Tries: R Malneek, T Moran
Pens: M James (2), A Goodman

To call this a dog's breakfast would be to insult jellymeat. If what I witnessed last night at the Theatre of Ratepayers' Burden was rugby then the dictionary definition of 'rugby' must be "the most f*ckbuttly sport in the history of f*ckbuttly sports".

Tasman were awful, as we expected they would be; that we did them the honour of being more awful is truly testament to the depths that we're capable of plumbing, and which we might have briefly forgotten after last week's effort. So, if messrs. Dowd and Wilson needed any further reminding, here it is from the website that has had to put up with this for 10 years: never believe that your team will back up a mighty effort with another mighty effort. If the players mouth platitudes to you about how they will not let the intensity drop, DO NOT BELIEVE THEM - IT IS A SCAM. They know how to say the words to keep you happy, but this doesn't mean that the words carry meaningful sentiment. If ever they claim - as Chris Smith did last week - to recognise the importance of keeping things in perspective, then that's your cue to work them to death. Work them till they cannot stand. Work them till they cannot pick up the bottle of hair rinse and the L'Oreal hydrating balm.

There has to be some blame levelled at the selection. Why did we change a winning combination from last week? We beat Canterbury. Are the players who beat Canterbury now somehow not quite good enough to beat Tasman? Ravulo might not have won a lot of breakdown ball last week but he had the physical presence that we need in tight games. Colhoun's 15 minutes of glory last week were the only 15 minutes of glory he's had in a Harbour jersey. Even non-rugby-mad Andy F*cking Warhol knew that a good 15 minutes doesn't make a guy good. Also, Afoa's absence from the starting front row was inexplicable. Dowd knows scrummagers better than I ever will but I do know that Afoa is one of those guys who, when he gets fired up, fires up everyone around him. Instead, it was left to Tasman's Ben Franks to dictate proceedings, which he summarily and clinically did.

I'm also not sure that I should say this, but I'm not sure that McAllister and Wulf actually helped much. We were winning when Mailei and Nafi went off. The game reeked of the sort of shit that's never going to sweeten, so why not just keep on the guys who'll put their bodies on the line, make big hits, and keep accruing the penalties? Maybe there was some hope that McAllister would provide a moment of brilliance that would open the game up. If so, why didn't we give him the ball? The one time we did, he threw one of those passes that Harbour fans love (because they rip NPC opposition apart) and which AB fans hate (because England, Australia, and South Africa are a bit more savvy to intercepts) and which resulted in the best effort we had to score a try. In fact, why did we rarely give a three-AB backline the ball? So many questions, so much simmering rage about to be wreaked on my f*cking goldfish.

Get your f*cking shit together by next week, will you?