Paul Lewis: Bridge still great divide

The great divide. Photo / Martin Sykes

It says much about North Harbour's chequered rugby history that, even as it celebrates its 25th year, the debate continues about whether it is a good idea.

In an age when professional rugby has left some yawning holes in the flanks of the club and provincial game, North Harbour has struggled to assert itself. The breakaway province supposed to grow to the inspiring dimensions of a mighty oak, North Harbour is still largely in sapling mode.

Even the most visible signs are damaging. The home of Harbour rugby - the stadium at Albany - looks similarly half-finished; it stands a mute billboard, advertising North Harbour's stunted growth.

There has been some cruel criticism timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary, like this from Chris Rattue in the New Zealand Herald: "No offence, North Harbour, but hopefully your side will sink without trace in this year's provincial rugby competition and never be seen in any heights again.

"I'll argue forever and a day that the Blues, upon whom the city's rugby fortunes increasingly depend, will never reach their potential again, or maybe even rise out of their slump, until there is one completely dominant (Auckland) organisation underneath ... the split union bizzo has to be rated a disaster in the professional era.

"Auckland/North Harbour is a false divide anyway - this is one major city with fairly distinct regions. Having a separate team on the North Shore makes as much sense as forming an NPC team in West or South Auckland ..."

Well, actually, it is a real divide. As a long-term North Shore-ite, old enough to have played rugby for a northern club before the Great Parting, I know there is unquestionably a social sense that doesn't exist in West or South Auckland.

There are two main groups of North Shore people: those who view themselves as being part of Auckland and those who don't. On the Shore, there are some people who can only be called separatists.

In case you think the latter do not exist, I know people on the Shore who rarely cross the bridge; not unless they absolutely have to. They work on the Shore, play on the Shore and see no reason whatever to go to That Other Place. Some within this sub-group are zealots. They don't just avoid crossing the bridge - they make a religion out of it. Some are rugby people (some in North Harbour have a well-developed anti-Auckland bias); some are not.

The Shore, for many, is a community apart; separated by that metal monster that creaks and groans every day as the cars line up on it in their glacial crawl into the metropolis and the evil grip of Wilson car parks; its very being a steel rebuke to a city that embraced the car but not public transport and which has been regretting it ever since.

The Shore has also been subject to the critical and snobbish gaze of some Auckland residents. I know people for whom the North Shore is like the Gobi Desert. It might be one of the natural wonders of the world but that doesn't mean anyone would want to go there. Darling. As for living there, they'd rather buy their clothes at Op Shops and French kiss a homeless person.

So there are transport, community, social and even ethnic divides. The large South African community there has become a bit of a standing joke, just as "Chowick" did for a while and just as Pakuranga was cynically labelled "Vim Valley" for many years after a particularly excruciating TV ad.

But where Rattue and others are right is that the North Harbour rugby secession has not really been successful. No national championships, a short and not particularly glorious Shield reign ended by a record defeat for a holder and ... that's about it.

You'd also have to say the reason for forming Harbour in the first place remains in place. In Lindsay Knight's excellent book, Harbour, he details how Shore identity Peter Thorburn spat tacks at the lack of Shore players chosen in Auckland rep teams.

It was ever thus. Auckland rugby management committee meetings often made the sports news 30 years ago with northern club delegates complaining about promising players being passed over. Rugby politics ruled, not OK.

Twenty-five years on and what do we have? Continuing complaints that not enough Harbour players are chosen for the Blues and that, even when they are, they aren't used properly.

By most measures, the union hasn't been a success. Except for one thing and two words: Frank Bunce.

Out of all the Harbour All Blacks, leaving aside the great Buck Shelford, this character perhaps epitomises the value of the northern union. It wasn't until Bunce swapped from Manukau to Helensville that his All Black star really rose.

It wasn't because of that shift alone, of course, his value for Manu Samoa had already been seen. But there is no doubt that Bunce achieved a remarkable, swift shift from little-regarded bit player to a world-class runner, passer and purveyor of Big Hits.

Even in his Samoa days, there were those unsure Bunce was All Black quality. That he was, and a damned good All Black too, was largely down to Harbour giving him a stage on which he could perform.

That's the thing. Harbour offers something different; a new pathway to the All Blacks for its flourishing brigades of junior players; a separate identity.

What is wrong with Auckland rugby has nothing to do with the Harbour secession. Auckland were too strong in the late 80s and 90s for that to be true. What ails Auckland has little to do with Harbour and a whole lot to do with Auckland.

No, good luck, Harbour. There have been many trials and tribulations - but here's to the next 25 years.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither, obviously, was Albany.