 2009 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
‘I tire of this misplaced sentiment that says we are best mates, we are not mates at all.’
Speak for yourself ‘Mate’
ohtani's jacket said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:54am | Report comment
What is this overt and public display of NZ patriotism/nationalism? What do you call Australia day?
What’s the difference between New Zealanders and Australians culturally?
Republican said | December 17th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Jaredsbro
Conversely the Amin of League in NZ is very ordinary from what many are saying however this has NOT rendered NZ un competitive with Oz, on the contrary I would say Kiwis are superior in League presently, especially considering their playing numbers, admin, structural apparatus and grass roots.
So how does that explain Unions lack of pedigree in Oz? I still maintain this has much to do with where it sits in the national sporting psyche, which is very low compared to other codes. NZ are still devout in their support of Union which does translate to how they perform compared to Oz. There is absolutely no doubting that Union is huge proportionately speaking in NZ, compared to Australia and I maintain that is the difference.
Cheers
Ora said | December 17th 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
I would say Republican that you are a an embarassment to many Australians, your loathing and deep seated hatred for new Zealand is so obvious.
What I’d say is don’t hate us because your not us!!!
have a good evening mate I hope the snakes and spiders dont bite
Republican said | December 17th 2009 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Katzilla
If i happened to know you, yes then i reckon we potentially could be mates.
Our countries are not ‘matey’ in that respect and I am sure you know exactly what I am trying to convey here.
I like your style however, cobber, digger blue….
Cheers
Republican said | December 18th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
OJ
So are you saying we are the same culturally – then why are you not a state if that’s the case?
The differneces are too numerouse to expound on here but if you knew your history it shoud be obvious i would have thought
Ora
No not all. Much of what I have expressed here is in fact a widely held sentiment amongst Australians, it’s just that most Ozzies are way to polite to air it.
Hate is a strong word but then NZers should know more about that emotion, since NZ holds a collectively obsessive disdain of all things Ozzie. You are indeed a constant source of bemusemnt to us posumms, since on one hand you spend an inordinate amount of time piously deriding this country and it’s people, all the while coveting everything about us.
When rarely challenged over this affliction of national proportion, you simply spit the dummy, villifying the messenger rather than taking any of it on board.; truth be told, you mob spend way too much energy scrutinising Australia when you would be well advised to start putting your own house in order.
No worries about the Jo Blakes etc however we are again up aginst it re. the fires.
Good day and good luck
katzilla said | December 18th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
‘No worries about the Jo Blakes etc however we are again up aginst it re. the fires’
Don’t worry repub, if the fires get out of control like last last year then you can be sure NZ will send over fire fighters to help……………….thats just what mates do
ohtani's jacket said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
It’s not a subject I spend a lot of time thinking about. I’d just like some examples to see whether I agree with them or not.
Republican said | December 18th 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
I reckon it’s more to do with diplomatic etiquette myself. Canada and the US also send out their fireys so in that respect they are also our mates, no more or no less than NZ are anyway.
Cheers