Welsh rugby writer’s vitriolic attack on All Blacks grossly unfair

Press, 20 April 1979, Page 26

Welsh rugby writer’s vitriolic attack on All Blacks grossly unfair

Bv

KEVIN McMENAMIN,

who toured with the 1978 All Blacks

Fhe Welsh rugby writer, J. B. G. I homas, is indeed a strange character. Verbally, Thomas professes to have a deep love of New Zealand and New Zealanders and an abiding respect for the All Blacks, past and present.

Yet when he comes to write about the All Blacks he reveals a very different! attitude: one of dislike and: reproach that goes beyond' any Welshman’s dis-j appointment and frustration at the length of time it has: been since Wales has beaten; New Zealand. In his new book, "Rugby: fn Focus” (extracts of which: were published yesterday), ■ Thomas once again pushes a] pen dipped in vitriol. This ; may not surprise New Zea-1 landers who have read his! past books, but some of his attacks on Graham Mourie’s] All Blacks are grossly un-j fair. Admittedly, there is a basis of truth in his criti-i cism of the behaviour of some New Zealand forwards: in the last line-out against Wales — a line-out that! Thomas’s own newspaper., the ‘‘Western Mail” chris- i tened “the line-out of shame.” There undoubtedly was a| conspiracy to extract a pen-i alty by means of deception.! Andy Haden’s famous “dive”] took the spotlight, but other' forwards. most notable Frank Oliver, who secured: the penalty that won the All' Blacks the game, may have: been just as guilty and in all! probability Mourie knew something had been planned, if not exactly what. So Thomas can be excused, for highlighting this incident, which, no doubt, will strike a receptive chord with

i his Welsh readers, who care' ij little that the penalty was; i actually awarded for an inll fringement by the Welsh I forward, Geoff Wheel. j Nor can Thomas be blamed for pointing the fin,ger at Haden again for the Jpunch with which he laid out Alister McHarg in the ! Scottish test. It was a delibi. erate blow and one no 'amount of provocation can .1 excuse. But where Thomas does; seem to go overboard is in! I his comments on the so-; called “Bridgend incident.” The television film showed! clearly that John Ashworth: trod on J. P. R. Williams’s head, but it has yet to be: i proved that it was a deliber-1 ate act, or. as Thomas puts] ; it, a “wanton act.” Ashworth claims it was; .accidental and contrary to! Thomas’s claim that Ash-; I worth left Britain "refusing; '■ to show any remorse for his; faction” he did, in fact, make; ;a public apology’ to Wii-I ! liams, though adding again] I that it was an accident. , ; Where Thomas allows his; 'parochialism to run riot is i in his accusation against the ] |team’s management, Messrs! : Russell Thomas and Jack] ■I Gleeson, for placing Ash-1 I worth in the reserves for! ■ the Barbarians match, which . followed straight after Bridgend. I, Ashworth was the only ■ ; other prop available and it I I ; was no fault of his, or the: i management’s, that . Brad

I Johnstone had to retire at I half-time. However, it is possible that someone else, notably John Loveday, could have been included in the reserves if the management felt a need to censure Ashworth. But the point is that Mr Thomas had spoken to Ashworth and accepted his version of how Williams had been injured. j To ignore him for the Bari barians game would have I been tantamount to calling him a liar, and worse. This might have been adding a • greater insult to a major in- ] jury' than the one Thomas ] talks about in regard to { Ashworth taking the field. | Ashworth would have come I home a convicted rugby felon. What friends J. B. G. I Thomas does have in New j Zealand, and he claims I many, will be disturbed by’ I his remark that the playing ; of Ashworth made him (aware of “the arrogance that I lies below the surface of I New Zealand rugby.” 1 Perhaps tracings of arrogance can be found from ■ time to time, continued success may breed it, but this ; team was certainly not I guilty of the failing, if any--1 thing, its behaviour, un- : doubtedly under firm man- ; agerial instruction, leant (more towards modesty. i And if Thomas should | want a measure for arrojgance in rugby he would not have to look much beyond

some of the Welsh members I ,of the 1977 Lions team to] New Zealand, a tour he covered for his newspaper. The arrogance of the 1977 Lions was displayed in the j regularity with which they failed to fulfil social and; speaking engagements. The] 1978 All Blacks never fell; down once in this regard. In other statements, too,] Thomas is out of line. He accuses Mourie of applying] "gentle pressure” on the ref-i erees. This could only be 1 interpreted that he was po-l lite and accepted gracefully] all rulings — not once on the whole tour were the All ] Blacks marched back 10m j for disputing a referee’s’ decision. Thomas and his British colleagues may’ also be smarting over the fact that Mourie was too smart for most of them when it came to answering pointed questions. His description of the tour ' as “bizarre” seems . . . well] . . . bizarre, unless it means I that the All Blacks went! through Wales unbeaten.; And heavebn only knows] what he means by saying, that the side received more; latitude than it needed. Thomas may be quite cor-; rect in labelling Mourie’s All] Blacks a lucky rather than a| great side. But the whipping] he gives them in “Rugby in | Focus” is decidedly out of] focus; a view, one suspects, through eyes that weep only! for Welsh losses.