KEY POINTS:
In a certain quarter, the delights delivered by the Rugby World Cup came gift-wrapped. Not only did England grind its way to the final but New Zealand, its antithesis in playing style, could not even make the final four.
Cue a barrage of criticism from British rugby writers about all things All Black and even this country's ability to stage a tournament worthy of a World Cup in 2011. Kicking New Zealand while it was down became the order of the day.
The critics were in accord on several issues. One was the supposed arrogance of both the All Blacks and their followers. New Zealanders, so the theory goes, believed their side had only to step off the plane in France to win the Webb Ellis Cup.
Yet even if that were so, it was a sentiment echoed in British newspapers and by High Street bookmakers. The All Blacks, based on their playing record, were strong favourites. Those holding a contrary view were spread thinly around the globe. One, interestingly enough, was this newspaper's chief rugby writer.
The accusation of arrogance extends to this country's opinion of English rugby, a view described by Daily Telegraph writer Mick Cleary as one of "undisguised contempt".
This comment is, undeniably, close to the mark. It would also be fair to say that New Zealanders' attitude will not change because of England's appearance in back-to-back finals.
But that is a reflection not so much of arrogance but the fact that the forward-dominated game employed by England for so long is an anathema in this part of the world. This is not the way New Zealanders want rugby played, no matter that, in the World Cup format at least, it has brought England a degree of success.
But such sentiment, according to Cleary, casts doubts about this country's ability to see beyond the All Blacks and to host a World Cup that will be wholly welcoming and inclusive.
"They may have to loosen up, learn some manners and live life with a bit of grace and generosity" if the 2011 World Cup is to emulate that in France, he wrote. If those remarks have any substance at all, they lie in New Zealanders' passion to see the All Blacks win the World Cup on home soil. But that emotion has never before overwhelmed the welcome for rugby teams and their followers.
Huge pressure attended the 2005 series against the British and Irish Lions but there was nothing to suggest this unduly soured the atmosphere. It may, of course, have helped that the All Blacks won convincingly. But the Lions' predecessors in 1971 were lauded, not larruped, during their triumphant tour. Equally, New Zealanders have always been prepared to look beyond the All Blacks in their appreciation of skill. Players of the ilk of Willie John McBride, Barry John, Jo Maso and Hugo Porta are as revered here as in their home countries.
The 2011 World Cup will be different from that in France. But that does not mean it will be inferior. If, as is intended, the provinces play a leading role, teams will be embraced in a manner that has been only partly possible in previous tournaments.
Every New Zealand community is steeped in rugby, a factor long remarked upon by visiting players. This will be a rugby competition in a rugby nation, not a spectacle of passing fancy to people in countries more noted for other sporting codes. As such, it will have its own stamp, and be no less memorable for it.
There could be an element of payback in all this criticism. The crassness displayed by some in the higher echelons of the New Zealand Rugby Union may have come home to roost. But to ascribe arrogance or a lack of generosity to New Zealand rugby followers is to fly in the face of history. Indeed, it is their appreciation of the finer points of the game that will make the next World Cup special.
