KEY POINTS:
Those attending this weekend's first rugby international of the season can be excused for feeling underwhelmed by the prospect. An injury-hit All Black team will run on to Eden Park to confront a makeshift French XV minus most of its World Cup players. Both sides have made it clear they see little value in the game. "We did not want to come, but we must come," said French coach Bernard Laporte. His All Black counterpart, Graham Henry, equally downbeat, said such matches placed the sport in jeopardy.
How has it come to this? Henry blamed the International Rugby Board and the French Federation for allowing an "organisational chaos" to fester. In this particular case, he is right. The inaction of rugby's Dublin-based administrators and the power wielded by clubs in France meant most of the top French players could not tour because they were involved in club championship playoffs. But it is notable that similarly depleted, essentially development teams have been dispatched by England, Wales and Ireland to the Southern Hemisphere, even though those countries' domestic seasons have ended.
Henry would have us believe this is all the fault of the Northern Hemisphere nations, and that New Zealand has kept faith by putting international games ahead of other commitments. "The All Blacks team that went to Europe last November was the best All Blacks team that we could put on the track," he noted. This is sophistry of the first order. It ignores the fact that, while the best players might have been selected for the tour, alternative teams, not the best XV, were picked for tests. It also slides around Henry's willingness, in a similar vein, to devalue the Super 14 competition by withdrawing 22 All Blacks for reconditioning.
The latter move underscored the increasing importance of the World Cup, and coaches' readiness to make sacrifices to enhance the prospects of claiming rugby's top prize. That is the motivation for the weak Irish, English and Welsh touring teams. But they are only following a pace set by New Zealand in 2002. Then, Henry's predecessor, John Mitchell, left 21 of his top players at home when he took a development side to Europe.
Whatever this country's culpability, Henry is correct, however, to point to the unacceptable nature of the current set of tours. He might also have mentioned that New Zealand has been trying to do something about this, at least in the context affecting France. Since 2001, it has pushed for a common international window. Support has come from South Africa and Australia, as part of the pact under which those two nations gained an extra team in what was then the Super 12. So far, New Zealand has gained little traction; club contracts with players continue to be the dominating feature of the European game.
Henry is also correct to finger the International Rugby Board's passivity. It needs to be aware of the damage such tours have on the game, not so much here but in countries where rugby has a less secure foothold. Board officials must sit down with clubs in the Northern Hemisphere and administrators from around the world to work out a window in which international matches will hold sway. The board must also insist countries select their top players for tours. Development work should be confined to second-tier competitions like the Pacific Nations Cup.
If this is not done, the international rugby calendar will become increasingly problematic. An element of farce will attend more and more matches outside the World Cup. This weekend's test is testimony to a woeful trend. For the sake of rugby, there should not be too many more like it.
