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.