Last weekend, by sheer good fortune, I watched the first test against Scotland from the backblocks of Zimbabwe, courtesy of a new satellite dish erected on top of a dilapidated country pub.
I watched it in the company of Ndebele tribesmen who had dropped by for a late-night drink and who were thoroughly mystified by the odd spectacle that rugby presents to the uninitiated.
They all loved the haka, immediately recognising affinities with their own tribal dance rituals, but they quickly lost interest once the real proceedings got going.
Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that any body contact - except, of course, in the realm of romantic connection with the opposite sex - is generally found to be disagreeable to the Ndebele.
The transmission was more than usually interesting because it was accompanied by a South African commentary. As the game wore on, I began to realise that South Africans view the strengths and weaknesses of the All Blacks rather differently than us.
After the game was over, and the Scots had been routed in a manner that would have had the dreaded Duke of Cumberland twitching approvingly in his tomb, a succession of South African luminaries offered their own analysis of the All Blacks' performance.
Their conclusions were intriguing. While they acknowledged that the attacking powers of this new-look New Zealand team are probably greater than those of any other side in world rugby at the moment, all were oddly confident that the Springboks will prevail in this year's Tri-Series.
How so? Particularly after the Springboks have twice been smothered under the wet blanket of England. There is a working assumption in South African rugby circles that contemporary All Black teams have a permanent fragility.
They believe that when the real, old-fashioned, aggressive pressure is applied, the All Blacks are easily rattled into mistakes and misjudgments.
The sense of worship that surrounds the Cullen-Umaga-Lomu triumvirate elsewhere in the world cuts little ice in South Africa. These three might be great strengths as far as New Zealanders are concerned, but to some South African experts they are also a great weakness.
The weakness, it is said, flows from the state of continual uncertainty among the big three at the back as to whether to play it safe or to have a go when they get the ball deep in their own territory.
That uncertainty makes for some dramatic tries, but it also brings moments of calamity.
The South Africans reckon that once the ball is in behind the All Blacks' three-quarters anything can happen, and they see that as the area of greatest opportunity for the Springboks.
One or two South African pundits see the whole thing in ethnic terms. Although nobody came right out and said it, a heavy implication hung in the air that Polynesian resolve under continual fire is not quite as steady as that of the white man.
The first-test romp against Scotland did not particularly impress many South African experts. They are convinced that England have provided the Springboks with a far more valuable buildup than the Scots could ever hope to deliver to New Zealand.
On the evidence thus far they are convinced that the Springbok forwards, even if they came second against England, will be stronger and technically superior to the All Blacks pack.
Wishful thinking or shrewd analysis? The former, I suspect.
Scotland showed us last Saturday, admittedly after a very long spell of one-way traffic, that without the ball the All Blacks can be outsmarted. If this new-look team can keep Scotland under the jackboot for 80 rather than 70 minutes tonight, then perhaps the South Africans will realise that it really is only wishful thinking on their part.
Rugby: African comment from the uninitiated and the initiated
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.