Opinion: The All Blacks and Springboks face off in the fourth and final test of the year’s throwback tour on Sunday in the Baltimore Bolt-on with much more than a level series on the line. Scotty Stevenson goes in search of the middle ground between the All Blacks and South Africa and comes away empty-handed.
Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry Tour is almost over, and rugby may or may not have been the winner on the day, depending on which team you support. This grand old trek down memory lane has certainly proved one thing: South Africa and New Zealand may boast the top two men’s teams in the world, but they are certainly not singing from the same song sheet.
What has become more obvious than ever is that these two rugby nations view the game through completely different lenses. While the teams tap dance on the well-trodden boards of mutual respect, the same cannot be said for those on the periphery. Never have the two nations had such disparate reflections on the game. Sure, there’s respect, but it’s a respect borne of suspicion.
There was always going to be a siege mentality in South Africa, host venue for three of the four tests. For the Boks, this series wasn’t just about winning; it was about proof of authority – over the shape of the game, over the set piece, over the pace of play, over the pre-eminence of physicality as the One True Force in the rugby universe.
The All Blacks in turn have advertised themselves as renaissance men, the great entertainers, the team taking the gap, the futurists fighting the troglodytes. It is no wonder this rankles with South African fans and why they rally behind coach Rassie Erasmus, whose intractable nature and steadfast belief in beef before beauty encapsulates both the defence of traditional tactics, and sovereign self-image.
That is some furnace in which to thrust oneself, which is exactly what All Blacks coach Dave Rennie did when he dared to question the Springbok scrum after the series was levelled in Cape Town. Rennie’s assertions drew the desired response from his counterpart, who was forced into an impassioned denial of illegality, but the strategy had downside: it allowed the Springboks every opportunity to provide their rebuttal. And then to prove their point. In short, it backfired.
Both coaches understand their constituencies. Erasmus is a frontiersman who has harnessed an impassioned fanbase and delivered world titles with an ‘us against the rest’ territorialism that appeals to his people. Rennie projects a more laconic image, appealing to an old-school New Zealand country hard man ethos. If in doubt, "Bar up". Differences aside, both are masters of their craft, and a large part of that craft is message manipulation.
It was not surprising to witness both men (and their assistants) utilise their media time to air grievances to the officials, and even less surprising to read and hear the reaction from opposing fans to each fresh claim. In essence: everything the other guy claims about our team is rubbish and everything our guy says about them is true, and if the referee falls for any of that nonsense it’s all on him.
Erasmus – like Eddie Jones, Sir Steve Hansen, or Sir Clive Woodward before him – has long revelled in the theatre of a match week, as much as the reality of match day. The early selections, the late changes, the claims and counterclaims, are presented as crucial weapons in the South African arsenal, rather than unedifying pantomime acts. Erasmus is a headline generator for South Africa’s rugby media who, almost without exception, treat his every pronouncement as an article of faith and amplify them for an eager audience.
Dave Rennie has not shied away from playing on the same stage and playing to his people. He has proved a dab hand at assuaging New Zealanders’ fears that the All Blacks were in terminal decline. ‘Optimism’ was an inspired choice for his early word of the day, and four straight test wins set aflame the torch of public belief. That torch flickered in Capetown and was almost snuffed out in Soweto.
Rennie’s vision for the All Blacks, though, has not come under attack from his own, even while it has been derided by those on the other side of rugby’s stylistic divide. There is a desperate desire among New Zealand fans to have their grudging envy transformed into glorious shining ascendency – to be proved right.
New Zealanders don’t just want to see the Springboks beaten, they want to see their system and their style banished for good. Scrum angles, speed of play, slow ball at the break down – South Africans hear the moan of the kiwi, New Zealanders see necessary scrutiny. South Africans claim forward dominance as birthright, New Zealanders see one-dimensional trickery.
South Africans see a world champion team who are being questioned unfairly because their methods work. New Zealanders see a superior athletic aesthetic that deserves to win because it used to. If you hadn’t guessed by now, reasoned, dispassionate debate has never been a strong suit for either side of the fan divide. Obsessive opposition has trumped curiosity and interpretation. Baltimore’s grand prize will be your choice of vindication or substantiation. Unfortunately, there will be no whole truth.
To many traditionalists, the series began in and finished in Jo’burg, and the Springboks defended their fortress. For the All Blacks, though, this final outing in Maryland is a chance to balance the ledger and perhaps the rugby universe. This is what makes the rivalry what it is – and what it has always been: the unyielding belief on both sides that they and they alone have the blueprint for success, even if the scoreline ends of 2-all.
How fitting then to have the decider in the United States of America. A place that may not really understand rugby but at least knows a thing or two about dividing lines.
SHARE ME