England team awarded MBEs

[ohtani's jacket]

Michael Campbell was given an order of merit for his US Open win, im not sure if any other sports teams or sporting people gained orders of merit here.

Mehrtens was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

As were New Zealand Maori coach, Matt Te Pou, Waikato's Matt Cooper, former All Black captain Tane Norton, Emily Drumm and a few others.

 

[swede]

I dunno, just reaffirms how pointless it is for Australia to still be a member of the Commonwealth. Realistically the Queen shouldn't have chosen sides in the Ashes, but when she was asked she said of course she was going for England. The monarch is supposed to hold all members of the Commonwealth on equal footing. Realistically the Australians should have got MBE's and OBE's for their '99 World Cup win, 99 World Cup rugby win and other such occurances.

Still, I see no problem with these awards being dished out. As has been said, they're basically just there to honour a good performance. They're nothing special. My only problem is with the reluctancy (read: It never happens) of the Queen to give such awards to other countries that are part of the Empire (Well, probably more commonwealth).

The queen isnt head of state for all commonwelth countries. Only the UK, Australia, Canada, NZ and I think a few others.
Honours are given to competing nations, though, for instance in rugby where 3½ of the teams form the UK

Within tose countries she should basically be fair but her role is obviously much smaller in Australia including honours, which is surely something Australia themselves have withdrawn from. Thats why it never happens. Its quite ridiculous
Australia should really either keep the queen as a real head of state or get rid of the monarchy.

Perhaps Britain should have a say as well as they are hardly going to get anything but bother out of the queen being Australia´s head of state.

 

[swede]

But perhaps Ponting should really get one anyway, as suggested by a paper.

Winning the toss at edgbaston and put England in with Mcgrath on his way to hospital really does deserve some sort of recognition..

 

[Smudge]

I was using the rugby analogy - that was all that got them that award.

In terms of impact, the Ashes 2005 are easily the same as RWC 2003.

But luckyeddie tells me nothing in rugby union compares to the Ashes. Who am I to believe?

 

[marc71178]

In terms of the impact on the nation, the RWC was huge, as was the Ashes.

 

[FuzzyDuck]

The vote for a republic never passed and we never replace her on our coin! So technically we're still a full-fledged member of the british empire.

That isn't the standard picture on the front o fthe coin, but it was the newest picture of a coin I could find.

Yes I know, but imagine if a group of your workmates (for instance) had a vote to get you kicked out of your job, but in the end voted not to, would you be a happy bunny? Not a true analogy I know, but you get the idea.

Actually I don't think the Queen gives a monkeys whether she's Queen of Oz or not. She's get plenty of libraries and stuff to open here The point I made earlier still stands, while she gets to reject someone off the list, the list itself is written by the political party in power and there's no votes in giving anything abroad.

 

[Smudge]

In terms of the impact on the nation, the RWC was huge, as was the Ashes.

You didn't answer my question.

Who am I to believe?

 

[FuzzyDuck]

You didn't answer my question.

Who am I to believe?

I'd say that both sports are secondary in England, football is king. If England got to the final of the world cup this year (even if they didn't win) that would be a bigger event than the Ashes and the Rugby World Cup wins added together.

 

[Smudge]

I'd say that both sports are secondary in England, football is king. If England got to the final of the world cup this year (even if they didn't win) that would be a bigger event than the Ashes and the Rugby World Cup wins added together.

That doesn't really answer my question either. What is it with you British posters? Are you all council workers? Because you seem fairly adept at shifting the goalposts.

 

[FuzzyDuck]

That doesn't really answer my question either. What is it with you British posters? Are you all council workers? Because you seem fairly adept at shifting the goalposts.

That depends which question you want addressing.If question is "why doesn't anything in rugby union compare with an Ashes win in Britain".

1) The England cricket team represents all of the UK. The England rugby team represents England.

2) Rugby union is not a popular sport at all in England. Union is probably the 3rd most popular team sport in England after football and cricket, and has very little support north of Leicester. Cricket has a much more widespread appeal in England.

3) Clive Woodward. Everyone hates him. Even the England team.

4) You say

"Actually, considering the respective strengths of the teams over the last 100 years or so, I'd say a win in a NZ v South Africa series warrants more than a passing comparison, bearing in mind the global nature of both sports."

Test match cricket between England and Aus has been played since 1876 - and the Ashes is the biggest prize that either can win in test cricket. And rugby union has nothing like the worldwide following that cricket has. India has 1 billion people, Pakistan 150 million, Bangladesh 128 million and cricket is the major sport in all three countries. Cricket is a bigger sport than RU in Aus and the UK, and those are two of the major hotbeds of the sport

5) It was estimated that there were 100,000 people in Trafalgar square for the victory parade, that does not include the crowds along the route of the parade which ran for several miles and was packed. How many people would turn up for rugby victory for the NZ v SA series if they ever held one? When the Aussies won the Ashes back in 1989 there was a ticker-tape parade in Sydney. Anything happen like that when one international team beats another in rugby union, and I'm not talking about the world cup?

If your question is "who am I to believe" that's up to you I guess.

 

[swede]

So why does nothing in rugby union compare to an Ashes win? Actually, considering the respective strengths of the teams over the last 100 years or so, I'd say a win in a NZ v South Africa series warrants more than a passing comparison, bearing in mind the global nature of both sports.

Don't let your love of "stop, drop and roll" cloud your judgement.

cricket is a way bigger sport than rugby in England. I quite like rugby but really, its hardly a sport of a "global" nature.
Its probably 3rd in England, Australia and south africa. 4th in Ireland. France is really the only place where it might be 2nd. its only the number 1 sport in a few very small countries.

But that doesnt really matter.
To get honours, you need to catch people´s imagination and preferably for quite a while.
The ashes did that for 2 months of tension-filled relentless cricket setting all sorts of records for public interest with the final test billed as the biggest sporting event on british soil since 1966.
Rugby cant really do that apart from the world cup. 6-nations happen too often with England regular winners.

 

[luckyeddie]

But luckyeddie tells me nothing in rugby union compares to the Ashes. Who am I to believe?

No, I said that nothing New Zealand achieved in rugby union compares to the Ashes.

 

[Smudge]

That depends which question you want addressing.If question is "why doesn't anything in rugby union compare with an Ashes win in Britain".

1) The England cricket team represents all of the UK.

No it doesn't - it represents England and Wales. How else did Scotland get into the World Cup?

2) Rugby union is not a popular sport at all in England.

Union is probably the 3rd most popular team sport in England after football and cricket,

Sounds pretty popular to me... although you seem a little confused.

3) Clive Woodward. Everyone hates him. Even the England team.

But he's involved in soccer now.

Test match cricket between England and Aus has been played since 1876 - and the Ashes is the biggest prize that either can win in test cricket

Yep, and the first rugby international was between England and Scotland in 1871...

.

And rugby union has nothing like the worldwide following that cricket has. India has 1 billion people, Pakistan 150 million, Bangladesh 128 million and cricket is the major sport in all three countries.

Depends if you look at it on a population basis, rather than the countries that play. Rugby is more global than cricket when you look at countries that play. The size of the respective World Cups back my claim.

Cricket is a bigger sport than RU in Aus and the UK, and those are two of the major hotbeds of the sport

Yep, no problems with that.

5) It was estimated that there were 100,000 people in Trafalgar square for the victory parade, that does not include the crowds along the route of the parade which ran for several miles and was packed. How many people would turn up for rugby victory for the NZ v SA series if they ever held one?

Errr, 80-100,000 lined Queen St when NZ finally won a series in South Africa in 1996. And this in a city of just over 1 million...

When the Aussies won the Ashes back in 1989 there was a ticker-tape parade in Sydney. Anything happen like that when one international team beats another in rugby union, and I'm not talking about the world cup?

See above.

If your question is "who am I to believe" that's up to you I guess.

Indeed. And it won't be you.

 

[luckyeddie]

Errr, 80-100,000 lined Queen St when NZ finally won a series in South Africa in 1996. And this in a city of just over 1 million...

Look - I happen to know that NZ TV had cancelled the planned broadcast of 'One Man and his Sheep', so they had nothing better to do.

 

[Smudge]

Yep. I'm convinced. You're definitely NOT Jeremy Clarkson. He's a bit more creative than ad nauseum sheep jokes...

 

[Blaze]

Look - I happen to know that NZ TV had cancelled the planned broadcast of 'One Man and his Sheep', so they had nothing better to do.

Got anything new or original?

 

[luckyeddie]

Yep. I'm convinced. You're definitely NOT Jeremy Clarkson. He's a bit more creative than ad nauseum sheep jokes...

Don't blame me, mate.

I don't live in a country where the most popular girl's name is 'Dolly'.

Or the most popular boy's name is 'Dolly'.

Or where the missus says "This sunday, we're having a special treat. We're NOT having lamb."

 

[luckyeddie]

Got anything new or original?

Of course not.

 

[Smudge]

See, you keep trying, but it's still not funny... give up while you're well behind.

 

[luckyeddie]

See, you keep trying, but it's still not funny... give up while you're well behind.

OK