Will the Hurricanes choke without Beauden Barrett? Photo / Getty Images
Will the Hurricanes choke without Beauden Barrett? Photo / Getty Images
Barrett-less Hurricanes face Chiefs in capital acid test.
Mark: This is it, the acid test, can your Barrett-less Hurricanes beat the Cruden-less Chiefs at Wespac Stadium in Wellington tomorrow night and can your bunch of chokers finish minor premiers? Actually, does the minor premiership mean diddly squat? The closer it gets to finals time and the more your Hurricanes keep winning, the bigger that Super Rugby monkey on their backs grows. I plan on feeding it bananas laced with growth hormone, too.
Andrew: Change the record because it's broken, Richardson. Here's the thing: we're up 10 points on them and we're confident that this is the New Zealand yardstick. They're just lucky Beauden isn't playing.
Here are some stats bombs. The halftime leader has gone on to win 72 per cent of Super Rugby matches so far in 2015; the Hurricanes have led six matches at halftime this year and gone on to win them all; in each of the last two seasons, the champion side has had a winning record in games it led at the break. The Hurricanes have been level with their opponents at halftime on three occasions this year and there have only been four matches tied at the break in the whole competition. So that means I'm sitting on the fence. It will be a draw. Fancy a Cantab probably coaching the Blues next year -- thought it would never happen. Is New Zealand rugby finally shaking the myopic view that rugby thinkers are universal?
Mark: Could this be the first step towards a foreigner coaching the All Blacks? Probably not, but a Cantab coaching Auckland? A serious defection. The wailing and gnashing of teeth seems to be focused on two things. First, should a coach of one franchise be sorting out his move to another mid-season? Secondly, how has Sir JK managed to convince the Blues to let him write his new job description? In the words of my predecessor, "yours please, Andrew".
Andrew: While the difference might have been a job interview process after the miserable "Le Cardiff Debacle", it has some similarities because you can't keep shoving one man out the door and bringing in another hoping to change decades of rot. Let Sir John tackle running the team, sponsors, stakeholders and delivering a united message, and have a coach who just coaches.
Is Konrad Hurrell really a liability?
Konrad Hurrell does dumb stuff but he also does awesome stuff. Photo / Getty Images
Mark: You may be making some sense there, but make no bones about it, if this column's readership drops, you will be straight out the door and I promise you will not be wriggling your way into some sort of associate sports editor role. Wash your mouth out, Hurrell is awesome. He's a little like I always thought Manu Vatuvei was; made a lot of mistakes but he always gave you a net positive result. Hurrell does dumb stuff but he also does awesome stuff; maybe Steve Matai is a better comparison. Hurrell is too good to turn your back on and this latest thing, while having a major outcome, was pretty minor. He'll learn from this. And besides, don't forget that the Warriors are au fait with playing without Hurrell and have plenty of time to sort him out.
Martin Guptill or Hamish Rutherford?
Martin Guptill will have to demonstrate he's rectified the technical issues that torment his outside edge. Photo / NZME.
Andrew: Come on. Seriously? You really want my opinion on who should open the tests against England? I'm not falling for the whole "what would you know? You never opened for New Zealand in a test match" and rubbish what I'd say ... Guptill because he's been in the county stuff for a few weeks now.
Mark: Ha, ha. Yes, you are on to me. Okay, if you want to know what I think, listen up. Getting Guptill in the test team is beneficial for NZ Cricket because it grows the "core" group as in players who represent in all three forms. That simplifies the contracting process and as you know the corporate person I am, you'll understand why I value this scenario. From a purely cricket perspective, Guptill's recent injury has undone some of the good work of his county initiative. However, he played at Worcestershire, he would need to have come through with a meaningful score. Not only that, he will have to demonstrate he's rectified the technical issues that torment his outside edge. Let's not forget, Hamish Rutherford is the incumbent and if he builds on his time in the middle from Somerset he will be hard to leave out. It's a bat-off. I love a bat-off nearly as much as a bowl-off. Bring back the bowl-off.
Andrew: I can't see cricket making an appearance anytime soon and it probably needs to be included in the Commonwealth Games to showcase its value but T20 is the marijuana of cricket; the gateway form to entice Olympic viewers with its crash-bang excitement and Danny Morrison-isms. The real opponents to such an inclusion should come as no surprise; India and England stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through lost tour broadcast earnings of a four-test series, with August generally being the summer Games window, in contrast to the comparatively small financial benefit the IOC gives to sports it includes. A solution could be how Fifa incorporates itself into the Olympics with a few senior players mixed in with age group players. A stumbling block would be the nagging fact the T20 World Cup occurs every two years and having it the same year as the Games loses its lustre. The Olympics need cricket, not the other way around, according to the power brokers of the game, but for the associate nations and women's game the benefit is there and for once the ICC needs to seriously look at this.
Mark: Cricket has no place in the Olympics for the simple reason that if cricket was in the Olympics it would be the wrong cricket. Let's face it; if cricket is played in the Olympics it is certain to be T20. I am all for seeing the T20 epidemic spread because if players are going to gravitate to this evil mistress then at least find ways to keep them front and centre of our viewing rather than in irrelevant domestic competitions. But including T20 cricket at the Olympics, just like kids' soccer, is a direct violation of the Olympic ideal. Olympic sport must be sports at their best, which in this case is test cricket. When the ICC declare T20 cricket as the highest form of the game then yes, include cricket, but until then it has no place. Unless they find a way to include test cricket then maybe this could be the converted test championship; maybe Olympic cricket could be the final of the four-year test cycle and decides gold and silver. I've solved it. I am a genius.
