Editorial: Rugby does not deserve racial slur

Anyone who happened to note the racial make-up of the All Black team for a couple of years not long ago might have noted that by happy chance there appeared to be five Maori, five Polynesians and five Pakeha. Probably not many rugby fans noticed. If they did, few thought it worth a remark. Rugby has long been a well-integrated sport in this country at all levels.

How sad, then, that the racial complexion of the team to play South Africa tonight should be criticised because it's predominantly, if not entirely, white.

There is no reason to think the selectors set out to pick a white team, any more than the selectors of yesteryear aimed for that fine racial balance. In both cases, they picked the players they believed best suited the game they intended to play.

There has been a suggestion that the type of game John Mitchell and Robbie Deans wants to produce leads them to prefer Pakeha players. But, if true, that would be a dangerous policy. It would imply they consciously took race into account. Nothing they have said supports that conclusion. They plainly prefer stolid grafters to the more effervescent players available but there is no reason to think they have typecast players by race.

They would be foolish to do so; whatever theories take hold in rugby circles about the relative playing characteristics of different races, they are worth no more than any racial presumption. For a selector to subscribe to such folklore would be to risk overlooking players who have exactly the qualities he wants although they they do not fit the stereotype.

Rugby does not deserve this sort of discussion. It has been a model meeting point for people of any race for as long as anyone can remember. And that was true even through the years when its reputation suffered from its willingness to associate with a racist rugby union in South Africa.

It is unfortunate that anyone has seen fit to question the racial make-up of an All Black team. Rugby in this country has never given it a thought. It is, as Mitchell says, offensive to all New Zealand that the question should even have been raised.

Inevitably when a poisonous subject is raised, it spreads. There will be those who invoke the old canard that New Zealand rugby already has a racist element in the form of an exclusively Maori representative team. Maori distinguish themselves in many areas of New Zealand life and it is healthy for all concerned.

Would racially sensitive souls raise a murmur if an All Black selection turned out to be entirely Maori or Polynesian? That has looked quite a possibility at times, particularly when Auckland has dominated the national scene, and it is hard to recall anybody suggesting race had become a selection criterion.

Tonight all but two of the starting XV are from Canterbury and they seem picked to play the conservative territorial pattern that won the match against Australia in biting cold and rain last Saturday night. That is the prospect rugby commentators should be questioning.

Do we really want to win at all costs? True professionals such as Andrew Mehrtens were almost apologetic for the lack of a spectacle at Jade Stadium. Rugby in the professional era has vastly improved its pace, skills and fervour. The Super 12 has produced play of such quality in the early months of the season that test matches cannot afford to revert to the dour grinds of old.

That's the worry, not whether the All Blacks are white, brown or colour-coded. By and large rugby players, officials and fans probably had not noticed - and that is to the game's eternal credit.