What has happened to the Kiwi Confidence Syndrome?
By Eljay, 9 Sep 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, International Rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, RWC, wallabies
140 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- Rugby 2011 news
Comfortingly, or perhaps not, something is currently missing from the land of the Long White Cloud. It invariably manifests itself about now, two years out from a Rugby World Cup: Kiwi Confidence Syndrome (KCS).
The first indications of it usually come by phone from my brother who, in a land of one-eyed All Black fanatics, since 1991 is possibly the most fanatical fanatic of all.
He’s not even one-eyed about it; he is no-eyed.
He started it back in 1990: “All Blacks to win the next Cup!” But as we all know it did not happen in ‘91. Same in ’95 and in ’99. Each pronouncement coincided exactly of course with the extraordinary international dominance of the All Blacks … between RWCs.
My brother takes a loss badly, so much so that towards the end of a rare losing game, I am reliably told he takes to his bed and pulls the covers over his head. He refuses to take any calls, not least from me, after a Wallaby victory over the All Blacks.
Mind you, as a defrocked All Black supporter, I do understand this.
In the grim wintry New Zealand countryside where I grew up, an All Black loss was usually followed by what can only be described as a national depression. Some farmers were known to draw the curtains, stay in bed all day – and bugger milking the cows, or feeding the dog.
I recall the eerie feeling that the sun seemed not rise on those bleak, dark Sundays – and that was when an All Black victory was only a hope, not an expectation.
It got much worse during the 80s, 90s and early 00s when the Kiwi Confidence Syndrome became epidemic and people like my brother were laid very low by it.
The only known antidote for it is a certain very bitter medicine called LOSS (Losing at Our Sacred Sport).
I guess this explains, apart from the fact that we seem not to be speaking to each other at the moment, why this year there have been no pre-triumphal phone calls from Himself about New Zealand winning RWC 2011.
Three doses of LOSS so far in ’09 seem to be working a treat.
My brother aside, KCS is no better illustrated than by two Kiwi sisters who booked a trip complete with game tickets to France to watch the All Blacks versus Whomever final in RWC 07.
No, not hoping to watch the All Blacks – absolutely expecting to watch them win. Cost: $10,000 each.
The redoubtable sisters were due to leave on the Tuesday before the semis. On the Saturday night before, the utterly unexpected nightmare happened: France booted New Zealand out of the tournament in the quarter-finals at Cardiff!
Unable to cancel the trip without a huge financial loss, the girls dragged themselves onto their flight three days later, arrived in France, and wearing their newly acquired All Black paraphernalia, watched a few meaningless, All Black-less games with some 3000 similarly clad, bewildered New Zealanders – and drank an awful lot of French champagne in what they described as a kind of ‘wake’.
The Kiwi girls did not see the wretched final; they scalped their tickets in London for an inordinate amount of money to recoup a significant portion of their original outlay – and then flew home in a somewhat chastened if not champagne-fuelled state.
These are resilient, faith-filled women, bless them; they are already planning the trip up to Auckland for the final of RWC 11. One loss does not a disbeliever make. And besides, a trip to Auckland is a whole lot cheaper than one to Paris.
I might even go myself; I have a powerful confidence in my waters that the Wallabies will not only be playing in the final, it is almost certain that they will w … oh dear, what am I saying?
Pass me another LOSS please.
Recommend this story.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (155)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (153)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (1)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (1)
- Coaching, not lack of depth, the issue for Australian rugby (11)
- Road to the 2015 World Cup starts in June (18)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 2) (75)
- Who will be the Wallabies’ centres? (110)
- Are Roarers picking the Wallabies for the wrong reasons? (21)
- Explore:
- All Blacks, International Rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, RWC, wallabies


September 9th 2009 @ 2:06am
jools-usa said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:06am | Report comment
Hi Ejay
Met some of those fanatics when playing in London. Even a Club loss was a body-blow.
If ‘Quins lost a game they’d mutter into their beer that ‘bloody Club needs more players from Antipodes”.
This was years before an airline ticket was mailed to some candidate to fix a problem…. we were amateurs!
Jools-USA
September 9th 2009 @ 6:16am
Spiro Zavos said | September 9th 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
Terrific report, eljay. One of the saddest sights I saw in France during the 2007 RWC was when we were staying at Paris for the final and seeing all the morose All Blacks and Wallabies supporters sullenly drinking their beers while being jollied by jovial, hearty English and Soluth African couples. Some of them flogged off their finals tickets but most of them were stuck in what was a hell for them waiting for the day they could get on the plan and get back home to suffer in private.
September 9th 2009 @ 9:27am
johno said | September 9th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Ag shame, sounds like you haven’t recovered from the traumatic event yet. Maybe you should go for some more counselling
September 9th 2009 @ 2:02pm
MM said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Johno,
I tend to agree with you despite my passion for the All Blacks or perhaps more accurately their tradition their international team represent.
From judge to ref to coach and to player, these guys do rugby for a living as all others do – at the end of the day, they are being paid to produce results – and that’s even a bit clinical and harsh for my liking but the blatant truth.
I’m going to put my foot in (again…). Attitude of any team counts when it comes to the public assessment. One looks at the way BIG TEAMS react to a loss, what they say etc., at the discipline during the speeches and it is that attitude as well as how the game was played obviously, that determines to a large extent the value of a team in the public eye.
Supporters don’t appreciate the effort the politics and all that goes with the game – they’re looking for a win albeit many accept a loss very well – and it depends on attitude.
The Aussies are a great nation in many respects – but essentially, one cannot compare the depth of choice in Aussie as apposed to a far smaller – that’s a gross underestimation, depth the All Blacks have. A striking difference is the pride of the All Blacks be it win or lose – and I’m talking generally and not about catastrophic failures which seldom happen.
But we’re all missing the point and the big guns at the top will disagree and have their money’s worth denying the fact that the Australians are plain big-headed with an overtly double-sized attitude. A classic example in another column demonstrates this fact where it is stated how larger and more financially viable the Australians are – I’d love to know what the hell this has to do with rugby looking at their failed performances.
Success and failure is cyclical because of well oiled cogs going on pension at differing times – thus uppers and downers.
No – I am not avoiding the point the author made – like you Johno, I can find no excuse – you either win or you do not – and take the good with the bad.
The international attitude is far larger than the game itself – can we go back in time anybody?? And way back in time!
September 9th 2009 @ 6:31am
Frank O'Keeffe said | September 9th 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
I remember when New Zealand lost to France in the ’07 World Cup there were reports involving psychologists giving advice to New Zealanders on how to overcome their grief. Women’s refuge groups were reporting an unusual number of complaints from women. There were people crying in the streets and fans burning their All Black memorabilia.
Truly rugby means more to New Zealanders than any other country.
Watching some New Zealanders talk about the ’07 World Cup is like watching someone complete a 12-step prgram.
It went something like:
Step 1: “I don’t care, we were the best team in the world and just lost one game.”
Step 2: “Clearly we’re no good at World Cups.”
Step 3: “I don’t think he would have gone past the semi final with the amount of injuries we had.”
Step 4: “Henry stuffed around with the squad too much.”
Step 5: “Our players were underdone. They should have played in the Super 14.
Step 6: “New Zealand have been losing World Cup’s for year, I’m used to it.”
Step 7: “We didn’t choke, we just didn’t have a few decisions go our way.”
Step 8: “It was the refs fault.”
It’s interesting how many New Zealanders have never got past step 8. I could quote many New Zealander’s reaction after the quarter-final – these are New Zealanders who still blame Wayne Barnes – and their reactions contradict themselves. It’s like they can’t deal with the grief of losing a world cup so they have to blame the ref. It’s blind passion for rugby and love for their rugby side. They’ll talk about how Henry stuffed around with the squad, rested players (which led to injuries), and how the team stopped thinking… but it’s still the refs fault. They tell themselves it was the ref, but deep down if they’re honest with themselves they know the All Blacks just weren’t there… and it hurts.
I have a strange respect for New Zealanders and their love of rugby. Rugby will never mean as much to Australians or the English.
September 9th 2009 @ 8:05am
Hammer said | September 9th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
so FO Barnes had zero influence in that result then did he ? .. funny how when kiwis have a legitimate grip with a ref – they’re fobbed off as delusional and need to view the bigger picture … yet when say Aust moan non stop about the referee in last 3 Bledisloe games then that’s OK … never fails to amuse me the double standards that some people run with
September 9th 2009 @ 2:58pm
MM said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Too true!!
Hammer – smell the roses re: the double standards.
Settle down now – isn’t that what the larger part of the world is about?
September 9th 2009 @ 8:08am
Vented Relief said | September 9th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Frank, rugby means as much to some Australians and Poms. Saturday nights win over the Boks awakened me from a depressive slumber that had curiously lasted 5 weeks. I am happy once again. For now.
September 9th 2009 @ 8:11am
Frank O'Keeffe said | September 9th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
The only time I’ve complained about a ref this year was in a South Africa v New Zealand game, the second one. I believe I said the ref wasn’t fair to New Zealand. I’ve largely praised Lawrence, Barnes and Kaplan’s performances. While I thought they made mistakes, I didn’t think any of them effected the results.
I’ll concede that there’s been a lot of Aussies complaining about refs this year, but I aint one of them.
As for Barnes during the ’07 World Cup. I think he effected the result, but New Zealand stopped thinking. The fact that Henry called for a drop-goal and that never came illustrates this. Actually the fact that someone (forget who, was the Mauger?) went for a drop-goal 40 metres out a few minutes after New Zealand has the perfect opportunity to go for a drop-goal, illustrates just how in ‘two-minds’ New Zealand really were.
September 9th 2009 @ 9:25am
johno said | September 9th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
You mean the one where NZ basically committed suicide by running with the ball from behind their own goal line because they couldn’t kick to touch, since their line out were so ineffective that it would’ve been run over by most school’s third teams?
Yep I’m sure the ref can be blamed for that loss.
As for Bryce, well how do you go from finding no fault with a team’s scrummagin to penalising them at every scrum in three months? Add to this that in the game you didn’t blow them up in had personell that are much more adept and skillful when it comes to scrum time, while the game in which you penalised them has always had a question mark over their scrumming prowess.
If you can come up with something more than interpretation, you may have a point.
September 10th 2009 @ 12:01am
MM said | September 10th 2009 @ 12:01am | Report comment
I can’t agree with you more Johno – to add to your comment further wouldn’t bring out more merit than what you’ve simply and factually stated
September 9th 2009 @ 10:18am
Jerry G said | September 9th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
The drop goal attempt from 40 metres was one of those “got the advantage so I’ll have a crack” ones. Except it was only a knock on advantage, rather than a penalty advantage as McAlister (who attempted the DG) thought. Barnes then called advantage over.
September 9th 2009 @ 9:10am
Mike T said | September 9th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I’d like to throw a conspiracy theory at you……yes I know desperation but see what you think.Quarter finals time approaching the 2007 RWC and the very real possibility of an all Southern Hemisphere semi final group of 4. The old farts coggers club (IRB) a group representative of all things good about Northern Hemisphere rugby are gravely concerned.
England and France out is an absolute disaster-the frogs and poms won’t go to the games, they quite possibly won’t watch them and they certainly won’t be spending money. The NZers and Aussies are already there, they already have their tickets and they will have to spend money while their, as they live on the other side of the world. Interestingly they are the two smallest viewing numbers of the other real contenders. By the French continuing it drives the tournament positively locally and around Italy, Portugal, Spain etc. The media are ecstatic, the sponsors also everyone but those two little islands downunder-commercially its fantastic that England and France continue. Just like it was 4 years earlier when England played Aussie. I wonder what the IRB said to the referee’s when called into the offices in the lead up to the 2007 RWC quarter finals. Are the RWC’s a legitimate competition or a commercial procedure? Just a theory.
September 9th 2009 @ 11:01am
LeftArmSpinner said | September 9th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
If true, and I suspect it may be, dont give ‘em an even break. they do have the best open side and 5/8 in the world and some other red hot players, plus pride, lots of pride…..so lets just not tell ‘em what we see of their current position and bodylangauage………
September 9th 2009 @ 11:18am
Eljay said | September 9th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
LeftArmSpinner, you mean don’t mention the elephant in the room?
September 9th 2009 @ 11:21am
cuzybro said | September 9th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
you gonna see some pride this saturday bro, NZ is out for a big game. The AB’s have to shut the NZ press up, would ofs if they could ofs and the yarpies.
September 9th 2009 @ 11:31am
Eljay said | September 9th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Cuzybro, old fruit, you sound like you’re on the verge of coming down with the dreaded KCS.
September 9th 2009 @ 11:24am
Mitch O said | September 9th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Yawn. Put this 4 yearly knock out tournament in perspective.
It’s an absorbing watch while it’s on and one team eventually carries away a trophy and big ups to them. It gives teams that are basically crap year to year an opportunity to grab a status that’s been twisted out of all proportion, which is perhaps what makes the tournament interesting.
But what about the massive majority of rugby played in between? Is it to be reduced to the same irrelevant status football outside of their WC has been?
Besides the reality is the world champion side is determined annually – they’re the winners of the 3N’s.
September 9th 2009 @ 12:57pm
Invictus said | September 9th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Totally agree on the relevance of test rugby between world cups. I’ve actually heard some journos starting to refer to them as friendlies!! This cannot be tolerated – there is nothing friendly about test rugby!!
Personally, I think the RWC format needs to change to make it more difficult to win – the eventual winner should have to win more games against the top 8 sides before lifting the cup. I also think that the lower ranked nations should not be cast off after the pool stage is completed. Surely they can remain at the tournament and compete for plate/bowl/shield as in the 7′s?
September 9th 2009 @ 2:51pm
True Tah said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
And make it even harder for New Zealand to win????????
September 9th 2009 @ 2:45pm
Viscount Crouchback said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Not so sure about that. The rugby played at World Cups is clearly more intense and psychologically demanding than the rugby played between World Cups. Sport at the highest level is about more than mere skill – poise under pressure is just as important. If we merely handed out kudos to the chap who looks best when there’s no pressure, then we’d all be hailing Mark Ramprakahash as the finest cricketer since Bradman. New Zealand are the rugby equivalent of Ramprakash. Australia, with their terrible record in key games over the past five or six years, are swiftly heading for the same tag.
September 9th 2009 @ 5:56pm
katzilla said | September 9th 2009 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
‘New Zealand are the rugby equivalent of Ramprakash’
What was that Inzamam Ulhaq?
September 9th 2009 @ 3:13pm
ohtani's jacket said | September 9th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Well, y’know… The mantle of World Champion doesn’t really mean anything because people bugger off overseas and the next cycle begins. If you can win it and keep being a great side like the ’87 All Blacks or the ’91 and ’99 Wallabies then it means something, but otherwise it’s just a joke. Party for a while, remind everyone who’s world champion, lose a bunch and claim you’ll win again… Wait, I sound South African.
Seriously, though, the last WC result was annoying, but so was the football WC result.
September 9th 2009 @ 4:38pm
Ben J said | September 9th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Welcome to our world OJ! Seriously I know South Africans that will even deny that the game was played at all if the Boks lose.