Gregor Paul: 14-test seasons remain despite players and bosses' stated reluctance

Richie McCaw and Steve Hansen after last year's loss to England. Photo / Getty Images

Defeat by England late last year clarified a few things for the All Blacks. One of which was that they didn't want to be hawked around the globe any more - asked to play extra tests for cash.

The Twickenham encounter netted the New Zealand Rugby Union $4 million. Nice, but it also meant the players had to play 14 tests - something they and management have consistently said they don't want to do. It's at least a game too many, probably two. Ideally, the players would be happy with 12 tests ayear.

But in 2008 they were saddled with 15, plus a game against Munster. In 2009 they had to come to Tokyo for a fourth Bledisloe and then played Wales as an add-on as well for a grand total of 14.

In 2010 it was Hong Kong and London for extra money. When ticket sales for the Hong Kong test were poor and interest limited, the NZRU announced that it, too, had gone off the idea of playing in far-flung places purely for commercial gain.

There was also strong commentary from the national body after the England loss last year that they felt there was danger in playing anywhere for commercial gain as it put the All Black brand at risk. The rewards are big but so, too, the risk of tainting the All Blacks' incredible record by asking them to play too much.

Besides, the union reckoned the deal signed with new sponsor AIG meant there was no longer any financial imperative to play more tests.

So it is more than a little confusing that the All Blacks are in Tokyo. This game has been shoe-horned into the calendar to once again land the All Blacks with 14 tests.

Even more peculiar is that they are not even making any money out of it.

And more peculiar yet, they will almost certainly play 14 tests next year as it's believed that a third Bledisloe has been all but agreed to and that a test in the USA on theway to Europe in November is highly likely.

The question is: if the players don't want these extra games and the All Black management isn't keen on these extra games and the NZRU is wary about committing to extra games, just who exactly is pulling the strings? With so many parties reluctant to play, which body or bodies is responsible for these continual 14-test seasons?

If the NZRU felt uncomfortable in 2010 that the All Blacks were being turned into the Harlem Globetrotters of rugby - unconvinced that playing neutral opposition in emerging markets was worthwhile - then why are they in talks to play probably the Barbarians or maybe even Ireland in the USA next year?

Doesn't add up. All this reluctance and yet it keeps happening.