Are the All Blacks too good for Rugby?

[rowan]

Something I've mentioned before. I personally don't see any end in sight to the All Blacks domination. They've got stronger and stronger while their main rivals appear to be struggling for a variety of reasons. Even the World Cup will start to lose fans if the same team keeps winning it. & the problem is that too little has been done in the professional era to develop the more promising teams which have appeared at the tournament - Argentina & Italy the notable exceptions. The elite rugby nations may well be shooting themselves in the foot with the exclusive nature of their major competitions in between World Cups.

New Zealand Rugby Union CEO Steve Tew expressed concern when he spoke to reporters recently, reflecting on the state of the game in neighbouring nations.

"We want Australia, South Africa, Argentina and Japan, who are currently very important partners of ours, to be in good financial shape and performing on the paddock," Tew said, according to stuff.co.nz.

In Australia at least, rugby union has faced competition from rival football codes, particularly in its home states of New South Wales and Queensland. The interest in the local A-League soccer competition has grown, while Australian rules football continues to invest significantly in order to win hearts and minds around the country.

In South Africa, attendance and television figures for super rugby have taken a serious hit in 2016. The addition of an Argentine and Japanese team this year hasn't helped to increase television viewership across the five competing nations, which is at 24.9 million compared to 29.3 million in 2012.

http://mashable.com/2016/08/30/new-zeal ... MQmmopcZqY

[zer0]

The onus should be on the national (RFU, IRFU etc...) unions and the IRB to sort themselves out, not for NZ rugby to regress to their level.

In saying that I'd much rather the All Blacks play fewer EOYT games against the same Six Nations teams, and occasionally stop off in places like Georgia, Romania, Spain and the like.

[rowan]

The onus should be on the national (RFU, IRFU etc...) unions and the IRB to sort themselves out, not for NZ rugby to regress to their level.

In saying that I'd much rather the All Blacks play fewer EOYT games against the same Six Nations teams, and occasionally stop off in places like Georgia, Romania, Spain and the like.

The NZRFU are by no means obliged to assist the development of international rugby. But it would be in their own long-term interests to help do so.

Their delegates on World Rugby do have a mandate to assist the development of international rugby, but they are also obliged to look after the interests of their own national union, of course, and that takes priority.

New Zealand, in fact, has stood in the way of international rugby's development in various ways. It has only played five or six official tests against its Pacific neighbors, for example, and only visited the islands for an official test once. This despite the fact Fiji and Samoa have both made two RWC quarter-finals, and the former has a fairly large national stadium. Fiji also held the All Blacks to a single-point margin in 1974, though for obscure reasons known only to themselves the NZRFU did not regard that as an official "test." & neither has there ever been one between NZ & Fiji in Fiji. NB: Fiji also beat the Lions in an unofficial test in 1977 in front of 30 K fans. The Lions never returned.

The NZRFU also held out longest against Argentinian inclusion in Super Rugby.

Most criminally, New Zealand it was who sabotaged the rapidly developing World Cup qualifying series after it reached its apogee at the end of the previous century with tournaments all over the world, the Home Unions playing on the continent and Australia involved in a tough competition with Fiji, Samoa & Tonga. But the Kiwis lost their 3rd-place-playoff with SA in 99, recognized as an official qualifier at the time, then balked at the prospect of having to actually compete for a place in 2003. Thus rule changes were hastily pushed through and the Kiwis were spared the inconvenience - as well as their blushes - and the qualifying series has been contracting ever since, to the point it now relies mainly on established regional competitions, through which some 90-odd nations are forced to vie for a paltry 8 places at the tournament proper.

On the other hand, I should add that New Zealand and Australia were the driving forces behind both the World Cup and the transition to professionalism, both of which were the first major steps in transforming rugby union from a novelty sport taken seriously in less than a dozen countries, to one of the major team sports in the world with over 100 member nations affiliated to the international organization.

[cashead]

Fuck that. It's not up to the All Blacks to make sure the other teams don't suck a fuck.

[rowan]

Fuck that. It's not up to the All Blacks to make sure the other teams don't suck a fuck.

That issue was addressed and dealt with in my previous post. No argument. It is, however, one of the responsibilities of the World Rugby board, upon which New Zealand has two delegates and carries considerable weight. That's why I was particularly harsh on their attitude toward RWC-qualifying, where they clearly placed the rather selfish and myopic attitude of their national union above the best interests of the global game.

[Lizard]

The reasons for not recognising the match against Fiji as a test match are hardly obscure. It was tacked on to a full tour of Aussie and played on a Tuesday by the dirt trackers - not a full strength test side.

It's a different issue as to whether the All Blacks should have asked for a weekend game and put out a capped 1st XV.

[rowan]

I vaguely recall the match, and that incumbent All Blacks captain Andy Leslie led out a fairly strong New Zealand team that day, close to full strength in fact, though I'm unable to locate the actual line-up right now. Anyway, for the absence of anything else interesting happening at the time, the rugby-following public generally regarded as a bonafide test match & according to Wiki it actually was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_New_ ... a_and_Fiji

[Lizard]

1. R. J. Barber
2. R. W. Norton
3. W. K. Te P. Bush
4. P. J. Whiting
5. J. A. Callesen
6. L. G. Knight
7. K. A. Eveleigh
8. A. R. Leslie (C)
9. I. N. Stevens (Gemmell)
10. O. D. Bruce
11. G. B. Batty
12. I. A. Hurst
13. B. J. Robertson
14. B. G. Williams
15. J. F. Karam

RESERVES
16. B. McL. Gemmell



Fiji awarded caps so for general stats purposes it would be regarded as a test.

[scuzzaman]

We could have the New Zealand A side touring, and perhaps competing with 2nd/3rd tier nations.

That might:

A) make some money
B) blood some up and comers in international competition
C) help to grow the game

I dunno that it is the All Black's responsibility to grow our opposition, but the NZRFU should take a wider view of the game, especially as noted above at the IRB level.

There's self-interest, and then there's enlightened self-interest.

[rowan]

1. R. J. Barber
2. R. W. Norton
3. W. K. Te P. Bush
4. P. J. Whiting
5. J. A. Callesen
6. L. G. Knight
7. K. A. Eveleigh
8. A. R. Leslie (C)
9. I. N. Stevens (Gemmell)
10. O. D. Bruce
11. G. B. Batty
12. I. A. Hurst
13. B. J. Robertson
14. B. G. Williams
15. J. F. Karam

RESERVES
16. B. McL. Gemmell



Fiji awarded caps so for general stats purposes it would be regarded as a test.

Wow Even stronger than I recalled. That looks distinctly like the test team, not the dirties...

[Lizard]

It was played 3 days after the 3rd test in Australia, after a 12 match tour.

Anyway, for comparison:

3rd test side:
1. K. J. Tanner
2. R. W. Norton
3. A. J. Gardiner
4. P. J. Whiting
5. J. A. Callesen
6. K. W. Stewart
7. I. A. Kirkpatrick
8. A. R. Leslie (C)
9. I. N. Stevens
10. D. J. Robertson
11. G. B. Batty
12. J. E. Morgan
13. B. J. Robertson
14. B. G. Williams
15. J. F. Karam

Last dirties match (v Queensland Country, mid-week between 2nd and 3rd tests):

1. K. J. Tanner
2. G. M. Crossman (C)
3. A. J. Gardiner
4. J. A. Callesen
5. R. J. Barber
6. L. G. Knight
7. K. A. Eveleigh
8. I. A. Kirkpatrick
9. I. N. Stevens
10. D. J. Robertson
11. G. N. Kane
12. J. E. Morgan
13. I. A. Hurst
14. B. G. Williams
15. O. D. Bruce

Of course in those days there weren't 37 players on tour. I'm not sure how big the squad was, but they used 19 players in the 3 tests v Oz

[rowan]

In the amateur days they'd take a squad of about 23 players on that kind of a tour, I think, with the maximum 30 only been required for lengthy trips to South Africa (sometimes including Australia en route) or the Northern Hemisphere (where they might play 30-plus games). On a shorter tour you'd always be pretty close to full strength, and it certainly appears that most of the first-choice players lined up against Fiji. So without wanting to get to fixated on this particular match, I am still bemused by the fact it was not considered an official test by the NZRFU, and even more so by the fact they have yet to grant Fiji one in the islands (which have a 25 K stadium in the capital, capable of expanding to 30 K for major fixtures). Of course, it would have helped Fiji tremendously had the All Blacks been playing there fairly regularly over the decades, as well as hosting their Pacific Island neighbors. But obviously they'd far rather jet off to the other side of the globe and play more lucrative games against their age-old rivals - a couple of whom have never beaten them after more than a century of trying. That's what's wrong with international rugby.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Unfortunately 2 issues are being conflated. There's the very boring and done to death discussion about whether NZ and everyone else could do more to promote rugby around the world - yes they/we could. There's the much more interesting discussion about whether having a dominant team is good or bad for rugby in general.

[rowan]

I don't find the former discussion boring at all, personally, as my main interest in rugby is the development of rugby around the world. I've long since grown bored of most of the established competitions and regular match-ups. In fact, the only games I've watched live over the past couple of weeks were in Kenya (2) and Ecuador.

Regarding the second point, we could take the Auckland team of the shamateur era (late 80s/early 90s) as a model. For the first few years everybody was talking about how wonderful they were as all kinds of records were shattered, but eventually crowds began to dwindle around the rest of the country and this clearly was not good for the domestic game. The Aucks were quick to point out that they themselves drew big crowds wherever they went, but the problem was fans were losing interest in their own teams as everything else had been rendered virtually meaningless. The only solution, I believe, is for NZ and other top playing nations to become more regularly involved with a larger variety of teams and in this manner help the global game development.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I don't find the former discussion boring at all, personally, as my main interest in rugby is the development of rugby around the world. I've long since grown bored of most of the established competitions and regular match-ups. In fact, the only games I've watched live over the past couple of weeks were in Kenya (2) and Ecuador.

Regarding the second point, we could take the Auckland team of the shamateur era (late 80s/early 90s) as a model. For the first few years everybody was talking about how wonderful they were as all kinds of records were shattered, but eventually crowds began to dwindle around the rest of the country and this clearly was not good for the domestic game. The Aucks were quick to point out that they themselves drew big crowds wherever they went, but the problem was fans were losing interest in their own teams as everything else had been rendered virtually meaningless. The only solution, I believe, is for NZ and other top playing nations to become more regularly involved with a larger variety of teams and in this manner help the global game development.

It's very unlikely that the dominance of NZ will affect attendances in the NH, even for games against NZ. People will turn up to see the great team with the hope that their team will be the ones to turn them over, given that their away record isn't quite as intimidating. Kiwis don't strike me as a nation that will get tired of watching their team win.

[J Dory]

Kiwis don't strike me as a nation that will get tired of watching their team win.

It can get tiresome. Oh what I'd give for a good old fashioned loss. You losers don't know how lucky you've got it.

[Lizard]

Rowan, I hear you regarding the 1974 Fiji match being a side issue to this thread, but I just don't get why you are "bemused" by the status accorded that match by the NZRFU. In 1974 (and until about 1980) it was the Union's absolutely standard policy to only award caps for matches against the Home Nations, France, Aussie and SA. The only exception was USA in 1913. Matches were played but not capped against Argentina (4 times), Fiji (4), USA, Canada, Italy and Uruguay. The policy only changed in 1981 when caps were awarded against Romania.

[rowan]

It's true. Winning can get tiresome. Even Alexander the Great lamented upon reaching the Indus that there was no one left to conquer. What I forgot to mention about that excessively lengthy tenure of Auckland domination was that by the end of it their own crowds had dwindled considerably as well. Winning on their home-ground had become much too predictable, and the fans had seen it all before.

It's a fair point about the Home Unions, yes. They'll always get big home crowds for the All Blacks. But will the All Blacks always get big home crowds for the Home Unions? I seem to recall that during the same aforementioned shamateur era (when some were pros and others were not) that crowds were also dwindling for such fixtures as virtual cricket scores were being notched against the visitors.

Anyway, that aside, it might be easy to sit back and say the rest of the field simply need to up their game, but the reality is that in no other major nation is rugby the number one football code. So New Zealand has an inherent advantage in this respect, in that it is union which is always going to attract the cream of the nation's talent. In Australia there are better prospects in league and AFL, while in Europe, South Africa and Argentina it's obviously soccer.

I'm only saying that needs to be taken into consideration. It's not something that can realistically be changed. I've already made the only suggestion I can think of that will help create a more competitive environment - and that is more interaction with a wider variety of opponents on a more regular basis.

In 1974 (and until about 1980) it was the Union's absolutely standard policy to only award caps for matches against the Home Nations, France, Aussie and SA.

Yes, that's the part that bemuses me... Although my original point was simply that they never did return for an official test match even after 1980, despite escaping by the skin of their teeth in that 74 encounter.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Are the AB's selling out all their home test matches every time?

[Lizard]

I should also point out that in the same period, other nations happily awarded caps against NZ teams that were plainly not All Blacks:
NZ Army (Wales)
NZ Natives/Maori (England, Ireland, Wales, Aussie, Fiji, Sri Lanka, Tonga, France)
NZ Universities (Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea)
NZ Colts (Sri Lanka)
NZ U23 (Hong Kong)

The point being that just because our opposition regard a match against an NZ team as a test does not mean the NZRFU had to, or even should have.

[rowan]

Don't forget Zimbabwe (posthumously) . . .

[Lizard]

But on to the topic...

Theoretically, having a single dominant team could be detrimental to rugby but I don't think we are in any real danger of that yet.

Firstly, NZ's dominance (except in respect of SA) had been apparent for over 100 years without causing any major problems. Irish and Scottish fans will still pack out their stadiums for an NZ match despite never having won previously. Welsh fans are the same but at least with the consolation of some historical precedent.

NZ is currently perhaps even more dominant than usual, but that won't last. Other nations will catch up, and we will decline a little at times. It will only take one loss (fluke or deserved) for another team to win the World Cup, and we don't really know how big the gap is between NZ and England.

It is a problem for Aussie that they are looking weak at a time we are very good. The Bledisloe is their showpiece and casual fans have alternatives. Again, though, I'm sure the worm will turn as it did for Auckland in the late 80s.

[rowan]

The worm didn't really begin to turn for Auckland until the mid/late-90s, as I recall, and that after a dramatic restructuring of the game which included open professionalism and the advent of Super Rugby. Had things remained as they were during the shamateur period, who knows how much longer it may have gone on. & It may take a similar upheavel at international level before rugby develops into a truly global game.

[canta_brian]

Nz don't play away matches in the Pacific islands often. This is partly due to cost and ticket receipts. This is a bit unfair as the costs can be kept down by having both sets of players take the same flight from Auckland.

[rowan]

Not sure that applies to the Fijian team. But, yes, it would make sense to play the vast majority of these fixtures in New Zealand itself, particularly Auckland, though the occasional 'official' test in the islands would be nice, especially against Fiji which has a big enough stadium. The point is mainly that there should be regular fixtures between NZ & Australia and their Pacific Island neighbors. That's a no-brainer.