What’s in a name? That is the test

Press, 16 June 1979, Page 12

What’s in a name? That is the test

By

KEVIN McMENAMIN

The All Blacks will play two home series this winter, one against France and the other against Argentina. There is, however, an unsubtle difference — the two French internationals will be tests, while the two against. Argentina will be “tests.”' Tests are true-blue tests, but “tests” are something else. They qualify as internationals because they are between two nations, but because one of those nations — Argentina in this instance — is not a member of the International Rugby Board they are, in the official view, “unofficial.” So far as New Zealand players are concerned, such games are not credited to them as test appearances. There was some debate 'in 1977 whether Andy Haden was making his test debut against the Lions that year. He was: the two “tests” he played in Argentina the previous year did not count. This was a judgment by the New Zealand union. For a number of reasons the difference between tests and “tests” has

gained in importance this year, and on the evidence available, it would seem that the New Zealand Rugby Union is adopting a rather lonely, and somewhat ridiculous, stand. It may be, althougn the reasons are hard to fathom, that full tests should only be played against members of the international body, but this argument is immediately demolished when France is taken into account. New Zealand, along with other 1.R.8. members, has been playing officia 11 y-sanctioned tests against France for years. Yet France only joined the 1.R.8. two years ago. It therefore follows that the first test between France and New Zealand at Lancaster Park on July 7 will be the first official test between the two countries to be played in New Zealand. The series of the 1961 and 1968 tours should have been unofficial, but they weren’t.

Thankfully, the French anomally has been put right with its acceptance of a seat on the 1.R.8. But there are other more recent, and more glaring, examples of 1.R.8. countries playing non-members and there being no quotes around the tests. Just last month, England played two tests against Japan and later in its Pacific tour faced Tonga and Fiji, three nonmember nations. All reports would indicate that these games were fullscale tests, with the English players receiving their traditional cap. Surely, if it is good enough for England, the founding place of rugby football and still the sport’s international H.Q-, to play “tests” that are tests, then it should be good enough for New Zealand. The whole business smacks a little of the rose by any other name syndrome. There are many other

examples of the Home Unions, Wales in particular. playing non-1.R.8. countries and recognising the games as true tests by awarding caps. New Zealand appears to have been left behind and as the major rugby nation of the southern hemisphere it can afford to be a little bolder. There may be some merit in pitting a second-best All Black team against the Argentinians this year, but there could, at least, have been one full-scale test. Mr R. W. Thomas. Canterbury’s member of the N.Z.R.F.U. council, said this week that he was in agreement with the decision to make the Argentinian tests, sorry "test,” unofficial. "Despite what others might be doing, we should abide by the 1.R.8.'s ruling,” he said. At the same time, Mr Thomas did not rule out the possibility of a change in attitudes in the near future. “Rugby is developing rapidly world-wide and, perhaps, we will need to become more progressive. Times do change,” he said. The simple solution would be to invite all rugby-playing nations into the 1.R.8., forgetting all about the criterion of playing strength. Then ail countries which wanted to could play tests, and “tests” would become as outdated as the wing forward. In the long run, there could be no losers.