Tomorrow morning, many New Zealanders watching the Rugby World Cup final will feel that they must choose between the lesser of two evils: England or South Africa. Kiwi fans must accept that the two best teams in the tournament, the world tournament, and for a time the world,are in Paris. But for different reasons these two nations provoke strong reaction on the rugby field. South Africa are the historical foes, with the best win-loss record against the All Blacks of any major nation. England, more recently, have become the team to hate, partly because of a victory lap taken at Twickenham when drawing with a New Zealand touring side and then because of the unfortunate Sir Clive Woodward and his condescension.
So, who to support? Much has been made of the north-south divide, with England supposedly representing a game regressing to the 1950s and South Africa the hope of an enlightened Southern Hemisphere style. England are indeed forceful and controlled and happy to rely on Jonny Wilkinson's boot. But they are not without players willing to run with the ball and beat their man (into submission).
On the flip side, South Africa are hardly an example of the much-fabled Total Rugby. The team monsters opponents in the forwards and at the breakdown but, halfback and wingers apart, disappoints in creating gamebreaking movements in the backs. Snatching intercepts is hardly a manifestation of Southern Hemisphere superiority. However, they are our Sanzar cousins and will put a potential World No. 1 ranking on the line against the All Blacks as early as next year. Most people, it seems, sense the Springboks are a team on the rise and hope that they can turn it on in the final to claim the tournament for entertaining football, as well as pressure freaks. Urge them on, and look forward to the Tri-Nations contest in nine months.
