WILL IRISH EYES BE SMILING?

The Irish are coming to play the World champion All Blacks (using the term world champion was redundant but I’m not going to apologise, it feels so good to write it). While it may have taken 24 years for the All Blacks to win back the World Cup, the Irish haven’t beaten the All Blacks in 107 years of trying; with a solitary 10 all draw in 1973 their best result. The last time an Irish side beat the All Blacks, (Munster in 1978), they wrote a play about it. If the Irish team wins a test this year, what will be the result of that, a blockbuster trilogy?

When the All Blacks meet the Irish, will it be

Paradoxical though it is, considering that the All Blacks are the World Champions and the Irish ranked a lowly eighth in the world, I would suggest that the Irish have a great chance of winning a test this time. The All Blacks may have only lost three home test series (a series of three games or more); to the 1937 Springboks, the 1971 Lions and the 1986 Wallabies (the year of the Baby Blacks and Cavaliers) but for all of their dominance at home, where their winning percentage touches 83%, they have only clean-swept 6 series out of 29. The Wallabies have only been whitewashed once at home in 10 attempts, when the Woeful Wallabies toured here in 1973. The All Blacks do seem to find it tough to win three tests in a row against the same opposition.

an All Black win and more of the same,

Saying that, none of the home nations (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales) have even undertaken a three-test tour of New Zealand. The French have twice and twice they went home beaten 3-0.  The Lions have been clean-swept three times (in 1950, 1966 and on their most recent tour in 2005) and that takes the cream of the crop from the home nations. Ireland have played nine tests against the All Blacks in New Zealand, losing the lot obviously with an average score-line of 33-13. These are all stats that don’t suggest the Irish have a hope.

or something new, with an Irish win.

But if I was an Irishman, (and don’t we all have a little Irish in us), I’d still be hoping for an upset. The Irish have a sprinkling of world-class players- the likes of Heaslip, O’Driscoll and O’Brien- and on their day can compete with (and beat) the best teams in the world. If you don’t believe it, check out the result when Ireland played the Wallabies in the World Cup, which also shows they could win big tests away from home. Add in the fact that the Irish have had a couple of weeks together whereas the All Blacks will have less than a week together and it's less easy to write off the Irish. So, the All Blacks will have to guard against complacency and find an antidote to the World Cup hangover that seems to be bugging several of the players, to avoid getting the label of the first All Black team to lose to the Irish. Whatever happens though, should be good craic.

New Zealand's rose tinted glasses

Richard Boock, a columnist in the New Zealand Herald, commented on how Saudi Arabia should be banned from the Olympics as it is the leader in gender apartheid (no Saudi women will be at the London games or have attended any previous games). In the article, Boock argued that New Zealand should be a major player in the push for Saudi Arabia to be banned, in part because of our history of severing sporting ties, in particular rugby ties, with the apartheid regime in South Africa. While I fully agree with his hope that Saudi Arabia should be held accountable for its treatment of women (and not just in sports), his article did highlight that New Zealanders tend to think that they played a crucial part in ending the apartheid regime. After all, in 1981, New Zealand found itself effectively split in two during the tour of the South African rugby side between those who backed the tour and those who wanted the tour to be cancelled, many of whom took to the streets in protest, leading to violent clashes with police. I would argue that the assumption of the significance of New Zealand’s role in ending apartheid has been overplayed and over-represented. In fact, the opposite could be argued that New Zealand supported the apartheid regime by continuing rugby ties with South Africa well after other countries and codes had stopped all contact.

Protestors and police clash during the 1981 Springbok tour to New Zealand.

1963 saw the start of the sports boycott on South Africa when they were suspended by FIFA and then subsequently banned by the I.O.C from competing at the 1964 Olympics. The IAAF (in charge of track and field) followed suit and suspended South Africa in 1970, the same year cricket also cut official ties with South Africa. Rugby though, and not just in New Zealand, was much slower in enforcing a total boycott on South Africa (although Australia’s last rugby test against the Australians was in 1971). This is particularly surprisingly in that rugby was the most popular sport among the white community in South Africa and the loss of international rugby, of all sports, would have had the greatest impact on the regime. The Springboks were traditionally one of the top two teams in the world (beside New Zealand's All Blacks) and were the only team to hold an edge in face to face encounters with New Zealand. The Boks were the pride of white South Africa, a potent symbol of the apartheid regime. Due to this, coloured and black communities would support the All Blacks when they were playing South Africa, including Nelson Mandela, who cheered on the All Blacks when he was serving his jail time imposed by the South African government.

Nelson Mandela supported rivals of the Springboks while in prison, before embracing the team when he saw the power that the team had to help reunify the country.

This is a tradition that continues even to this day with many non-white South Africans supporting the All Blacks over the Springboks, much to the chagrin of other South African supporters. Throughout the apartheid regime, South Africa remained as a member of the IRB (International Rugby Board) but was banned from competing in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups. However, as well as the Springboks touring New Zealand in that divisive 1981 tour, there were tours of South Africa by the British Lions and France in 1980, by Ireland in 1981 and by England in 1984. New Zealand was even going to tour South Africa in 1985 until the New Zealand High Court stopped the tour (however, in 1986, the New Zealand Cavaliers, which included 28 out of the 30 originally selected All Blacks, toured South Africa).

The NZ Cavaliers toured South Africa in 1986 as a rebel team after the New Zealand High Court stopped the All Blacks from touring the Republic in 1985.

These tours in the 1980s came after the Gleneagles agreement in 1977 where the countries of the Commonwealth had agreed that “the urgent duty of each of their Governments vigorously to combat the evil of apartheid by withholding any form of support for, and by taking every practical step to discourage contact or competition by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa or from any other country where sports are organised on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin.” The Gleneagles agreement came from the actions of the All Blacks who toured South Africa in 1976, an action that led directly to 25 African countries boycotting the 1976 Montreal Olympics.

New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon (centre) attended the Gleneagles conference but then disregarded the agreement in 1981.

Clearly, New Zealand valued its rugby relationship with apartheid South Africa so much that it would allow this slur on New Zealand’s name, enough that for several tours of South Africa (in 1928, 1949 and 1960), the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) followed their South African counterparts lead and refused to allow Maori or other non-white players tour South Africa, enough to endanger the health of members of police, security, tour supporters and protestors alike during the 1981 tour. Given New Zealand's rugby history of not wanting to cut contact with South Africa, either by touring that country or by allowing the Springboks to tour here, it would be hard to argue that the NZRU actively sought an end of the apartheid regime  (a Springbok tour was stopped by the New Zealand government in 1973). At best, they can be portrayed as neutral political observers, at worst uncaring of people oppressed by apartheid. The New Zealand players who toured with the Cavaliers tried to justify it by either saying that sport and politics don’t mix, that they were doing good by touring a white-dominant country with a multi-racial team ignoring the fact that most of them had gone to claim the large player payments on offer (rugby at this time was officially an amateur sport). So I’m not sure if New Zealand has a positive legacy on opposing sporting contacts with oppressive regimes. This isn’t to say that New Zealand can’t be a world leader, just like in their no-nuclear stance. It’s just pointing out that New Zealand didn’t do as much as it could to bring apartheid to an end.

TO CHOKE OR NOT TO CHOKE

In the two sports that I most closely follow, rugby and cricket, there has been a strange parallel between the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team and the South African cricket team. Since 1999, both teams have been heavily fancied in World Cups (1999,2003 and 2007 and in cricket’s case 2011) but every time they have come unstuck against less fancied opponents, leading to both teams being given the epithet of chokers. The latest incidence of the choking curse was at the 2011 Cricket World Cup when South Africa was well beaten by a fighting but underpowered New Zealand side. This follows on from a series of misadventures; in 1999, they panicked and lost the game that was theirs; in 2003, they misread the scoresheet and miscalculated how many runs they needed to win; in 2007, they lost in the semi-final to eventual winners Australia but only after a change in tactics led to a horrible batting display. The All Blacks have likewise been consistently ranked as the #1 ranked team coming into World Cups. In 1999, they were stunned by the French, surrendering a 14-point lead and conceding 30 points in a half hour of mayhem. This was after beating the French earlier that year by 50 points. They lost to home-team Australia in a boil-over at the 2003 World Cup, a team that they had also scored 50 points against earlier that year. And in the choking trifecta, they lost to a French team that played out of their skins, helped to some degree by some refereeing errors. Again, the All Blacks had posted 50 against the French earlier that year. Sometimes, it’s hard to know if it’s a choke, poor tactics or just a case of losing to a better team. Hopefully, the All Blacks, unlike the South African cricket team, will be able to break the jinx come 2011 Rugby World Cup time.

South African despair when they found out they had misread the rain sheet.

While it’s hard to avoid the choke moniker (no team is unbeatable but repeated early exits make it seem more plausible that both the All Blacks and the Proteas couldn’t handle the jandal), the All Blacks are frequently charged with peaking between World Cups, especially the year before (I, for one, can’t really see how you can plan to get a team to pick for a one month period out of four years). This is one accusation that I believe has been driven by the media without any real statistical backup.

In the period before the 1991 World Cup, the most successful year was 1989 (100%) winning record, compared to 80% in 1988 and in 1991 and 85 in 1990. The case can certainly be argued that during this period that the All Blacks peaked in 88/89, before injury and defections to rugby league really started to bite. For the period between 1992 and the 1995 World Cup, I would argue that the All Blacks picked the year of the World Cup (which they reached the final of, eventually losing to South Africa in extra time) to peak. Their results in 1992 and 1993 were mediocre and downright poor in 1994 (only winning 2 out of 6 games). For the period 1996-1999, the team peaked in 1996-1997, only losing one game and drawing another in the 22 games it played in these two years. 1998 was almost a replica of the 1994 year, except it was even worse, winning only two from seven including a 5 match losing streak. During the World Cup year of 1999, they played well without ever being entirely convincing, culminating in the shock loss (and start of the choke) to France.

It's been 24 years since the All Blacks have won the Rugby World Cup,
despite being favourites going into many of the tournaments.

In a similar pattern to the lead up to the 1995 World Cup, the period 2000- 2003 found an All Black team peaking in World Cup year, a year that included putting up 50 points against both South Africa and Australia in away games. They lost to a fired up Australian team in the semi-final, giving away an early intercept try from which they couldn’t recover from. The lead-up to the 2007 World Cup saw great results in 2005-2006, years where the All Blacks dropped only one game, a roll that extended into 2007 where they had won 10 out of 11 games leading into the quarterfinal. Forward passes and refereeing concerns set aside, they lost this game to a plucky but limited French side. Leading into the 2011 World Cup, on the back of a great 2010 where they only lost one game out of 14, one can only hope that they haven’t already peaked. Time will tell.

When have they peaked?

Have they peaked the year before the World Cup? The answer would be once.

Have they peaked two years before? Twice

Have they peaked three years before? Twice

Have they peaked the year of the world cup? Twice

The problem hasn’t been peaking too early, it seems that they just haven’t peaked at the business end of the World Cup yet.

The last New Zealand rugby myth that British scribes are all too ready to point out is the alleged stripping of the Pacific Islands by the New Zealand (and increasingly) Australian rugby unions. Such people would have you believe that New Zealand rugby agents are scouting the Pacific Islands, giving every ten year old who can run quickly a contract to play rugby in New Zealand. This is a self serving and condescending fallacy and one that could easily be construed as ignorance at best and at worst, a blatant attempt to unjustly sully New Zealand’s rugby reputation.

It is true that New Zealand has attracted players from the Pacific Islands to play for the All Blacks (Sitiveni Sitivatu is one that comes to mind, as he only come to New Zealand aged 17 on a rugby scholarship). However to say that New Zealand is pillaging the islands for its rugby talent is both disrespectful to New Zealand and to the large Polynesian community in New Zealand, who British writers apparently see as not being New Zealand citizens. The thing that overseas writers don’t get is that New Zealand is one of the more diverse countries in the world, with about a quarter of its people born overseas, which is one of the highest percentages in the world (for example, the corresponding value in the USA is only 13%). This means that statistically, it would be stranger if there weren’t a lot of foreign-born people representing the All Blacks. It would be like saying that Monty Panesar, the former English cricket player, born and bred in England, shouldn’t have played for England because he was of Indian descent. At the last census, over 130,000 Samoans, 50,000 Tongans and 7,000 Fijians, were living in New Zealand (which has a population of only around 4 million). Many or most of them are citizens of New Zealand, about half of whom were born on the islands. These includes players like Isaia Toeava, Mills Muliana, Va’aiga Tuigamala, all Samoan born but who came to New Zealand at an early age. So while it is undeniable that New Zealand has several foreign born players in its team, its also fair to say that most of them were raised in New Zealand from an early age and weren’t poached from the islands for their rugby ability. Many high profile Polynesians that have played for the All Blacks, like Tana Umaga, Jonah Lomu, Michael Jones and Ma’a Nonu were all born and raised in New Zealand.

The All Blacks always have teams with players with European, Maori and Polynesian heritage. 

The issue is amplified because of the large number of Polynesians who play for New Zealand in rugby. The number is far beyond their proportion of the population (for example, at the 2007 World Cup, 11 out of the 30 players were Polynesian but the total population of Polynesians in New Zealand was only about 8%). At first glance, it does seem odd. After all, the Asian population in New Zealand is large (about 10%) but no person of Asian descent has yet to make the All Blacks. This is easily explained by the fact that Polynesian players are ideally equipped for the game of rugby. The game is made for fast, strong, powerfully built men, a description that fits a high proportion of Polynesians. Before the influx of Polynesians into New Zealand in the 1970s, Maori players, themselves Polynesian, had (and still do) excel at the game, with many of New Zealand’s best players of Maori lineage. Again, Maori were over-represented in the All Blacks. Given this rich history, it’s no surprise that players from Samoa, Tonga and Fiji have been able to make the All Blacks in exaggerated numbers.

In fact, far from being a pillager, New Zealand is the chief exporter of rugby talent to other countries. At the last World Cup, 27 New Zealand born players represented other countries. The Samoan team contained 14 New Zealand born players (they were eligible due to ancestry rights where having a grandparent from a certain country qualifies you to play for that country). 8 foreign born players, including 5 Samoan born players played for New Zealand at the tournament. Currently, a similar number of New Zealand born players are in the Samoan squad (13), with some New Zealand born players in the Fijian, Tongan, Australian, Japanese, Italian and English squads.

Stephen Jones, the Welsh-born Times columnist, self appointed tormentor of New Zealand rugby and upholder of the English game, is one of the main perpetrators of this myth of New Zealand being south sea pirates, snatching promising players from their cradle in the hope that they will one day become famous All Blacks. Ironically, England and all of the home nations to some extent have been guilty of player poaching. Of the current England squad, 3 of the players are New Zealand born and raised, all three of who had to fulfil residency requirements to play for their new country, while 2 others have recently played for them (3 of these players had recently played for the New Zealand rugby league team). Wales have had at least six New Zealand born and bred players play for them recently. Two of them, Shane Howarth who had already played for the All Blacks and another, Brett Sinkinson, were found to have no ancestral rights to play for the country in the so-called Granny gate scandal. Scotland have had several so-called kilted Kiwis (including Brendan Laney, John and Martin Leslie), players who could claim the right to represent Scotland via ancestry links mere weeks after arriving in the country.

Shane Howarth, former All Black, who played for Wales even though he didn't qualify for them.

Much of the criticism of player poaching has been driven by the journalists on Fleet Street. It appears that they choose to ignore some blatant examples of foreign player poaching happening right under their nose. The English cricket team is well-known for its sprinkling of players who were born overseas (an interesting titbit from the 2011 cricket World Cup was that there were more Irish-born players there than English-born). Currently, at least 4 South African born players and an Irishman are playing for England, which keeps with the tradition of foreign born players playing for England (starting in the 80s with the South Africans Robin Smith and Allan Lamb, the 1990s with the Zimbabwean Graham Hick and New Zealander Andy Caddick and onto the current situation). People in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones, something that English supporters and writers should remember before writing a mis-placed story about player pilfering by New Zealand.