Gregor Paul: How the All Blacks' success divides the world

Codie Taylor. Photosport.co.nz

Perhaps it's just for the sake of variation if nothing else, but World Rugby, maybe unconsciously, has given the impression it feels the game needs a change in narrative at the highest level.

The indications from the body running the international game have been mostly subtle, sometimes not, that they would like to see the All Blacks knocked off their perch.

It hasn't been quite as aggressive as former Newcastle United manager Kevin Keegan's passionate interview in 1996 when he told the nation that he would "just love it," if his side beat Manchester United to the English Premiership title, but the sentiment is largely the same.

Dominant teams end up being divisive. It is fact of sporting life and the more they win, the longer they stay at the top, the more it becomes a love them or hate them scenario.

The more they win the easier it becomes for those in the hate camp to see refereeing injustices, dirty players and arrogant management, because it is human nature to believe prolonged success can only be sustained through a combination of illegal or borderline activities.

When United owned English football in the 1990s, conspiracies ran wild for a decade that they lived off undeserved penalties and poor time keeping by officials who invariably extended injury time for as long as it took the champions to conjure the winning goal.

Success breeds resentment and the All Blacks' dominance of test football since late 2009 has not won them universal admiration among their international peers. Which is hardly surprising – very much to be expected in fact.

After beating the All Blacks for the first time in 111 years in Chicago 2016, the Irish made strong accusations after the return game in Dublin two weeks later which they lost.

It had been a ferocious yet largely fair and untarnished contest, but Irish manager Mick Kearney said a couple of days later that there had been 11 incidents by the All Blacks which had been investigated by the citing commissioner.

His intention for speaking out was to imply that the All Blacks had won courtesy of foul play, which is what British and Irish Lions coach Warren Gatland did last year following the first test victory by the All Blacks.

He suggested that the All Blacks had illegally targeted halfback Conor Murray and had been looking to inflict physical harm.

It's not that the All Blacks enjoy hearing these sorts of accusations but they accept that their opponents will say what they feel they need to say to help their cause.

It's all part of the package – it comes with the territory of being the team everyone else is desperate to beat and the All Blacks haven't been averse themselves to verbally niggling opponents in much the same way.

Which is why, when the French initially accused the All Blacks last week of illegal tactics, coach Steve Hansen met it a resigned heard it all before response.

"We have been called cheats for 100 years haven't we? If you keep winning, people will find reasons I suppose," he said.

"Richie McCaw was the biggest cheat ever. But he didn't cheat he just played to the letter of the law. When Auckland were playing Canterbury they were the biggest cheats then Canterbury got on top and they were the biggest cheats … you have just got to roll with that sort of stuff."

But what's not so easy to roll with, or accept, is the lingering suspicion that the game's governing body is influenced by the anti-All Blacks sentiment.

It's understandable that opponents are out to cut the All Blacks down anyway they can, but a little perplexing that World Rugby so readily gives the impression it is in on the act.

A year on from the Lions series and it remains a giant mystery why World Rugby has never said anything about the last minutes of the third test.

The two French officials that night – referee Romain Poite and assistant Jeome Garces – talked openly about a deal they had made before the former reversed the penalty decision that would have most likely won the All Blacks the test and the series.

There has still not been a clear explanation why Lions flanker Sean O'Brien was unpunished for a swinging arm tackle that concussed Waisake Naholo in the second test.

And it was curious that while the All Blacks knew by early Sunday morning following last week's test at Eden Park that Ofa Tuungafasi had received a warning from the citing commissioner, World Rugby only chose to make that information public four days later.

Obviously they felt the need to react to mounting public pressure and the statement they released read a little like they were trying to assure the baying masses that they had tried as hard as possible to punish Tuungafasi but they just couldn't find enough evidence to pin him down. It felt like it had taken all their restraint not to finish things off with a promise of 'next time, we'll get them'.

Who would know why this is the way things are. Perhaps there are concerns that rugby needs greater fluidity at the highest level to engage more fans.

The Northern Hemisphere is the commercial powerhouse of rugby and if England, Ireland or France sat atop the world order then maybe World Rugby feels the financial floodgates would open.

Or possibly it is true that while those who aspire to be dominant see things that aren't there, so too does the team at the top.