(It seems our previous column about Burger’s suspension shook rugby officialdom for they’ve since reduced his sentence to two weeks. Let’s hope someone important reads this one because another travesty of justice has just been committed.)
Ask any Kiwi which is more important – the Bledisloe Cup or the World Cup – and I guarantee there will be a pause before the answer. The Kiwi’s have a fundamental belief in the right to possess the Bledisloe Cup that is on a par with an American’s views about Manifest Destiny. What makes the Bledisloe so special? Because he who holds it has Trans-Tasman bragging rights. “Sure, England may be the World Champs, but at least we’re better than Australia and that’s the main thing.”
It is quite possible the Aussies don’t feel as strongly about this, but then that’s because they’ve not had the Cup very much. In the history of Trans-Tasman rivalry, New Zealand has won the cup 35 times to Australia’s 12. Five of those Aussie wins fell in the period between 1998 and 2003. Interestingly, right after Australia won the cup in 1998, the contest was changed to a two-match format which meant the team holding the cup only had to win one match to retain the cup. This made life a little bit easier for the Wallabies and a little bit harder for the All Blacks. In 1999, 2000, and 2001, both teams won a game a-piece which was mighty frustrating for AB fans. Even worse was the fact that the Aussies made a habit of winning their games in the 80th minute. Our pleas for the contest to return to a 3-match format fell on deaf ears.
The drought finally broke in 2002 and we won the Cup back. Now it was the Wallabies who were begging for a third match. Well next year they’re getting it. This is great news for the Wallabies and great news for rugby fans in general. But tell me this. Who was the yahoo in the NZRFU who agreed to having the third and possibly decisive game in Brisbane? In the format that was advertised yesterday, the Cup-holders get one game at home and two in Australia! This is madness.
In my book, if a team wants to challenge a cup- or shield-holder, they’d better be prepared to play on that cup- or shield-holder’s home turf. If you want to take a piece of silverware from me, you’d better be prepared to come to my house to get it. That’s just the way it is. So in what twisted view of reality does it make sense for the non-cup holders to have home-court advantage? Why the All Blacks need to travel to Australia twice to defend the Cup is beyond me. That third game should be at Jade Stadium in Christchurch. Anyone who says differently is an Aussie.
Filed under: All Blacks, Bledisloe Cup, Rugby news, Wallabies
