O
ozbash
Guest
Politically correct folk like to pretend there's no longer a them-and-us syndrome between rugby league and rugby union. On many levels there's a lot to support such a contention. It has been seen principally in the way most people from every walk have embraced the genius that is Stacey Jones. The wee gem has been feted everywhere by just about everyone. It's difficult to keep count of the individual honours he has had bestowed on him lately but, best of all, the rugby league world now recognises him for what he has become - the No 1 player on the planet for 2002. Even the man who has usually worn that label recently couldn't agree more. Australia's freakishly talented Andrew Johns has applauded Jones as a most deserving winner of the Golden Boot accolade, raving about his adversary's ability on every level. Good on him. Here in New Zealand the rugby union set has generally been effusive in admiring the outright brilliance Jones offers. There has been the strongest case all year to tag Jones the best player in either rugby code in New Zealand. No one else can touch him. Former All Black halfback Chris Laidlaw agreed glowingly in a recent column in the Sunday Star-Times. Jones, he argued, had no peer as a footballer in this country. As he quite rightly emphasised, he produces something magical every game he plays and where, he asked, is the rugby union player who compares? Now fellow Sunday Star-Times rugby columnist Phil Gifford has lavished more praise. In handing out his rugby awards for the year, Gifford saved his final paragraph for Jones: "Finally, it's not rugby, but has there ever been a more likeable sports star in New Zealand than Stacey Jones? In a country where we like our heroes to have not only the courage of Sir Edmund Hillary, but also his humility, Jones romps in on both counts." On Radio Sport last week, Miles Davis reacted to Jones' Golden Boot award by saying the little man was surely the type of person any parents would want to have as their son. Who could disagree? Last weekend the Weekend Herald singled the Kiwi captain out as one of its 10 New Zealanders of the Year and the Sunday Star-Times quite naturally lauded him as well in a wrap-up of 2002. There has been a downside, though. As expected, old prejudices were bound to emerge at some time, especially in the wake of the comments Laidlaw made. A debate on Radio Sport was set up to contest a few points in Laidlaw's column. Instead it turned into one of those bitchy sessions about the futility of comparing union with league. That there were so many differences between the two games so how could it possibly be claimed that Jones is the best footballer running around the land. It was all so predictable. The point was completely missed. What Laidlaw was saying - and any number of people would concur - is that Jones has no equal in New Zealand as a footballing talent right now. He can light up a side with his unbelievable skill running the ball, thrilling with the explosive speed and evasive skill that takes him through defensive holes that just don't seem to be there. He has a set of fabulous skills handling and passing the ball plus a marvellous range of kicking options. Throw in a sharp football mind and vision that enable him to assess moments in every game he plays and, while he's small, he never shirks on defence either - look, there's just too much to talk about really. Rugby union doesn't have a performer like him - no one who constantly and consistently controls and influences a contest and no one who supplements it with so many wondrous qualities every time he takes the field. Laidlaw has it exactly right and everyone in New Zealand should continue to marvel at the Jones boy's feats. On that score, the 2003 NRL season can't come quickly enough so sports lovers can again watch him unleash his all-round game on opponents. Gifford and Davis neatly capture the human elements, too, because there's just so much to like about Jones the person as well. Humility? It could be said the word was invented for Stacey Jones. All of this says he must be one of the four finalists in the Sportsman of the Year category for the Halberg Awards due to be revealed any time soon. That's a given isn't it? What's more, he should win it, too. The other candidates are likely to include basketballer Pero Cameron, golfer Craig Perks and cricketer Nathan Astle. Those three were outstanding in their owns fields - but in a small window. Astle gains support for one stupendous feat (his world record 222 against England), while Perks should be there because of his first win on the US PGA Tour. Cameron makes it through his superb form at the world basketball championships when he was honoured as one of the starting five players in the best team named at the end of the tournament. Jones is at another level again, though, because he managed world-class displays throughout the entire year. Of the 36 matches he could have played, he appeared in 32 - 24 for the Warriors and eight for the Kiwis including six tests (he missed only three games for the Warriors, two after a knee injury, and one for the Kiwis in Britain). But here's where the odd stuff comes in. As time has elapsed, some killjoys are doing their best to discredit the other side of the Jones equation - his NRL glory hunters the Warriors. Jones doesn't put big tickets on himself no matter what he does on the field. He always deflects praise and points to the players around him who make it all possible. He's right, too. He couldn't excel without the hard men creating something for him to work with. The Warriors captivated the nation, even more so than the Tall Blacks did in the end with their magnificent run at the world championships. They started the season as a reasonable chance to make the top eight play-offs but not a lot more. They finished it as the minor premiers and the beaten grand finalists. Their achievement was unprecedented. They had shaken and rattled cages in a glorious manner. Now, though, thereâs the strong whiff of a campaign running against them. In the Sunday Star-Times the Warriors were rated no better than a "honourable mention" in an assessment of the finalists for the Team of the Year at the Halberg Awards. Ahead of them were basketball's Tall Blacks, world champion rowers Georgina and Caroline Evers-Swindell, rugby's Super 12 champions the Crusaders and world champion 470 yachties Simon Cooke and Peter Nicholas. And running through the year's sporting highs and lows, the Sunday Star-Times again downplayed the Warriors' feats. Marc Hinton wrote: "The NRL may lack the international stature of some of our sporting feats of the year..." That's right, pull out the card about relegating it to "just a club competition.' It equates to little better than bigotry. The Warriors' season spanned 27 games in a competition renowned for its relentless intensity and the pressure to perform every week. The demands and quality of the football match, and arguably exceed, anything rugby union can provide including test matches. The Super 12? It's a picnic in comparison, lasting only 13 games for the two finalists. The Warriors stood up to their challenge for the very first time in their history, winning 19 games and losing only eight in a competition that ruthlessly exposes weaknesses. The Warriors wowed the nation by achieving the unexpected, something the Tall Blacks also did. That was the special appeal of both teams. Some have argued that neither team won anything. Wrong. The Warriors won the NRL's minor premiership and made the grand final after winning a fearsome and tight battle against the Sharks. The Tall Blacks actually went only as far as the semi-finals and, when the heat came on them there, they failed to cope against Yugoslavia. Now is the time for the Halberg Awards judging academy to reflect popular opinion by recognising sporting deeds that make people sit up and take notice, the ones that have everyone talking at their workplaces and in their homes for days, weeks and even months afterwards. The Warriors and the Tall Blacks both did that on a nationwide scale and are still doing it, the Warriors especially so even now with Jones so much in the spotlight. What of the Evers-Swindells and the yachties? Yes, they both won world titles but who was talking about them even a day or two afterwards? And is anyone mentioning them now? Don't think so. In this climate, there's a sense the judging panel will be all righteous and acknowledge performances using a set of criteria which has little place for considering the people's voice or choice. If the Tall Blacks make the final four in the Team of the Year category, that's as it should be. But if the Warriors are omitted, it will simply reinforce the belief that some people are still out there doing their best to devalue rugby league feats. Not even they can ignore Stacey Jones but they might well do their best to eliminate his team and that would be a travesty. richard becht-sports ed www.nzoom.com
