In 1905 the New Zealand rugby team toured the British Isles and won an unprecedented thirty-one games out of the thirty-two played, with a total of 830 points and only a mere thirty-nine conceded. It is from this outstanding achievement that the 1905 All Black team have been hailed as New Zealand heroes, heroes that would stand to shape the nation. In the 1980’s historians began to explore documentation from the conquest of England and used their findings to influence their readers. Ideas were borne about masculinity, patriotism and nationalism. What these historians failed to do is report both sides of their findings, how the New Zealand rugby team of 1905 were also considered as loutish, ungentlemanly cheats, and not in any way superior to their English counterparts. As for tackling the myth, in some ways it could be beneficial to New Zealander’s never to have the myth tackled at all, many areas of our nationhood are likely to have benefited from ideas about the tour even if part of it is fallacy. On the other hand, as an academic it is important to always seek the truth and expose facts wherever they may lie. Especially in this age, masculinity in this millennium is not as respected as it was, and the truth of our nations premiere sport may give the modern metro-sexual a feeling of relief.

Before they left for England, the New Zealand rugby team who had not yet been entitled “All Blacks”, played five matches against New Zealand provincial teams and state and provincial teams in Australia. They only just won playing Auckland, won two matches against Australia and drew one, then returned home to play Wellington where they lost 0-3. Public opinion at home of the New Zealand rugby team was not very high and there was an attitude that the best players had not been selected#. The smoke concert that was held to farewell the team was poorly attended and many jibes were printed in newspaper cartoons#. The team was not expected to do well and there was a general malaise and disinterest in their progress overseas. Daley, Nauright and Richardson all report this in their findings and it has never been contested that the public in New Zealand were of any other mind set. The public in England showed a little more interest in the New Zealand rugby team as 6,000 people turned up to watch their first game against Devon. This interest rocketed as the success of the All Blacks grew with 60,000+ people turning up to the international against England#.

Many newspaper reporters in England attributed the success of the All Blacks to the vigorous training schedule they endured on the ship on the way to the United Kingdom. Aboard the SS. Rimutaka they were placed under an exercise regime by manager George H. Dixon which involved running around the deck, dumb bell exercises and using a chest expander. As well as practicing balls skills and scrum formation#. Dixon said that he did not think that his team possessed any special advantage physically, he believed that it was through tactics that the New Zealanders were successful.

When the team arrived in England, there was virtually no acknowledgement by the public and their first game did not attract much attention from the press, as it was at the same time the English cricket season was finishing. Their first game against Devon scoring 55 points to 4, followed by a game against Cornwall scoring 41 points to nil#, soon attracted the attention of the media who were not used to such vast score differences. Soon articles were printed speculating about what led to the New Zealand team’s success. The news of this early success was met with disbelief at home. How could the team that lost so terribly against Wellington just before their departure be doing so well? The tour went from strength to strength and as it did the popularity of the “Originals” grew both at home and in England. The black jerseys the New Zealand team wore defined them for the press and the term “All Black” was coined. Although it has been said that this was actually a typo when a British journalist was trying to say that the New Zealanders played as if they were "all backs"#.

There were several points that historians have noted in which made the New Zealand team so successful; firstly that the New Zealanders bodies were in much better condition that the English teams. This was attributed to a better diet, clean fresh air, due to the mountains and sea, colonial labor and more leisure time#. William Pember Reeves, the High Commissioner in London commented that this was all a recipe for human perfection which the All Blacks exemplified#. Great Britain at this time was a fully industrialized state and living and labor conditions were thought to be unhealthy in comparison to New Zealand. It seems as if some were threatened by the strength of the antipodeans. Many writers of the time pondered the future of British masculinity and more generally the future or rather decline of British society. This however was not a widely held belief, Caroline Daley argues that the Westminster Gazette rejected claims that were printed earlier stating the success of the New Zealand team was not due to physical superiority. Similar views were held by Athletic News and the Scotsman printed that conviction about physical vigor and alertness in the colonials had outstripped the English were notions that should not be entertained#. Unquestionably some of the English were sold on the superior physical state of the New Zealanders but it is apparent now that this was not a consensus.

Some writers have claimed that the secret of the 1905 All Black tour was due to their innovative style of play and mental prowess. The 2-3-2 scrum formation was scrutinized heavily which deviates from the traditional 3-2-3 formation leaving one player free to put the ball into the scrum and remain offside#. Having players practiced in one specialized position also was thought to be of great benefit to the New Zealand team. Rather than having players that play in one position one day and another the next. Historians have favored the idea that the All Blacks had a systemic approach and superior tactical skills#. Namely that they worked together as a team rather than fifteen individuals. Sporting Life wrote that the system of organization under which they played was what led to their success. As with all of the other claims over superiority there were counter claims. The idea that the New Zealanders were mimicking the best of the British#. Several reports said that there was nothing distinctive about the All Blacks style of play, although they were well-trained and quick. The Daily Mail wrote that the Welsh Team were superior in their style of combination at it’s best#. It was said the New Zealanders has returned to an older style of English rugby and that there was nothing new or original about it#. In saying that though, several of the English teams adopted the 2-3-2 scrum formation when playing the All Blacks as it was assumed to be more beneficial#.

Ideas about masculinity due to mental prowess and physical superiority have abounded since the tour, along with the idea that New Zealand men are notoriously good sports and gentlemen. Most historians who have written on the subject have ignored questions of sportsmanship in the tour. Nauright and Richardson both glance over the accusations of dirty play and breaking the rules or focus on other aspects of play whilst Daley brings it out into the limelight. The All Blacks challenged decisions made by the referee constantly, were given penalties for too much offside play and were accused of being unnecessarily rough and deliberately obstructive#. There was even a cartoon printed, that showed the All Blacks to be cheating in the guise of the devil#. Dave Gallaher who was the All Black captain at the time, was revered as the epitome of New Zealand masculinity; a strong, intelligent gentleman, who in actuality was said to be in contrary to both the rules and the spirit of the game. He was often offside, deliberately put bias on the ball when placing it into the scrum and was a professed “obstructionist”. The crowd constantly calling “play the game Gallaher” infers that he was not well liked or considered a good sport#. Dixon had to make a press release in defense of Gallaher and how he put the ball into the scrum, he suggested that during the Welsh game the referee do it.

Historians have made it a tradition to think of the 1905 tour of the United Kingdom as a land mark in New Zealand sport. Where the newly coined All Black team took on the Britons and won all but one game. Who played a more advanced game due to superior mental and physical ability and were absolute gentleman in doing so. We are led to believe that they were held in the highest possible regard by the English public and press, and that the future of the British empire was brought into question by their success. Whilst it is easy for the patriotic New Zealander to accept these sentiments with pride and without question, even make guidelines for the kiwi male to live by based on these accounts, it is important to question. In doing so it can be concluded that there have been many biased accounts of the 1905 rugby tour. The New Zealand team were held in high regard by some but certainly not by others. By some they were seen as in no way superior in mind or body and not at all gentlemanly. I agree with Caroline Daley that it is in fact disturbing that some Historians have deliberately left out the truth for the purpose of national pride#.

Melissa Ousey

Daley, Caroline, ‘The Invention of 1905’, in Greg Ryan, ed., Tackling Rugby Myths: Rugby and New Zealand Society 1854-2004, Dunedin, 2005.

Nauright, John, ‘Sport, Manhood and Empire: British Responses to the New Zealand Rugby Tour of 1905’, International Journal of the History of Sport, 8, 2, 1991.

Richardson, Len, ‘Rugby, Race and Empire’, Historical News, 47, December 1983.

Williams, Gareth, ‘The 1905 Rugby Tour of Britain’ published online: http://www.rfu.com/microsites/museum/pdfs/GarethWilliamspaper.pdf

ALL BLACKS - The Name?. rugbymuseum.co.nz. Retrieved on 2007-01-25.