Jeremy Rees: Rugby's truth in the eye of the beholder

Jeremy Rees

Herald reporter Alan Perrott gets it right when he says everyone sees a rugby match from their own point of view.

But take it from someone who was at the Southland-Lions rugby match, which he uses as an example: He doesn't know the half of it.

Your viewpoint is not just national. Take your place at the park, your viewpoint, your angle. From the stands at Rugby Park the night unfolded splendidly. In the terraces, a monumental disaster was unfolding.

Down where about two-thirds of the 19,200 spectators stood to watch, the beer ran out. And not halfway through the game but 10 minutes before kickoff. The authorities were caught out by the scale of demand. That low rumble you heard on your television coverage? That was the grumble of Lions and Southland fans, some calling for the heads of the men who run Rugby Southland.

"What's the matter? How come you got caught by surprise that 17,000 people are turning up tonight," shouted one straight-talking Southlander to a downcast official at the empty beer tent.

Only at halftime did someone discover that beer could be bought from a makeshift stall underneath the main stand, apparently after emergency supplies were called in from a liquor store across the road, nearly precipitating a stampede in the terraces. Next day, the Rugby Southland chief executive, who no doubt sits in the stands, pronounced himself happy with the arrangements. Those of us in the dry terraces saw it differently.

After the game, when the beer flowed in the bars of Invercargill, views of the game split along team lines. Lions fans thought Southland had played with spirit and pluck. Southland fans thought the Lions had played indifferently but with luck.

Why such different perspectives? Check out the information sources. Southland hardly - has it ever? - features on British rugby channels. So a visiting fan could pick up the Southland Times, which loyally talks up its side, or the programme, which loyally talks up its side. (No one seems to buy programmes any more because the fans seem to know more than the people who write them.)

The programme warned: Don't underestimate the Southland Stags, a team chock full of rugged players - they have a "habit" of winning the big matches and, ominously, they have a record of beating the Lions. Apparently, outside the big four (Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago), Southland has the best record against the Lions of any province with two wins (1950, 11-0 win, the first time in 42 years a provincial team had kept the Lions scoreless, and 1966, 14-8).

The small matter that anyone born the year Southland last beat the Lions is now in middle age was glossed over. Or that Southland's NPC record last year included such results as 0-30 (Wellington), 13-52 (Canterbury), 16-48 (Taranaki). They ended up second to bottom in the first division. So after reading the programme, the Lions fans felt, quite rightly, they had quelled the mighty Stags. And the Southland fans felt, quite rightly, that the Lions aren't a patch on, say, the Canterbury Crusaders, who would have whopped them 72-0.

Ahh, perspective.

Then there was the local media. Naturally, the Southland Times extolled their boys' next day. The headline: "Standing Tall." The feel: "A Southland team full of desire kept the Lions to a 10-point margin."

The Otago Daily Times was more sniffy about its southern neighbour. The Stags, it said, "arguably should have been defeated by a great deal more than 10 points" while the Lions "looked infinitely more talented and likely to cross the line". The subtext: At least Otago got to play the A team.

The Press, centred in one-eyed Canterbury, was scathing: "The Lions were little short of a rabble" but then settled down to the real story of the day, the return of their Canterbury boys to the All Blacks. Returned All Black Leon MacDonald was just "too good to miss", elbowing some Auckland bloke called Mils Muliaina aside. Marshall, Mauger and MacDonald were front page news and front of Sport. Bugger some game in Southland.

Of course, naturally, my paper, the Herald, got it absolutely spot on ("a strange performance from the tourists"). Now that's perspective for you.