A new attitude is coming into those who run New Zealand's All Black rugby team and those amateurs and professional who watch them play. Common sense could be diminishing in how close games are being explained away.

Put this writer down as one who hugely enjoyed the All Blacks' first game of three they will play against South Africa in the 2006 Tri-Nations series. New Zealand won 35-17 but as a thrilling spectacle you would not have called it 'Barbarians-bright.' Instead it was grim, tough and a rugby battle all the way. It was no frills rugby between two very competitive teams and I loved it.

New Zealand won by a comfortable looking margin but immediately afterwards came the first bleating about their opposition the Springboks.

On the TV and radio coverage, in the Sunday papers and from the All Black coaches themselves came repeated references to the South Africans being 'annoying' on the field and having left the All Blacks feeling 'frustrated.' From the city which hosted the game, Wellington's Monday morning newspaper, The Dominion Post even headlined their game summary with "All Blacks 'frustrated.'" That's all that the headline said.

Having read that report and others in a similar vein and having listened to the repeated use of the highlighted words 'annoying' and 'frustrated,' and then hearing home talkback callers replicate them, it could be that there is a new arrogance emerging in New Zealand.

Of course the Springboks were annoying as opposition. Being an irritation is exactly what they were supposed to be! There are many ways to commit one self to winning a rugby game. Being a nuisance in every facet of upsetting the opposition is just one of them. In the game the Springboks did this, in my opinion, quite superbly. They harassed, hassled and pestered the All Blacks. As a team they didn't lie down, fold over or implode like they appeared to do against Australia in their previous match in Brisbane. Instead the Springboks brought a new attitude of determination, grimness in defence and total commitment to the game.

To me it was obvious South Africa's coaches probably realised they did not possess the brilliance or talent the All Blacks have. So they tactically went elsewhere in their planning to try to win the game. If that was annoying to New Zealand and its supporters then I say - 'well played South Africa!'

Now let us deal with that other word - 'frustrated.' Coach Graham Henry said the All Blacks were frustrated at the way the game unfolded. Was that him and the team's funny way of explaining and kind of apologising to the public because the Springboks' much improved presence thwarted New Zealand from scoring more than two tries?

What emerged from the aftermatch comments is being force fed to us all. More and more some of the public and reporters believe the new spin without question. There is a rising belief that the All Blacks and many of their fans feel that all opposition teams must run onto the field and once the whistle has blown to then cower down in fear and do nothing at all to stop the all-powerful New Zealand moves. That then allows the All Blacks to run right through them in every movement to score at will.

In Wellington it emerged that in the first seconds of the game the New Zealanders were supposed to catch the Springbok kickoff, and then take the ball to the first ruck. Then they would safely clear the ball to touch. Because coach Henry had suspected the Springboks would charge at the young, and possibly vulnerable Daniel Carter at first five-eighths, the All Blacks planned instead to pass to fullback Leon MacDonald for the first clearance. Good thinking.

But things did not go to script and halfback Piri Weepu's pass did travel to Carter. Mr. Henry was correct. The Springboks launched themselves at Carter's slow clearance, the kick was charged down and a try was scored by Fourie du Preez in the first minute.

But in New Zealand there was no admiration of the brilliant forethought of the Springboks. Only 'frustration' that those nice South Africans didn't let that nice boy Daniel send a nice kick away to the touchline. You get my drift? New Zealand has to realise there are two teams in every game. It is disrespectful and impertinent to suggest otherwise.

The Springboks were a different team in Wellington. They too had plans well thought out. Naturally their first shock try, and the other one they secured later from Breyton Paulse, were annoying to New Zealand's ambitions. But the South Africans were in the game with their own aspirations. This so-called belief that they should not 'annoy' or' frustrate' New Zealand is a nonsense in the extreme. They have every right to be just that. To annoy and frustrate the opposition, and not attempt to be free flowing, is a legitimate tactic.

Then there is the issue of the post match call from Graham Henry that the Springboks might have exploited a high number of 'false injuries' to slow the game down.

For my part, I think the All Blacks were not lilywhites in regards to the matter of slowing the game down. Which team for instance walked slowly to most lineouts, then frequently changed their lineout calls? Which team chipped the referee repeatedly at the setting of scrums? And when a penalty was awarded to the Springboks which players several times started little grappling squabbles with their opponents which made the referee blow again to prevent a more serious fighting incident breaking out? To me the little tussles stopped the Springboks starting quickfire counter-attacking runs.

New Zealand deserved to win the game. The victory was taken by the All Blacks with more attacking brilliance and a wider range of on-field talent. By only scoring two tries, the same as the Springboks did, is I believe the true reason why the All Blacks are emphasizing to us about the 'annoying' Springboks and the 'frustrating' tactics.

The Springboks sent 15 very committed players into the game in Wellington. They did not have the same application in their previous game and they were royally thumped 49-0 by Australia. No doubt they were very disappointed at that loss but they ought to be satisfied that by the manner they played they got the New Zealand coaches going to ever more bizarre reasons about explaining it away to their public.

Your thoughts to quinnk1946@hotmail.com