The rugby world still fails to inspire against New Zealand

What part of superior win/loss record against all teams did you miss ? He was very specific in what he said - your comprehension is weak. And just in case you're too young to remember I can assure you that in the late 1960s through to the 1980s in NZ there wasn't the slightest bit of interest in whether we had a better over all winning percentage than the Bok - only that we needed to beat them, particularly in SA, and get out in front. This is hardly the attitude of superiority - although it certainly helped create the desire to be superior. Try reading Spiro's book "Winters of Revenge". It might help clarify things for you.

Thank you for debating this issue and allow me to put a contrarian view on the table. I still find it strange that the world that was so active to promote transition to a non racial just South Africa have lost interest in this cause. When I visited New Zealand in 2011 I have been impressed with the progress NZ has made towards a non-racial integrated society and how the NZ adopted Maori and Polynesian cultural elements. South African and Australia have a long way to go. With the levels of inequality and poverty in South Africa, there is clearly a need for the society and economy to become inclusive and especially to find ways for the poor to join society and the economy. This is a must to allow South Africa to develop into a just, stable society. As I illustrated before, the ANC government has hijacked this need for "transformation" by implementing policies that benefit few often at the expense of society. The big problem is outside sport, and less covered in the international media, such as ANC's racial quotas in the public and business sector that forced the appointment of often incompetent ANC cadres at key positions (e.g. a primary school teacher selected as chairman of South African Airways) and the tendency to leave positions vacant until a suitable black candidate can be found (please read the Captain Barnard test case). If 33% of the public prosecutors positions are vacant and you cannot find a suitable black civil engineer to maintain and operate the sewerage plants, criminals do not get prosecuted and sewerage gets dumped into rivers. The problem is the extend the ANC is prepared to go to at the cost of service delivery, while doing nothing to improve the plight of the poor. The quotas for the Bok selection is just another example of this where a few will benefit while the poor masses will continue to suffer from malnutrition, lack of facilities, poor education and with no pathway to enter profession rugby. The international media has been slow (and reluctant) to expose these failures. There was an article in The Economist at the end of last year that criticize corruption within the SA government and Alec Hogg wrote articles critical of the government in the UK media. The ANC have branded these journalists as racist and the international press has since them been reluctant to publish anything critical of the SA government. Public protests against government inaction on farm murders for example was also branded as racist. Using race to silence protest, critics and debate is the Zuma ANC's modus operandi. It also think it would be better if South Africans stop thinking in racial terms. However it is the ANC that is instigating racial tension, that is maintaining racial classification to ensure that the masses continue to vote along racial lines and keep the ANC in power. Whites have nothing to gain by being labelled white. The world however still see the ANC as an extension of Mandela's legacy, when the Zuma government is a clone of Mugabe. "Imagine the positions of the non whites today if not for the regime in the first place. Think you'll find a very, very different South Africa, and without a shadow of a doubt, a better one that exists today." I will just point to a couple of facts: - The ANC's policy at he time, reflected in their freedom charter, was to nationalise assets and install a communist state. - Other communist Southern African countries, performed extremely poorly under communism and are today still among the poorest nations in the world. South Africa performed much better economically despite the clear injustices in the system. - South Africa was a point in a larger global political "game". Thatcher and Reagan waited until the ANC changed these policies (after the fall of the Berlin wall) before they became serious to exert political and economic pressure on the apartheid government to change to majority rule. - The ANC has a dismal record in power and have allowed corruption and fraud to prosper. - Australia still had a White Australia policy It is sad is that despite the clear injustices, moral failings and inefficiency of a racist apartheid government, that I struggle to point with any confidence that majority communist rule in South Africa would have been any better. What I can predict with confidence is that my parents and may other skilled white South Africans would have emigrated to Australia much earlier if a communist ANC government was selected in power. Long term forecast are very difficult an inaccurate. Are you taking a leap of faith here?

Some fair comments, but regarding outsider 'Europeans' not having the conviction to protest against black on white is simply where you miss the point. We don't see it as some division between white and black where Europeans have to band together to support the Whites of South Africa. I'm half Maori and half European and don't see it as a white black thing. I don't see myself as black white, that is a foreign concept to me. It is predominantly Europeans that protested the Springboks in 81 but not because they were European but primarily because that's the majority of the make up of our population. 'Black and white' were against the apartheid because it was fundamentally, centrally, historically a racis!t regime, which even surely you'll agree went a lot deeper than sporting quotas and whatever other 'dumb' policies this government is practising. As long as you, and other South Africans perceive the issue as Black on white, regardless of who is pulling the strings, then you won't get anywhere. Externals will protest if they see Apartheid like measures impacting on the rest of the world but it's going to take a lot more than sporting quotas, particularly where the make up of the country far exceeds the population that are passionate about the Boks. Socially and Economically at least, there is much to redress. How many generations have missed the educational, employment and financial opportunities that would be present today in the non white community if not for Apartheid. The regime has dumbed down, robbed, persecute!d, murdere!d future generations and that is not going to be redressed in a couple of decades. Imagine the positions of the non whites today if not for the regime in the first place. Think you'll find a very, very different South Africa, and without a shadow of a doubt, a better one that exists today. To think otherwise is not worth the discussion. In thinking about it more between us Oz and NZ would probably have taken similar paths had the indigenous populations far exceeded the white population that persisted in occupying the land. Earlier thinking was to migrate and dominate, so we have greatly watered down versions, but similar to Apartheid here, in that attempts were made to stamp out the Maori language etc, we had our wars, but in general white occupation was able to occur with less fuss by simple osmosis if anything, a gradual seeping in of the people, culture, laws etc which over time got accepted by the locals with some, but less, fuss. In SA the numbers were too great to allow the whites to 'live as they expected' so they had to legislate. That for me is the difference now. The whites are now the minority, and they're on a leash, not because that's how it should be, but because that's the repercussion of decisions of the past. ThecANC has decided it has catching up to do, doesn't know how to do it and is making mistakes. Even practised, modern governments with centuries of experience make those mistakes. And you're expecting to get good things to come from one within two decades experience? Not gonna happen. I feel for what you're saying and today's SA are in essence Guinea pigs for trialling what the new SA should be. But as I said, we've done our dash, we're not going to easily drop everything and take it all up again. Matters are best handled internally and quotas within the Boks might be met with derisio!n here but it's not yet enough to get involved again.

"Perhaps there’s a warped kind of logic out there that says SA needs a bit of the reverse treatment for a while". Spot-on, the logic is flawed as at least two to three generations past between those that suffered/ benefited from discrimination during apartheid and those that benefit/suffer from (reverse) discrimination today. It makes no sense to punish a child for the mistakes of their grandparents. If you study the background of some of the Boks players that count as "quota players", you will note that these players completed their education at privileged schools. For example Brain Habana, Beast, Nizaam Carr and Mujati all attended private schools, JP Petersen, Lwazi Mvovo, Juan de Jong and even Seabelo Sanatla all went to top previous "whites only" schools. There is not a single player in the current Bok line-out that completed their education in township schools. The quotas system at age group levels only helps to identify talented players that can be channelled through the SA rugby factory - which is still the formerly white schools. Players that went to privileged schools are surely able to compete on merit with their class mates. However this quota system only creates the "impression of transformation". It is a tokenistic approach as upliftment opportunities are only provided for a selected few - "black elite sportmen". The problem is that this system helps the "black elite" to find it easier to be selected than their white class mates, it not only lead to resentment within the team, but as the white players have to be so much better to be selected at junior level, they tend to work harder. Many super coaches (informally) complain that the black elite are not getting through to Super level as they fail to put the extra effort that is required in at training. I think resources and effort will be better directed to grow rugby at grassroots levels. I think the other reason why Europeans in Aus/NZ do not have the conviction to protest against black-on-white racism is the same as why whites refuse to protest in South Africa today. If you are from European descent in Aus and NZ, you find yourselves disqualified by your own history to protest and if you dare to do so, risk being branded as a racist. The only people that can legitimately protest are those that have a history of discrimination themselves. Getting back to the article. If South Africa manages transformation well, they can unlock a player base that will help the Boks challenge NZ dominance. However if it continuous to mess it up, the Boks may even find that they have to qualify for future RWCs. This will be a shame for the rugby world. History will not be kind....

Yeah, it is depressing, and I agree with your points, but for some reason it doesn't make me want to rush out and protest. Perhaps there's a warped kind of logic out there that says SA needs a bit of the reverse treatment for a while. And sporting quotas themselves don't invoke he same feelings of hatre!d towards the Government which from the outside appears as though the Govt is merely trying to redress the past, even though they probably know it's not going to work. It takes more than a perceived sporting unfairness for outsiders to get that worked up about the politics of another country. Remember that those outside SA aren't impacted by the day to day goings on of the ANC as those internally because 'we' have our own issues with our own Govt, families etc. That was largely the case during the decades of the previous regime. A lot of ignoring of what was going on in SA. It took decades of buildup and events like Sharpville etc. The thinking here is after years of worrying about SA, job done, now leave it to them to sort their own mess out. To think that outsiders are all going to the take up the cause all over again is asking a bit too much. Not to say I don't agree with your points, I just think they stop short of any real motivation of outsiders wanting to get directly involved as they did say in 81, and 76 with the African boycott of The games because of NZ touring SA. NZ was split in half over SA in those years. We're hardly going to go through it all over again just because there's turmoil in how the Bok side is picked. At least they can use the same toilets.

Taylorman, I find commenting on the South African political situation depressing. The reason for my comment is to highlight the lack of interest from the international community now that racism is again lifting its ugly head in South Africa. If the 1980s protests were really about creating a just, democratic and non- racial South Africa, my question is why are the world so silent when SARU are forced to select teams to meet certain racial quotas? Surely the rugby world wants to see quality, wants to see justice and wants to see the best play each other. The irony is those that will suffer or gain from racial quotas are the so called "born frees"; the generation born after apartheid, that went to non-racial schools, have friends from different races and the generation that the world pin their hope to develop a truly non-racial South Africa. I met them and I am not that hopeful. I do agree with your view on the apartheid government's motivation and that the ANC policy in the long run will not work. However, I think it is more likely that South Africa will implode like Zimbabwe, Zambia, Zaire, etc. than be able to transition to a non-racial society, although I still hope for the latter. Why would South Africa be the exception in Southern Africa? They are following Zimbabwe and race and tribal alliances prevent voters from get rid of corrupt leaders. I also disagree on the ANC motivation; during Mandela’s time the ANC promoted a non-racial society, however recent evidence show that the ANC lost interest in a non-racial society. Their core believe is that blacks have been unjustly deprived and that everyone owe them now from whites for apartheid, Europeans for colonialism and Americans for slavery. The ANC is a very competent organisation; they are brilliant in using racial tension to stay in power, to silence debate and enrich themselves by corrupting upliftment policies. These same upliftment policies opens the door for nepotism, helps them to avoid persecution and allow them to recreate history to fit their narratives. They have no interest in a non-racial South Africa! There are also an element of hatred towards whites (especially Afrikaners) as seen in the words of ANC party songs (please google the lyrics of dubula ibhunu and umshini wani) and the reluctance to prioritise farm murders. The Boks will not be a power in world rugby as long as their focus is divided and when they have to meet certain selection quotas and that (again) devalues world rugby.. I think it is time for the rugby world to ask themselves if they are still on the right side of history.

Understand what you're saying Hannes but there's a distinct difference between the two. One came from a deep held belief that one race was superior than all others, and set to stamp its authority in an insan!e manner, the current comes from a disfunctional unit who have no idea how to fix the wrongs of the past, and no idea how to run a country, least of all one that has been trashed for nearly a century. The quota is a poor attempt at trying to fix a perceived problem. It's based on the same reason many quotas exist...that there is some fundamental disadvantage of like competing with like in a given environment. To address the disadvantage you can take a bottom up approach and address it at the grass roots level, or top down by enforcing a quota so it is always clearly front and Center in focus and not lost in the quagmire of red tape, apathy, back room administration that can happen out of the limelight. It forces those responsible to 'make' better players, or suffer the consequences. Rightly or wrong. The difference this time is this administration doesn't care about the results so much as the desired mix. It's a simple, poor attempt at trying to right a wrong. It won't work and over time there will be problems, but the fundamental difference is its not fuelled by the original hate!red of the original system, and would not exist if not for that. So it's losers all round for now. So no, flour bags won't be falling from planes, at least not in this country though that act itself was akin to terroris!m anyway, not a good way to make a point. My thinking is these poor attempts will continue until a generational change is able to look at running the country in a more mature manner, but for now there's too much angst, confusion and sheer inexperience in managing some very complex issues. Only time will save South Africa, not more flour bombs.

Yes South Africa have a regrettable past. South African politics have always been a mess and today is no exception, although I think the rugby world prefer to ignore it. Apologies for getting into the politics but your remakes that you believe you are on the right side of history deserve a comment. I remember as a 10 year old waking up at 3 am on a freezing winter morning in 1981 to watch All Blacks and Boks play. As a 10 year old I had not interest in politics or school work- only rugby mattered, Later I realised what apartheid did, realised the incredible levels inequality and poverty and the overwhelming task to uplift the poor masses. I voted for the first time in a democratic South Africa post 1994 when we got rid of the apartheid government. What the rugby world fails to realise is that South Africans are still suffering from a race obsessed government that figured out how to corrupt upliftment policies for their own benefit. The race quotas at elite sport level is just another example of this: on face value it appears to be the right thing to do as it should increase the number of elite black rugby players and counter institutionalised racism, in reality this policy will benefit those that already have access to facilities and coaching (e.g. at elite private schools) and the nutritional requirements of a professional sport person. These are players with no disadvantage that are able to compete on merit - there is no need for quotas at this level. Quotas will not help a poor kid in a township that often goes hungry (and therefore whose growth is impeded) to unlock his potential. It will not put food on his table or make a rock hard dirt street more attractive for tackling his mates than kicking a soccer ball with them. It is the rugby union's role to provide coaching, competitions, officials and structures and SARU can perform much better. However, it is the government's role to provide sporting facilities, that is still and will remain the key impediment for rugby to take of at grassroots level in poor areas. The SA government refuses to set themselves targets to build sport facilities and the quotas are designed to offload their responsibilities to the union. Their real intention (my view) is to retain political power by driving a racial wedge between South Africans (e.g. Zimbabwe) so that elections remain racial censuses. Will the rugby world protests against this racism, call for sanctions, drop "flour bombs", or wonder if they are still on the right side of history? I doubt.

Kiwis are very proud like all other rugby nations and all one eyed as you all are at times.? I love the game and that love of the it has me supporting it locally here in Wa. Heart,determination and desire are fundimentals for any rugby player back home, add humility and most are unstoppable, playing to their best. Take the western force side of 2014 they had a player group with these qualities and punched well above their weight. All teams have this in them as I have found travelling the world enjoying rugby, the kiwis are on a role due to these and yes a lot of other skills and circumstances as mention by others. One thing is certain - change. I look forward to the future development of the game and watching our best from all nations. I also see a time of more intense games ahead please let us all not forget, may the best team win.

Moaman ,not even a wee hint of irony in your " thank god " ? Cool beans I like that .

I hate NZ derbies ,all that energy and skill should be used to hammer you saffas and the Aussies .Instead we see our top teams cannibalise each others points .

Yes Phil, seems the myth perpetuates... http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/fascinating-rugby-world-cup-stats-10052033 NZ as pinchers are well down the list. Samoa leads the way with 13 of its squad members from last year all born in NZ, Tonga next, with 12, again mostly born in NZ. Even the home nations and Oz are ahead of NZ, who have 5.

Yes Wardad me too with 81. Oddly I missed the Eden park test live on to as I was skiing at the time. We came down off Whakapapa and was going to watch it at the pub just down from the Chateau. For some reason it wasn't on there and about a hundred of us, mainly on tours and things ended up listening to it from the radio of some poor guys jeep who somehow wasn't allowed to leave until the match was over. Re the overall thing yes we had a stronger winning percentage overall, ten percent higher than the Boks. We had better records over some...Ireland and Scotland, they others...Wales and less than 1% over oz kind of thing. The difference was at 20-16 SA edged us so because we both had higher percentages over everyone else that meant SA had a better record over everyone. If that's what Hannes meant by the dominant rugby nation then he's correct, but to then say SA won more tests than the ABs you have to wonder about the accuracy of either. Anyway. At least post 94 we were picking our own teams rather than SA having a say in who puts on the AB jersey...kind of an important factor I would think.

Coconut I have read more than once how proffessional soccer players rock up to practice or on game day in their flash cars and wot not play /practice then get in their cars and bugger off to their wee mansions .Some guys have barely ever even said 'Hi " to their team mates ,one doesnt get that from Leicester and certainly not from the ABS . The ABS seem to think of their team first and everything thing else is secondary to the team and protecting the legacy of that Black Jumper .

81 had me on the wrong side of history being young and stupid and having travelled back across the ditch specifically for the series , I absolutely regret that . Prior to 1994 NZ had the best OVERALL percentage ,it was only against the boks we had the wrong side of the ledger and since then we have quickly changed that and I doubt the boks will ever get in front again.They may have a good season here and there against the ABs but I cant see them dominating the way the ABs have.

And you have an issue with detail, and by continuing to make generalist, incomplete and inaccurate comments are clearly avoiding being accountable. When you make a statement that involves results and are asked to clarify them, that is your cue. Results require things called 'numbers', not more flippant comments. No worries, it's clear we operate on either side of 'clarity'.

Really Squirrel...? 1990s...NZ vs Oz. Played 23, NZ won 13, oz won 10. Most consecutive wins...oz...3. NZ...7 Average win...NZ 29- oz 15... 3 tries to 1. Oz 21-14, two tries to one. Biggest win oz 28-7, NZ 43-6 Think you need to get a bit more selective than 'the 90's' to suggest they were even better then...let alone today.

His statement was clear and accurate- you have a serious comprehension issue. Go back to school.

Really ? Define international then . Simpsons had the best take on soccer .

Against Ireland in 2013 ,if you dont think that was a great try by a great team coming back from 19-0 down then nothing will satisfy you .