The All Blacks name their team and the whispering starts. It's usually a British hack keen to know where players were born, trying to get a feel for the ethnic diversity in the team.
These facts are gathered so the old line about New Zealand raping the Pacific Islands can
be trotted out. That satisfies two agendas - it helps convince the Brits that the All Blacks are so good because they pursue a morally bereft recruitment policy where they tap into a gene pool that should be off limits. With that 'fact' established, the British papers can then jump in with their favourite line about the All Blacks having never played a test in the Pacific Islands.
The truth, it seems, shall not be allowed to get in the way of an easy story, particularly when there is some ill-feeling in these parts at New Zealand securing the hosting rights to the 2011 World Cup.
If anyone was left to form their view of New Zealand rugby purely on what they had read in the British press these last few weeks, they wouldn't reach a glowing conclusion. New Zealand has been painted as the shady man of world rugby, a dodgy geezer doing illicit deals to nab players from the Islands and then striking back-room deals where All Black fixtures were traded for World Cup votes.
The portrayal of New Zealand as a country devoid of any interest in the growth of the game outside its own borders is being driven partly because the Japanese bid won the hearts and minds of both the British media and the Rugby Football Union. They felt, by holding the tournament in Japan, they would be giving rugby its licence to grow into new frontiers. Japan as a new venue would be the panacea.
No one challenged the assertion that Japan were overwhelming favourites, and nor has anyone really asked whether there was any logic to the belief the Japanese bid would be in the best interests of developing the game globally. The venue, in terms of generating new players, has proven irrelevant in the past. The real growth comes in the country that wins the World Cup, as Australia and England can testify.
It is hard to believe that if the tournament were held in Japan, thousands of children around the world would be inspired to take up the game while they wouldn't if it was held in New Zealand.
Japan's bid would supposedly have generated more money for the IRB. That would have provided greater opportunity to develop the sport in emerging countries. But, while it wasn't as lucrative as the Japanese proposal, New Zealand's bid has promised to deliver the IRB a record profit and therefore sufficient money to fund development initiatives.
The real irony is that last year when the New Zealand Rugby Union championed a proposal that would have been a massive breakthrough in growing the sport, it was rejected.
The NZRU proposed that the eligibility rules be relaxed so players who represent tier-one nations such as New Zealand could go back to play for the likes of Samoa, Fiji and Tonga if they were qualified. That would've meant players like Mils Muliaina and Ma'a Nonu, should they ever be discarded by the All Blacks, could play for Manu Samoa.
It was a proposal that would have immediately strengthened the playing resources of all three Island nations and potentially taken Samoa, in particular, to a level where they could challenge the world's top sides. That legislation was more significant to the growth of the sport than the venue of the 2011 World Cup and the Brits might want to sniff close to their own homes to find out which unions rejected the proposal at last year's IRB full council meeting.
And, while they're in the mood for investigating, they might also want to take some time to understand that New Zealand no longer sits inside their simple construct where the people are either Europeans or Maori. As the most economically prosperous islands in Polynesia, New Zealand is a land of opportunity for Samoans, Fijians and Tongans.
They emigrate, they contribute, they assimilate and they become part of the rich cultural fabric, yet there is a refusal to understand that players like Tana Umaga can grow up as New Zealanders proud and aware of their Samoan heritage. It is no different to someone being born and raised in London to Jamaican-born and bred parents.
And while the record is being put straight - the All Blacks have offered to play in the Islands. But the Pacific Island unions have always said it is easier logistically and better financially for them to play the All Blacks in New Zealand.
The gate proceeds after costs from the game in Albany this year went to the Fijian Rugby Union. We all would have loved for there to have been a Pacific Island inclusion in the expanded Super 14. It didn't happen and that is a regret.
But far from being the unhelpful big brother, it would seem that New Zealand's conscience is clear when it comes to the Pacific Islands.
When the truth is allowed to get in the way of the story, it seems there might in actual fact be some very different villains.
- HERALD ON SUNDAY
The All Blacks name their team and the whispering starts. It's usually a British hack keen to know where players were born, trying to get a feel for the ethnic diversity in the team.
These facts are gathered so the old line about New Zealand raping the Pacific Islands can
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.