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.

SONNY BILL OR $ONNY BILL??

Sonny Bill Williams came back to New Zealand rugby via Toulon (who he played 30 odd games for) accompanied with well wishes, hype and fanfare. He had starred for the Kiwis and for the Bulldogs, his mix of high-octane shoulder charges, busts and offloads a fan pleaser. Given his high profile midnight run from the Bulldogs breaking a multi-million dollar five year contract in the process, signed so recently that the ink was still wet on it, he had a lot to prove to the New Zealand public. It all started off well. He had a solid NPC and a highly promising All Blacks tour to the Home Nations in 2010. In 2011, he started off strongly in the Super 15 and earned kudos for donating $100,000 to the Canterbury earthquake appeal. But then came the fall. He focused on a mid-season boxing bout against an out of shape beneficiary to the detriment of his rugby. He won but not with style. It was a strangely tentative, almost timid display from a man who grossly physically outgunned his opponent. After the bout, he lost his edge in his rugby. Then, he reneged on a verbal commitment to remain in rugby in New Zealand. Public sentiment began to change, to shift beneath his feet. A poll showed that many New Zealanders now don’t want him to resign with the New Zealand Rugby Union.

On All Black debut.

So what went wrong with Sonny Bill? The thing is that is definitely two sides to him. In interviews and on the field, he seems a team player, a humble man who just wants to play footy. But then, you hear reports of a different Sonny Bill, a guy balanced with a chip on each shoulder out to do the best for himself and screw any loyalty. To be fair, this version of Sonny Bill is usually associated with the dealings of his manager, Khoder Nasser and another of his high profile clients, former league star and boxer Anthony Mundine (Quade Cooper, the exciting Wallabies flyhalf is also on his books). Nasser is an outsider looking in, a renegade who is trying to change the system from the outside. Maybe he wants to change the system so it benefits his charges; a cynical person would say he wants to change it to benefit himself first then his client. This may be disingenuous. Nasser has a reputation to fight ferociously for his clients. Many boxing authorities in Australia appreciate the work Nasser has done with Mundine, but managing a boxer is different from league or union. Boxing is all about self-promotion, bravado and an independent spirit. In the ring, a warrior only has his own strength, both physical and mental to rely on. A player in a team sport like SBW is only as strong as his team and thus has to fit into a team structure. Highly physical sports like league and union, even more than soccer, thrive on forming bonds, on forming a brotherhood. After all, it is almost like trench warfare at times. People don’t appreciate players if they seem to think they are bigger than the team or the game. SBW is starting to appear that way and he hasn’t put in the hard yards into New Zealand rugby to warrant special attention as yet, unlike a Carter or a McCaw.

His zealous manager, Khoder Nasser.

Apparently, Nasser’s favourite book is Malcolm X’s biography, a man of great passion, a man who fought outside the system he found himself in. Nasser is certainly passionate about his men. It was him who raged for hours with the Canterbury coaches about William’s omission from the Canterbury team for a game last year. The comment was made that “Sonny has never been dropped in his career”. True, but SBW has never played for the world’s best team, fighting for a place against one of the world’s top players, one who has fought back from his own disappointments to cement his place in the All Blacks. No player holds his place by right, especially in the All Blacks.

Anthony Mundine is probably Australia’s most disliked sportsman, despite his obvious skills in both league and boxing. Unfortunately, Mundine, or the Man, appears to be SBW’s guru, with Sonny Bill following Mundine’s conversion to Islam and dabbling in the boxing ring (to be fair to Mundine, he has had a very successful fight career, including winning the Super middleweight WBA belt twice). Unlike SBW, who has always been respectful when speaking to the media, Mundine is outspoken. He said that 9/11 was warranted due to America’s role in the Islamic world and always complained that he was deprived representative honours in rugby league because he is Aboriginal (ironically, rugby league is probably the Australian sport that is most supportive of Aboriginal people. If you don’t believe that, look at Australian cricket that has had very few players of Aboriginal descent). 

Does Mundine have Sonny Bill's ear?

Williams is his own man. But Mundine does seem to have William’s ear which troubles me. Recently, Mundine is what is he saying to Sonny Bill about not being the first choice for the All Blacks.

“Why the hell ain't the all blacks playing SBW ... I think it's crazy???he one of the best if not the best backs in game!!!is there an agenda???"

"Fans wanna see SBW?? and the centres now are both good but they ain't no Sonny ... seriously there is knowbody betta ...he revolutionized rugby”

"Nonu and smith both class players but come on peeps they not on the same level as SBW”

Twitter posts made after he was left out of the All Blacks squad.

Maybe this is Mundine’s way of supporting his stable mate. If so, so be it. But the comments concern me on two levels. First of all, Mundine may be filling William’s with thoughts that he has been unjustly treated. And that is really not the case. To be fair, he probably should have been given a start against either the Springboks or the Wallabies at home early this year. He made little impact coming on as a replacement in those games and in his only test start in 2011, albeit in a weakened All Black side, he failed to shine. Ma’a Nonu’s form at the business end of the Super 15 and in the early internationals this year has been so compelling that there is no way Williams deserves a place ahead of him. Second of all, the talk of an agenda worries me. It clearly can’t be a racial one. While SBW is of Samoan descent, so is Nonu. At least ten players in the New Zealand World Cup squad are Polynesian. The agenda can’t be because of the ongoing contract negotiations or else SBW would surely have been given more than one start. The agenda remains unclear to me; unless the agenda is to sideline the first Muslim All Black which I don’t believe for a second.

Ma'a Nonu: William's AB rival and probably the best 12 in the world at the moment.

What William’s needs to do is recapture the form that has deserted him in recent times. He needs to attack the line with the intent to break it, not just attack the line so he can off-load the ball. Recently, he seems willing to take the ball into contact rather than really back himself to break the line. People point to the fact that he topped the list of All Blacks players attending rucks and mauls in the last test he played against the Springboks. As admirable as this is, it isn’t his core job. His core job is to make tackles and break the line to set up those outside him. He needs to get back to what he does best. Others point out that he needs to play more rugby union. I would point to over 50 top level matches for Toulon, Canterbury, the Crusaders and the All Blacks and say that he has had enough time to get his head around the game.

Sports players sometimes need to stick to basics or pay the price for it. For example, Muttiah Muralitharan, the outstanding Sri Lankan off-spinner, developed a doosra, a ball that spins opposite to the way it appears it should, the equivalent of a leg spinner’s googly. By developing this ball, he had to change the way he bowled his stock delivery. His off spinner now had to be bowled much closely to middle stump for the doosra to be effective. It meant that it negated to a certain extent his ability to get wickets with his stock ball, a big, turning off spinner and it became easier for batsmen to pick off singles, as his line strayed more often onto a batsmen’s pads. The doosra probably reduced his ability to take out top-order, quality batsmen but increased his ability to dismiss lower order batsmen. 

Muralitharan:Evolution probably slightly diminished his game.

His rival, Shane Warne, from Australia, went through a slump mid-career but came back strongly. By the end of his career, he only had two balls, a leg-spinner and a straight ball (he said he had several variations of this ball but I doubt that). By sticking to basics, he bowled as well as he ever did, despite the fact that he didn’t have the leg spinner’s classic other deliveries, the googly (Warne’s googly was always poor and he only really bowled it to lower order batsmen) or the flipper (Warne did have one of the best flippers of all time but it became less effective after shoulder surgery). The comparison of the two can be used to show that basics are often best.

Another thing I feel is holding SBW back is his famous off-loading ability. He now looks for the off-load before breaking the line, as if fans will be disappointed if he didn’t get a couple of miracle off-loads away per game. I compare it to Jonah Lomu, who shot to fame after scoring that memorable try against the English in 1995, where he trampled Mike Catt in the process. The problem with that was that he saw, and people saw, how easy it was for him to just steamroll players. It meant he often took to just trying to run over opponents rather than try to beat them with his footwork (which was great for such a big man). The thing that he was famous for damaged and limited his game to a certain extent. I fear the same is happening with Sonny Bill.

The moment that changed Jonah's life forever.

Returning to league may be his best option (he can return to the NRL in 2013). It suits his style of play better than union, he can put in those big shoulder charges in league which are illegal in union and his attacking game is not negated by him helping out at ruck and maul time. The off-load is more of an attacking weapon in league where teams only have 6 tackles to break the line. Union players can be more patient in the lead-up to a try. I hope that SBW will resign with the NZRU as his presence in New Zealand is very beneficial to the game here. When he is on form, he is a fan favourite and he would push hard for a starting spot. At present, he is no-where near Nonu and will struggle to find a place on the bench, given his surprisingly lack of impact off the bench for both the All Blacks and Crusaders this year, and the fact that he can only really play at 12. SBW needs to know that there is no agenda at play, just for the first time in his career, he is not the best man for the job. How he fights for it will be his legacy in New Zealand rugby. 

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.

CLASH OF THE TITANS: ALL BLACKS VS SPRINGBOKS

In rugby, it would be hard to find two more intense foes than New Zealand’s All Blacks and the Springboks of South Africa. Over the years, the rivalry has meant many things; hatred, resentment, jealousy, bitterness. It has led to allegations of cheating and foul play. Politically, the apartheid regime caused friction, notably in the fact that Maori players were not considered for selection for the All Blacks first three tours of the republic and in the civil disobedience that effected the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand, the closest thing to a civil war New Zealand has experienced in the last 50 years. Politics aside, the one constant has been the respect players and supporters of both teams have for the other. Both teams see the other as the only other genuine contender in their claims to be the greatest rugby-playing nation.

Before the sporting isolation South Africa experienced due to apartheid, the Springboks were the only challengers to All Black supremacy. Indeed, South Africans can point to the fact that head to head in the period 1921-1981, South Africa claimed 20 victories to New Zealand’s 15. South Africa accomplished their first (and so far only) series win in New Zealand on their second attempt. That 1937 Springbok team was referred to at the time as the greatest side to have left New Zealand’s shores, quite a compliment when you consider the New Zealand teams that had preceded them. They also drew their first test series in New Zealand and were within a late penalty goal of drawing the controversial 1981 tour. In contrast, in 20 games in South Africa during this time, New Zealand was only able to win 5 games, a puny 25% success rate. In 5 attempts, New Zealand was unable to win a single test series in South Africa (a draw in 1928 their best result).

Above: Footage from the 1956 Springbok Tour to New Zealand. New Zealand 3-1, the first series in 5 attempts that they won.

It was until after sporting isolation finished for South Africa that New Zealand finally managed to get its win-loss ratio against South Africa into the positive. South Africa was the only team that had won more games than lost against New Zealand. Now, New Zealand has won 45 and lost 33 games, being the only team that has beat South Africa more often than not. A big difference has been New Zealand’s vast improvement in its ability to win games in South Africa (13 out of 22 or 59%). Their home record improved from a solid 62% pre-isolation (10 out of 17) to 80 % (16 out of 20). Post isolation, South Africa have a dismal record of 3 wins and 1 draw in 20 tests in New Zealand.

       Above: Joel Stransky wins the World Cup for South Africa in 1995.

Why the change in fortunes? First, lets look at the All Blacks. Before the 1970s, New Zealand rugby was associated with useful backs but renowned for its tough, strong forwards. Names like Brownlie, Meads, Whinery and Skinner were the main men with backup provided when needed by the backline (a Nepia, Cooke, Scott or a Clarke). Back then, New Zealand rugby was what English rugby has been for the past 20 years except better, a team with a dominant pack with backs who usually lacked creativity but with the odd exception i.e Jeremy Guscott. The series loss to the 1971 Lions, (the only time the All Blacks have lost a series to the Lions), who outplayed the All Blacks through the use of a more expansive game, led to a rethink in how New Zealand would approach the game. Gradually through the 1970s and 80s, there was a steady change in the type of player coming through the New Zealand ranks. It wasn't overnight. The 1972-72 team to tour the UK were spoke of as playing nine man rugby, a game plan based around the forward pack and a dominant scrum-half in Sid Going. Gradually though, partly due to the fact that Northern Hemisphere teams had stronger packs than New Zealand (in one notable instance, New Zealand had to resort to three man scrums against the 1977 Lions as they couldn’t compete with the Lions scrum) and partly due to the realisation that they had the players to do it, a more expansive approach developed in New Zealand, culminating in the World Cup win in 1987.

Another factor was that backline stars like Bryan Williams, the Samoan who became an honourary white for the 1970 tour of South Africa and lit up that country with his exploits, were starting to be developed. The influx of Polynesians into rugby changed the game in New Zealand, mostly for the good. Since the first World Cup in 1987 which New Zealand won comprehensively, the All Blacks have played an open, expansive game utilizing the gifts that a rising Polynesian population has given the game. Now, New Zealand is known as the great entertainers (some might say great cheats) of world rugby, known more for its Lomus, Cullens and Carters than for its forward power.

                         Above: Jonah Lomu takes on the Springboks.

South Africa, pre and post isolation, has tended to play the game it always has. A huge and aggressive forward pack, with massive loose forwards, a flyhalf who kicks well and controls the game and strong hard-running centres are and have been the hallmark of South African rugby. A Springbok team on form will steamroll you, rampage over you like a crash of rhinos and spit you out the other side. When the All Blacks find a South African team in such form, it is about the only time a New Zealand supporter can say the All Blacks played well and still lost. So why, has New Zealand pulled ahead of the Springboks since 1992? First, I’d guess that the modern game favours an expansive approach (bar World Cups and 2009 it seems). Second, political interference has led to inconsistencies in selection that have hampered the Springboks. Thirdly, New Zealand players have been exposed to South African conditions (i.e. altitude and travel) through Super rugby and yearly trips to the republic with the All Blacks. Some New Zealand supporters would argue that neutral refs have also hampered South Africa, given the disputes over refereeing decisions on the 1949, 1970 and 1976 tours. South Africans, I’m sure, could probably point to similar allegations of cheating and biasness from their tours to New Zealand.

Overall, South Africa and New Zealand both have strong records. Pre-isolation, the Springboks had won 69% of tests against all opposition, the All Blacks 74%. Since isolation finished in 1992, the All Blacks have pulled ahead of the Springboks, (discounting the World Cup count in this period which stands at South Africa 2-New Zealand 0, New Zealand’s sole win coming in a tournament missing South Africa). New Zealand have won 80.5% of their games in the period 1992-2010 whilst South Africa’s winning record has dropped to 63%. Overall, New Zealand’s winning record sits at an impressive 76.8%, South Africa’s at 65.7%. The next best country is France, which has won 57.5% of all its games. However, since the end of isolation, New Zealand, Australia and France have all managed to achieve a higher winning ratio than South Africa in that period.

Above: Ma'a Nonu tries to bust some tackles.

Later this year, New Zealand hosts the World Cup. I wouldn’t bet against either of these two heavyweights lifting the title. I hope, for New Zealand’s sake, that it will be the All Blacks who are holding aloft the William Webb Ellis Trophy at the end of October.