The NZ/SA Rivalry, how fierce is it?

[The_Brown_Hornet]

So about that NZ/SA rugby rivalry, it's pretty good eh?

 

[southsider]

As 32 and 34 year olds or however old they are, probably not.

If either of those players had emigrated to Australia for whatever reason earlier in their careers and could qualify to play for Australia then absolutely.

Do you honestly think they wouldn't try as hard because it's not the country they were born in?

There are at least 7 Wallabies from this year or last year who weren't born in Australia. Do you question whether they are fully committed or loyal?

I would say that Rugby Union's eligibility rules are no less flaky than league's now days. League used to have a rule where you could change once or something to help out the smaller nations but I think they ditched that.

Anyway, in rugby union you can qualify for a country based on the nationality of yourself, your parents and your grandparents. I would suggest that means that there are very few players who are only eligible for one country.

its not about what country their born in, its about the fact that they've already played for another country against us, then are happy to turn around and play for us. That's not what playing at the national level is about, that's stuff you do at club level

no because they haven't played for multiple countries or if they have it was at age level where they didn't have a choice......

I think your missing the point I don't really care where their born or how old they are when they move to Australia, its the fact that one week they are playing for us and the next week against us at a national level!!!

 

[southsider]

So about that NZ/SA rugby rivalry, it's pretty good eh?

wow just remembered what this thread was about....sorry peeps :/

 

[Dam0]

wow just remembered what this thread was about..sorry peeps :/

No worries. It was actually threatening to devolve into apartheid apologism so you have done well to distract from that.

 

[southsider]

No worries. It was actually threatening to devolve into apartheid apologism so you have done well to distract from that.

lesser of two evils aye

 

[mark_s]

My 2c on the historical rivalries, I happened to be in NZ when the AB’s played the boks at Eden park in 1997. I was in a Wellington pub, but my memory was that, in addition to the joy of the result, there was sheer disbelief from the NZer’s that the AB’s could put 50+ points on the Boks and win so comfortably.

By comparison, I was at Homebush in 2003 when the AB’s put 50+ on the Wobbs in bledisloe 1 (remembering we had held the bledisloe since 1998 at the time). My shitty tickets meant that my mate and I were two specs of gold in a sea of black at the southern end of the stadium. I characterise the reaction of the NZ’ers around us that night as a combination of joy and relief, but there was no disbelief that the AB’s could win so easily against Aus given they have had many comfortable wins over the years.

 

[Antony]

My 2c on the historical rivalries, I happened to be in NZ when the AB’s played the boks at Eden park in 1997. I was in a Wellington pub, but my memory was that, in addition to the joy of the result, there was sheer disbelief from the NZer’s that the AB’s could put 50+ points on the Boks and win so comfortably.

By comparison, I was at Homebush in 2003 when the AB’s put 50+ on the Wobbs in bledisloe 1 (remembering we had held the bledisloe since 1998 at the time). My shitty tickets meant that my mate and I were two specs of gold in a sea of black at the southern end of the stadium. I characterise the reaction of the NZ’ers around us that night as a combination of joy and relief, but there was no disbelief that the AB’s could win so easily against Aus given they have had many comfortable wins over the years.

I think that's a year-by-year thing; for instance, in 2011 Australia was definitely the team everyone was most worried about. It's probably fair to say that South Africa at altitude is still the game that the kiwi public is most ok with losing, but I really don't think people are all that complacent about bledisloe clashes.

 

[Rassie]

Sorry can't quote my account is still buggered. But it seems to me people misunderstood what I said.

Firstly when I said they chose to play league I was reffering at the highest level firstly. Those that were good enough to make the New Zealand team.

Then the period was during the Great Depression. We hear about Moari players excluded but was there any so called white guys who did not get picked or did not make the squad? There is always that suprise selection and at times players get omitted. There is no reports or any mention of any other player unlucky to make the squad. Surely someone was dropped. Where is the reports of that.

Then the Moari players were not chosen because of they did not play in the trail matches so they were ineligible for selection. That was due to the NZRFU telling them not to take part in it. That is NZ own fault.

Why? Not because SA told them to do so but because of 1921 and the game between Springboks and the Moari's which ended with bad blood and lots of accusations thrown around. Everything was build on perceptions and they were under the impression that the so called Afrikaners had it in for them and they will be targerted on tour. All NZRFU own doing.

Then what were the occupations or social standings of the Kiwi squad? In fact one could ask what was the social standing and occupations of the SA squads touring NZ before 1950. Remember I am talking about the unofficial Apartheid years 1921-1948. SA went to shit in 1964 that is whne human rights violations were overstepped and complaints were made.

I am sure if we go look we will find that most those guys were either farmers or their own bosses. Strange o one ever mention that or go look up how many poor people toured with their countries rugby squads in times of the Great depression and before the fifties. 3 to 4 months away from home. No pay and you got a family to look after? Who would go?

Then in 1949 NZ played two tests on one day. People seem not to mention that. Did any Moari's play against Australia? Or did any ommitted Moari's play against Australia in the test that were played for the Bedisloe cup which went on the same periiod as the SA tour went on.

The games vs NZ were at home and one was on the same day when they play SA and the other a week apart. It was two different teams. So again those who could afford go on tour the others stay at home to play AUstralia.

Who of these guys are Moari players?

FB Rex Orr

W Jack Kelly

C John Smith (c)

C Ronald Dobson

W Graham Moore

FH Ben Couch

SH Vince Bevan

P Bill Mumm

H Arthur Hughes

P Hector Wilson

L Tiny White

L Ronald Bryers

F Kiwi Blake

F Bert Lunn

N8 Bob Stuart


FB Jack Kelly

W Roy Roper

C John Smith (c)

C Ray O'Callaghan

W John McLean

FH Ben Couch

SH Vince Bevan

P Des O'Donnell

H Arthur Hughes

P Jack Bond

L Tiny White

L Thomas Budd

F Bert Lunn

F Bob Stuart

N8 Harry Rowley

One team played the Bedisloe cup matches and the other vs SA. Guess which one? One can see which one played against Australia clearly. So enlighten me.

Then put yourself in the shoes of people not knowing New Zealand or the culture or the reason for the Moari rugby team.

A team from New Zealand where no white players is allowed only players of color. Hello? To anyone not knowing better that is selecting on racial lines? Yet they print a view if everyone know NZ and why they have a natives team etc etc.

I don't know but NZ rugby union or their administrator or officials whatever have a tenancy to tell factual tales whenever they lose matches that is very important to NZ rugby public. It seems that they are use to telling a little tale and the public and other media sources take it as fact even if the evidence is contradicting.

For example the 1956 Moari team that was told to throw the game statement that was made in 2010. Easily accepted yet its contradicting to every piece of evidence what happened that day.

The 95 food poisoning. The 2007 match fixing and we can go through history and find conspiracy after conspiracy.

Just accept it its alright to lose. Its part of the learning curve and keep one honest.

 

[Dam0]

Meh.

I think it has been fairly well documented that the All Blacks were requested not to bring any Maori's or other players of colour on tours from 1921-1960. It was pretty shabby stuff all round and no amount of sophistry is going to change that.

 

[Rassie]

They weren't requested. NZRFU said no Moari must take part in the Kiwi trails. Thst is even better documented but ignored for some reason.

Sorry cant edit my post but posted the wrong line up here are the correct ones

FB Bob Scott

W Bill Meates

C Maurice Goddard

C Ron Elvidge (c)

W Sammy Henderson

FH Jim Kearney

SH Neville Black

P Kevin Skinner

H Has Catley

P Johnny Simpson

L Charlie Willocks

L Lester Harvey

F Jack McNab

F Pat Crowley

N8 Maurice McHugh


FB Rex Orr

W Jack Kelly

C John Smith (c)

C Ronald Dobson

W Graham Moore

FH Ben Couch

SH Vince Bevan

P Bill Mumm

H Arthur Hughes

P Hector Wilson

L Tiny White

L Ronald Bryers

F Kiwi Blake

F Bert Lunn

N8 Bob Stuart

 

[Dam0]

Whatever. Do you have a source for this revelation? You should go and convince wikipedia to alter their articles on the subject.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

2 things Rassie, can you PLEASE spell Maori right? And secondly, your little petty attack on NZRFU about "not ok to lose etc" weakens the rest of your post which I'm actually very interested in. It alters your stance from "angry about previous unjust truths" to "ranting from angry insane supporter and best to ignore" - something to think about.

I've never heard this before and would be interested in finding a little more about - as Dam0 alludes to above, I've never read, heard, seen anything to back up your claims, although I have found it easy to accept that SA blocked Maori players due to the apartheid regime, so never bothered to look for further information.

So, bearing the above in mind, if you could find some links to back up your claims, please post them - be very interested in reading them.

 

[Dan54]

I not into going into find out who was who in those teams, but I know Ben Couch was a maori,(friend of my Dads) and he played in AB etc, sure he's not only one. Not sure what you are trying to prove Rassie.

 

[Dam0]

2 things Rassie, can you PLEASE spell Maori right? And secondly, your little petty attack on NZRFU about "not ok to lose etc" weakens the rest of your post which I'm actually very interested in. It alters your stance from "angry about previous unjust truths" to "ranting from angry insane supporter and best to ignore" - something to think about.

I've never heard this before and would be interested in finding a little more about - as Dam0 alludes to above, I've never read, heard, seen anything to back up your claims, although I have found it easy to accept that SA blocked Maori players due to the apartheid regime, so never bothered to look for further information.

So, bearing the above in mind, if you could find some links to back up your claims, please post them - be very interested in reading them.

No kidding. Rassie's habit of writing great swathes of text full of hyperbole, half-truths and vitriol distract from any valid points he might have had. Others have described his posting style as a form of Gish Galloping, and I am inclined to agree.

As for this point itself, it reminds me a little of the arguments of people who say that because there is no formal written order from Hitler to begin the Holocaust then it wasn't an official policy of the Nazis. Just because one may not be able to point to a formal declaration from the SARU that non-white players were not welcome, does not mean all that much. The point remains that Maoris who would have been on the tours on merit were not taken due to the apartheid system. South Africa is the only country that NZ went to where Maoris were excluded.

I certainly put much of the blame the NZRU for their cowardice in putting up with it. BUT it is a nonsense to suggest that the apartheid laws and the general political situation and attitudes in South Africa had nothing to do with it. Clearly that is just rubbish.

 

[Rassie]

Damo you are taking this out of context. Firstly you are showing signs of ignarance on how New Zealand marginilized the Moari's through the years. The fact that they were forced into European customs should already let alarm bells go off all was not well in NZ bback in those days. Even the amnesia people seem to suffer about the New Zealand Wars where the last one ended in 1916. Their numbers were around 40,000 and NZ had native schools where they given a education basically consisted of practical work or work that requires just skills of working in factories.

By the 1930s, tensions between Māori and settlers over land and authority had died down. Stripped of much of their land and living in rural poverty, Maori were neither a political nor economic threat. Separatist and prophetic Maori movements had largely disappeared, and the rebellious Maori King Movement was barely functional. The hegemony of English language, customs and values were firmly entrenched in the public domain, and Maori language was beginning to wane in the private sphere. Having vigorously pursued the racial and cultural absorption of Maori, the government could afford to loosen the reigns.

Funny talking about Hitler the Maori were excluded from military service in the World Wars. They were allowed to volunteer. If you look up at the meaning of the word volunteer you will note its doing something out of your own will for free basically.

This argument of the Maori's were not allowed to play did not start back in the 1930's or so/ It started in the modern era after NZ took more note of the natives they so ignored for decades. You give them rights but they only get those rights if they live by your culture and by your rules not their own. Everything is not as simple as it appeared.

Also look at Pat Lam and what happened at the Blues. Racial allegations and things came out of the wood work. No apartheid to blame that on mate.

Can you answer me this question. Why where there more protesting and riots and public devision in NZ when the Maori's were allowed to tour SA? And where was this protesting when they were not allowed?

People seem to think NZ did not want to isolate SA because of the rugby ties which was another perception. NZ did not wanted to be commanded in what to do by African countries. These people include Ugandan Foreign minister Elizabeth Bagaya, representing a country run by a cannibalistic dictator Idi Amin who became synonomous with oppression of blacks (the Lango and Acholi people) and the indiscriminate execution of dissidents. Between 100,000 and 500,000 people were brutally murdered in Uganda at the time. Indians and the rest of the world who were slagging South Africa off about Apartheid at the UN seemed to be unconcerned about the 900,000 refugees who were fleeing religious persecution in India and Pakistan during the 1960‟s. They cared little for the 500,000 Indians thrown out of Burma, tens of thousands expelled from Uganda, or the thousands victimized in Kenya and Tanzania. Ten years before that Indonesia slaughtered tens of thousand of women, men and children of Chinese background, Many African countries have done worse.

How can you dance to the tune or to the wishes of countries who had a far worse human rights record than SA. SA human rights record were bad at all as the black population even under oppression standard of living were better than any other African country. That is why SA stayed in the UN for so long until Africa got support from Arab nations and had enough votes to expel them.

You will note when SA left the commonwealth suddenly the protests started to flair up. From Britain till in NZ. If SA did not have all the riches under its soil no one who have given a shit what they did or what went on in the country. Just like Rwanda.

I tend to ignore newspaper reports when looking at history. Because newspapers are mostly government propaganda. For years it have been a hobby of mine where I read hundreds of pieces from historians and people who lived at those times and put myself in the shoes of them and the circumstances back then. You have to when you consider when one culture meets another where one of them deemed to be more primitive. The perception was that the Afrikaner where racist white blokes who thought they are superior to everyone else and like to beat you up when you disagree. Words were taken out of context when they meant the one culture was far more primitive than other. Rather than forcing them into their culture they let them live on and do things in their own culture and slowly try to adapt them to the modern norms.. I assure you kidnapping woman to marry you would not go down well with European society. Or killing your army regiments who were defeated on the battle field no matter how bravely they thought. That is just few of the customs they had to deal with.

One can see they really believe that perception especially when coming to the SA rugby team and the way they play in more modern times. They think because SA is so physical they are trying to bully people.

But if you go back to 56 you will note that SA were accused of cheating, that NZ employed tactics of up and under, and they disrupt SA by being physical and using a guy like Skinner to intimidate them and to punch the so called cheating Boks. Sounds familiar? Yes the roles are reversed. SA played a more open game than NZ who played more like SA today. NZ relied more on scrum dominance and hence why they struggled against SA in those early years. SA had a better one and in 56 they played more a open style. Danie Craven preffered style.

The Maori game which attracted record crowds and was build up by the media where everyone thought there is going to be bloodshed. But the talks before the game both sides were told to play the ball and not the man. Stop the nigling and trying to beat each other up and play rugby. SA ran them of their feet. But the open style was their downfall in the tests where NZ capitalized on mistakes to win after territorial pressure.

NZ changed the way they played when they won the Loins series on penalties rather tries when they promised never to win like that again. So were the SA public outrage when SA won on penalties and not by means of tries against NZ.

SA and the Lions complained about the officials in NZ yet today we here of NZ accusing SA of referees who were bias and even penalized them because of a guys skin. Yet when that happened White teams and colored teams already started playing another.

I know the source of lost of the arguments comes from Basil Oliveira with the cricket. Yet no one have looked up the rules of the colored cricket board back then. The colored cricket board had a rule that stated if any player plays with a white team or against them would be banned from Cricket for life in SA. Oliveira was under a life ban imposed by the colored cricket board.

Fear were used in South Africa to great effect. Apart from Black and White fearing being wiped out by another, they feared financial collapse as Pik Botha tried to tell them. They feared the “Swartgevaar” (Black terror) and the “Rooigevaar” (Red Terror). They feared everything from world isolation to being caught out on camera by Leon Schuster.

FEAR is an acronym in the English language for "False Evidence Appearing Real. It makes the wolf appear bigger than he actually is.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Rugby is clearly the Number 1 sport in NZ. The country goes into mourning when the AIG's lose a test.

Rugby is clearly the No 1 sport on a regional and possible cultural basis in SA.

From the outside it appears that it is No 1 with the Afrikaner speaker.

Is it as popular with the English speakers on the coastal fringes?

From my limited knowledge of Saffer land, Skin colour is not a divisive issue. Tribal and cultural affiliation is divisive amoung people of the same (ish) skin colour.

Is there any particular tribal group where Rugby is a Religion?

What about the so called Coloureds, the former sub-continental labourers, and the mixed interracials?


Soccer is seen as a well supported Non-white sport? is the support for that divided simply on skin colour or is it similarly divided on a tribal/geographic basis.

The more I learn about Saffer land, the more I realise what a complex and fascinating country/culture it really is.

 

[Dam0]

WTF Rassie. I'm not going to read all that. If you can't write your main points in 2-3 short paragraphs then forget it.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

1300 words. Impressive effort from Rassie covering a rather broad landscape of issues, almost like a Brett Whitely painting.

 

[Dam0]

1300 words. Impressive effort from Rassie covering a rather broad landscape of issues, almost like a Brett Whitely painting.

Yeah well, send it to the Pulitzer judges.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ Have you seen any of Brett Whitely's works?