Back in August, Sean Fitzpatrick said, “The All Blacks don’t have a point to prove” and he was right.
While the BILs series was disappointing from a New Zealand perspective, and obviously didn’t have the result most of us wanted (or indeed thought was possible), it was a challenge that the All Blacks would have relished.
I believe it’s a result that will help prepare the team more for the endgame (the Rugby World Cup) than a successful series would have.
The ABs dominance has long been discussed, and has recently become a hot topic again due to an article in The Guardian by Bret Harris. In the habit that has seemingly become the norm for news media, the article has unfortunately been paired with a headline that isn’t really reflective of the words within.
Harris did not once mention that the All Blacks dominance is threatening “the health of international rugby” but merely asks whether said dominance is good for international rugby.
He admits, “While New Zealand has been the top country in world rugby for more than 100 years, the All Blacks have not always been invincible, especially at the World Cup from 1991 to 2007 when they were regularly knocked out in the play-off stages”. He discusses the back-to-back Rugby World Cups and the fact the All Blacks have only lost two games since winning the cup in 2015, but suggests it’s up to other nations to match NZ’s standard.
I completely agree with this sentiment. Do people expect the All Blacks to lose a few games to help the others equalise their success? This is totally incongruous with the team’s philosophy of ‘leaving the jersey in a better place’. If the All Blacks are the “standard-bearers of world rugby”, then the onus is on the others to catch up.
(Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
However, what I disagree with in the article is Harris’ prediction of what he describes as the “yawning gap” between New Zealand and the rest of the world turning “Test rugby into a great, big yawn”. I just don’t think that’s true, and I think it dismisses the achievements other teams have made, or are in the process of making.
Since Eddie Jones has been head coach, England has made incredible strides since their 2015 Rugby World Cup exit, and is a real contender to lift the Rugby World Cup in Japan. And after the horror of 2016, the Springbok have also made huge strides. And as for Australia, well, after their start to the 2017 Rugby Championship, who would’ve thought they’d end up in second place. And yes, I realise there’s a huge gap between first and second place in the standings, but that’s beside the point. The point is, they improved.
The ABs aren’t indomitable. They have good days and bad days like any other team. According to Fitzpatrick, “The reality is that every team that challenges the All Blacks plays the game of their lives and, 99 per cent of the time, New Zealand still win”.
However, while it might be true to say that even on a bad day they can beat most other teams, I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to see this as a given. There will always be games in which they are pushed to the max; the recent Tests in Dunedin and Cape Town prove that. But these are the games that are needed to ensure the All Blacks stay where they are.
On the two rugby FB groups I’m a member of, people have been lamenting the state of rugby in Australia and South Africa of late, and not just for self-serving purposes. We’re all well aware of the importance of strong Wallabies and Springbok teams; when they’re strong, we’re strong. But there’s also a yearning to return to the competitive matches of the past. And that’s what I found particularly satisfying about the Cape Town game.
It reminded me of a former game – a game that could’ve gone either way and had me screaming at Sopoaga to kick the “damn ball” out in the 80th minute to avoid a repeat of the first half. After the Dunedin and Cape Town Tests, the comments on those two groups were lauding the improvements made, while hoping that it’s a sign for things to come, the advent of a new era.
I’m not ashamed to admit that I hate it when the All Blacks lose, but I also see that there are benefits in losing. Whether it’s complacency that’s the cause of a loss, or the absence of pivotal players, none of that matters in the big picture. The history books aren’t concerned with why it was a loss, all they do is reflect the result. As someone who would know, Fitzpatrick asserts that “The All Blacks remember their losses more than their wins”. And as an armchair enthusiast, I know I certainly do!
Graham Henry rightly believes that “nobody has got the prerogative to be the best in the world forever, and nobody can guarantee continued success”. His opinion is that the gap between the All Blacks and their contenders is narrowing: “I don’t think the gap is too big, which is what rugby needs. It doesn’t need one side that’s unbeatable, because that’s boring”.
Brian Lochure shares that opinion: “the other rugby nations are catching up and the All Blacks current dominance cannot be taken for granted”.
While all this talk about catching up is all very well and good, and I for one welcome it, surely what we should be hoping for is consistency.
What’s the point in one-off success against the All Blacks? Does that really do anything to help global rugby? As previously stated, the All Blacks lose games – not many, but they do lose. However, where they stand out from the rest, is that this has never been the norm, and usually a loss results in a very strong response the next time the teams meet.
Looking at Tri-Nations/Rugby Championship history, in 1998 the All Blacks had their worst ever year, losing all four games. From 1996 to 2011 New Zealand lost 22 Tri-Nation games. and from 2012 to 2017, they lost two Rugby Championship games. So the All Blacks do lose. But the thing that makes the All Blacks a formidable foe is their consistency.
The All Blacks are the most successful sports team in history, “achieving a better win ratio than Brazil in football or Australia in cricket”. For Brian Lochore, it’s the centralized system that has put New Zealand in the position we’re in. NZR controls everything at all levels “which enables it to prioritize the success of the national team above all else”.
In New Zealand the All Blacks come first. NZR have made a commitment to the national team and everything feeds into that. Perhaps this is what other countries need to do in order to close the gap. Perhaps, if WR are seriously wanting to close the gap, more needs to be done in order to protect the national teams. Should centralised systems be the norm? I don’t see why it would work for us and not other countries. Ask yourself this… who do you support? I support the All Blacks, Hurricanes, and Tasman… in that order. Do you rate a club team before that of your national team? If so, is this part of the problem?
Michael Lynagh suggests that the only business where a monopoly isn’t a good thing is sport but that “the All Blacks are in danger of heading in that direction”. But instead of putting the All Blacks at the heart of the issue, maybe the rhetoric should be reversed.
So I suggest, to avoid a monopoly in world rugby, unions have to start putting their national teams first and providing a platform for their own players/coaches to get up to speed.
scottd
Guest
Tama One of the reasons is that they want the opportunity to play "against" the AB's. This is particularly true if they are on the fringe of AB selection but unlikely to quite make it. A lot of guys just want the opportunity to play with and against the best on the big stage. And good on them too. For the record, I am not saying there are not also other reasons such as playing for their fathers country etc.
tamaolevao
Guest
Make no mistake coconut the reason why Nz born Samoans play for the Manu are numerous.... But I'm pretty certain MONEY is not one of them , the minimum requirement for at least a bench spot would have to be provincial or super rugby IN nz or around the world something equivalent ......if you think the Samoan rugby union matches player fee or even insurance? then you need to ask somebody ....because it's a risk for them... So why then do they put themselves in a position that could jeopardise their careers their livelihood?
Coconut
Guest
I think most Kiwis agree... I do think the haka has become a bit too theatrical and over-regulated, because its is staged and the other teams are limited in what they can do in terms of facing it. I liked the old days when the opposing team could march right up to them and face off... who knows, even trade a few blows. Even Buck reckoned he preferred it that way. The Haka is designed to be responded to, that is the proper protocol, not to stand there in an awkward silence and then turn and wander back to position... the IRB has turned it into a farce, to the point where I wish the ABs didn't have to feel like they had to do it every time... maybe just when they are hosting a game or something....
Coconut
Guest
Terry, I don't mind about ex-ABs who have taken a stand-down period to qualify to play for an island they have an ethnic link to, but when you talk about "Samoans" do you mean those who carry a Samoan passport or the ones who were born in NZ and/or carry an NZ passport? Because make no mistake about it, they are New Zealanders first and foremost. Rugby in the islands is never going to be tier one competitive because the administrations there have little resources and what they do have, has been grossly mismanaged... so in effect when people talk about 'giving back to the islands', what they really mean is having a Wallaby 'B' team or an All Blacks 'B' team... i.e. not homegrown and not really 'giving' anything back to the islands... I wish people would understand this... I live in one of these islands so i know what I am talking about. I am sick of seeing Sevens players picked to represent our country on the international circuit, who have never even been back here, or don't even speak the language... it does absolutely nothing for rugby in this country and yet its the same thing people here are talking about - what is the point of that?!. At least for Sevens, Samoa is actually picking homegrown talent.. different from 15's, so good for them on that.
cuw
Guest
"Edit: also each to their own, but whether you consider it so or not, motor racing is a sport " so is pole-dancing :) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4986984/Pole-dancing-feature-Olympics.html
Cuw
Guest
@ ClarkeG averages are skewed by extreme figures , u need to think of a normal curve. EPL averaged 35 000 heads during the last season . on one end was ManU - 75k on the other was Bournemouth 11k. but one needs to take into account the capacity of the stadia as well. Man U have a capacity of 76k , ( they are planning to increase this i hear ). Bournemouth have a capacity of 12k. only few clubs have very big stadia and some are trying to increase capacity . Liverpool is increasing capacity to 60k from present 54k. one problem of increasing is urbanization. u have no space to grow bigger at present locations and still adhere to all the planning and safety requirements. but make no mistake - if it is possible to have 100k stadia , the top footy teams in |England can fill them most of the time. so the simple constraint is capacity , not demand.
Cuw
Guest
Dirk is a kraut ( German :) ) u dont know Tony Parker - Brand ambassador for TISSOT ?
Kiwi in US
Guest
Thankyou for the read. Having AB's winning close matches and the way they can play and win with bigger scores is very exciting. But OZ can score trys too now so hopefully they are coming right. If Pocock comes back fit and injury free and makes the team it will be worth watching. So long as they dont go back to those rolling maul try's from pre world cup 2015.
DavSA
Guest
Sure Harry .I had to think a bit about about Jantjies and concluded that he was clearly a merit selection initially .If only for lack of any other alternative but he has been given far too much leeway now. I am not on the same page as you with regards The Beast . Still a very good scrum man and also brings tons of much needed experience into the team.But thoroughly agree that there are better options out there in the quota category . Gelant in particular looks a real prospect. There is always the sad possibility that pushing a player into test rugby when he is not ready for it means getting exposed and confidence is shredded ..sometimes permanently . Jantjies fault lines were cruelly highlighted when making the step up. Quota policy stands in the dock on this point and is found guilty .
piru
Roar Rookie
Bet you couldnt name one Argentinian, spanish or Russian from their last squads. Dirk Nowitski Manu Ginobli Pau Gasol Ok that's all I have
piru
Roar Rookie
How sanctimonious of you
Jerry
Guest
3 World Cups isn't that middling when you consider there's only been 8 tournaments. 3 from 8 is a better ration than Brazil's 5 from 20 for instance.
Taylorman
Guest
Cuw, the point here is the US basketball team. They play the world champs and the Olympics. They dont play the NBA. It is the non NBA version I am saying doesnt have a high profile. We get the NBL and NBA here. No NBA team will have anywhere near a 90% win record over a hundred years so theyre out. But we dont get Russia playing Spain live, yet we'll get every cricket test, Tennis and Golf major, footballet galore, you name it...but the second biggest sport, country versus country...hardly ever see it.
Taylorman
Guest
Yes, part of the 53/54 tour
Taylorman
Guest
Yes they do. Compare the average salaries of the teams that compete. Bit pointless having the comp at all. At least the ABs dont 'buy' their titles.
piru
Roar Rookie
There's a rugby league world cup? Why?
piru
Roar Rookie
We'd look like Wallaby fans what?
piru
Roar Rookie
This is the common consensus in New Zealand also - it's the IRB who insists opposing teams stand a certain distance away. The challenge of the haka is (in my opinion anyway) not respected by forcing opponents to stand and watch quietly - I'd much prefer a big angry Frenchman advance on them, or a bald Irishman go face to face.
piru
Roar Rookie
Republican, you may well be right, that the All Blacks dominating the code is unhealthy - however the disease is not with the All Blacks, but with the other sides' failure to compete. Edit: also each to their own, but whether you consider it so or not, motor racing is a sport
Akari
Roar Rookie
What is the point with national teams if anyone can play for anybody? It's simple, really. It's about fairness and enable eligible players to trade freely and so we are not deprived of seeing these players at their peak from playing on the biggest stage; be it at test level or the RWC. Some Roarers have said this is mickey mouse stuff. Really? Do they mean that they'd rather deprive these players of a 2nd chance and an opportunity to represent another country and continue to play at the highest level of rugby? This is bizarre.