Paul Lewis: It's not race, it's resources

Andy Haden. Photo / Sarah Ivey

The subject clumsily inflamed by Andy Haden and which created such a storm of protest this week is one of the most discussed in rugby.

But never in public.

Even in preparing this column, I am bracing for the inevitable wave of hate mail, most of which will be anonymous, abusive and will scream racism.

The "browning" of rugby has been a rugby topic for years, discussed across selection tables, in bars, in rugby clubs and in administrations up and down the land. But try to find someone to go public. The subject has been raised with All Black coaches, Super 14 coaches and players, and ordinary rugby folk. No one ever wants to be quoted.

Why? Because it is very difficult, in spoken word or written, to raise the issue without sounding as if the person involved is racially motivated in wanting fewer Polynesians and Maori in the game and more white fellas.

No matter how genuine and carefully phrased the views, the person giving them fears being swamped by the sort of outraged backlash that almost swallowed Haden whole.

Haden might have done us a favour in having the issue aired - even if his original contention that the Crusaders' "three-darkies" rule was enshrined in writing was always bound to crash and burn. Of course it wasn't.

Quite apart from anything else, no one would be daft enough to write such a thing down. Haden has since said he was being "facetious" about it being a written rule but holds to his contention the Crusaders have maintained the three Polynesians law. He also clarified he was not talking about Maori but Pacific Islanders.

So that's all right, then. The one damaged most by all this is probably Haden himself. His credibility has been questioned because he relied on unnamed sources - a legitimate journalistic tactic but one, as he is discovering, open to dispute.

In recent times in the Herald on Sunday, we ran a story involving the omission of an international player from a national team.

To get the real oil, we had to go to various sources, including team-mates. It was done on the basis that all comments were anonymous. We had the comments in note form and on tape. If anyone ever questioned our story, we had the proof. That didn't stop the player's partner leaving an abusive phone message.

Haden didn't have proof, other than his word. To make matters worse, the subject raised was the touchy one of race - and, by association, whether Polynesians dominating rugby teams meant those teams were being dumbed down.

However odious we may find this topic, rest assured it is discussed often in rugby circles, particularly in Auckland.

It's important to say that the concept of more white guys = a smarter team is just as specious as more brown guys = a dumber team. It's nonsense.

The Crusaders are their own proof. They have routinely turned out-of-area acquisitions, unwanted elsewhere, into highly desirable players and part of what is indisputably the best team set-up in the country. This has been achieved whether the player is brown or white or varying shades in between.

This topic, however, gets more of an airing in Auckland because this is the area of (a) most Polynesians and (b) the Blues. The latter unwittingly refresh and refuel the "dumbing" hypothesis because they are good enough to beat the Bulls one week and poor enough to lose to the Cheetahs the next.

It's not worth spending any time on the "dumbing" theory because it pre-supposes that Caucasians are smarter rugby players than Polynesians. No, they're not. They're just different in different areas of the game.

For a clear, objective view, go no further than the chapter of Chris Laidlaw's book, Somebody Stole My Game. Under a chapter titled Is Brown the New Black?, Laidlaw hails the benefits Polynesian players have brought to New Zealand rugby and the country as a whole.

He also gives examples - from the mouths of Polynesian coaches and players - of how teams dominated by Maori and Polynesian players can be inconsistent.

Laidlaw, a former Race Relations Conciliator, wrote: "... it must be said that, simply because of that explosive energy, Polynesian players sometimes make themselves more vulnerable to missed tackles and because of all that instinctive brilliance, they sometimes just go their own way on attack, compromising a team's tactical plan.

"... Maori and Pacific Islanders tend to be more instinctive than measured in their approach and every team at the top level needs someone who can plot and plan, adjust and adapt. There will always be a place for a Grant Fox or a Conrad Smith and it is this ...variety that gives rugby its character."

That's the real issue. It isn't who is smarter. It's a question of developing resources. It's how we get the skinny white guys, the Grant Foxs, the Nicky Allens et al, through a rugby nursery that sees such schoolboys run over by trucks every weekend, in the shape of Polynesian boys whose muscle mass and hardness matures much earlier. The problem is keeping such players in the game before they drift away to do something other than get steamrollered.

First-five is probably the best example. There have been few top level All Black 10s of Maori or Polynesian descent. Carlos Spencer and Mac Herewini are the most obvious - and perhaps both lent themselves to the true meaning of the word 'mercurial'.

Dan Carter, Fox, Andrew Mehrtens and others have been stereotypical 'skinny white guys' who control a match and guide a team, creating chances for attackers.

There has never been, to my knowledge, a Polynesian first five for the All Blacks, although Stephen Bachop and, some say, Steve Nesbit had Island blood. Both could also have been adorned with the 'talented but inconsistent' label.

Which is not to say a top Polynesian All Black 10 won't happen. Of course it will. But, for now, the stats don't lie. There will be differences between the races always.

Anyone who says otherwise is being glib. In rugby, as with life, it's all about balance.