We never wanted to win the World Cup anyways, so there" claims New Zealand

New Zealand Whine made from best Sour Grapes

A poor pun I know but I often visit the New Zealand Herald for what is normally excellent and thorough analysis of Rugby. Imagine my surprise when I discovered an article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10471494) by one Peter Bills in the aforementioned paper dated 23rd October 2007. For those of you too lazy to read the article I will sum it up as thus:

New Zealand are better off without the RWC because at least the All Blacks don't resort to the boring kicking that won it for the jaapies. The jaapies and poms are boring and are big poopy heads.

Now I may have embellished the truth a little on the poopy head line but I'm am pretty sure that had the All Blacks won the Webb Ellis with a three – nil, Dan Carter drop kick victory over South Africa, they would have been dancing in the streets of Auckland as opposed to setting fire to All Black flags. In fact, it has been so long between drinks for our Kiwi friends that a nil-nil draw and a toss of the coin would have probably caused mass jubilation.

Bills goes on to say that "But this isn't rugby as we know it", which leads me doubt his Rugby writing credentials. Just what exactly is "rugby as we know it?" Is it the pleasing but often unsatisfying brand dished up in the S14? Could it be the expansive but ultimately fruitless variety served up by the Pacific Islanders? Perhaps it is the hard nosed, brutal contests seen in the Premiership and Currie Cup? Possibly, just maybe, it is all of these things and more and Bills needs to stop being so blinkered so as to believe that the rest of world wants, or is even capable of playing like the All Blacks. Evidently, Bills would have the rest of World play like the All Blacks in an attempt to help the All Blacks finally win that unwanted trophy.

Bills then launched an extraordinary attack on Springbok fans and the entire nation of South Africa. When he states that
The South African nation will celebrate and claim all is well in their land now the mighty Bokke rule the world once again. They'll be deluding themselves if they believe that,
He may well be right, it probably will only be a brief distraction from the many problems that that nation endures but unfortunately for Bills it reads like little more than a schoolyard temper tantrum than a journalistic observation. To me it sounds as if Bills is saying that "you may have won the RWC, but at least your standard of living is crap, so there" (and this from someone living in London!?). Why bother Pete? Why waste space condemning supporters for bragging a little. Heck, England fans dined out on RWC2003 for four years and some are still dining out on 1966; let them have their fun for now.

What's more, Bills' vitriol extends into the following statement: "Winning a World Cup in such an ugly manner hardly reflects well upon either the ultimate champions or the game itself." Granted South Africa can be a cruel and ugly place but to tarnish an entire nation with the ugly stick is taking it a bit far don't you think? This also brings me back to my original point about just what Rugby as we know it. Bills obviously hopes that Rugby is played in an open and entertaining manner, so do I and I agree that some change needs to take place in the game, but the beauty of the game is that different nations play the game in different ways. If that happens to be a forward driven, safety first approach then so be it. I for one would much rather see that then see a World Cup full of All Black clones. In fact I'd so far as to say that so would many All Black fans, providing that is they won it at the end.