New Zealand's premier rugby teams of today look very different to those of yesteryear.
They are now much bigger and much browner. Reflecting recent generations of mass Polynesian immigration to New Zealand, as well as Pacific interest and ability in rugby, Samoans, Tongans and Fijians are commonplace.
The All Blacks of the past 25 years would be a shadow of what they have been without Michael Jones, Jonah Lomu, Olo Brown and a long line of others. The Pacific has provided strength, pace, skill and leadership, capped with the appointment of All Black captain Tana Umaga in 2004.
Different players have bought different assets, some fitting the stereotypes of instinctive flair and explosive power.
Others provided the structure, strict discipline and consistency not always associated with Pacific Island players.
The "browning" of rugby has been a natural progression and has been welcomed.
The point of top sport is to win, and Pacific Islanders (Polynesians and Melanesian Fijians) have been essential to that.
Selecting sports teams is, in essence, simple.
Pick those most likely to help the team win, whatever their colour, background or connections.
The jobs of coaches are precarious enough without them cutting their own throats by letting other considerations influence their judgements.
At another level, of course, selecting becomes more complex.
Choosing those most likely to help the team win is not the same as picking the most talented individual players. What will the impact of the person be on team culture, so essential for success? How will the player fit in with the style of the team? What is the playing balance of the team? Will the player thrive or shrivel?It is against this background that the extraordinary comments of former All Black lock and New Zealand Rugby World Cup ambassador Andy Haden should be viewed.
He claimed, in response to a question in a television discussion, that the Crusaders rugby franchise had a written quota policy of recruiting only three "darkies" (Pacific Islanders).
He has since apologised for the use of the term.
Given its potential as a racist insult, that was appropriate, even though Mr Haden did not use it with racist intent.
He has also backed away from the "written" policy assertion.
But he has not retreated from the general contention - one rejected by those who have calculated the figures - that prominent Crusader figures have spoken to him of limiting Polynesian numbers.
There is talk in rugby circles, and on talkback radio, about the strengths and weaknesses of Polynesian players as a whole, and it is possible some administrators with similar attitudes have, on occasions, expressed these.
Notwithstanding that, however, the Crusaders' record and reputation speak for themselves.
Many outside players, Polynesians included, have prospered in the Canterbury rugby environment.
The emphasis has been on recruiting with care, and providing support and encouragement.
The Crusaders' primary interest has been to maintain winning ways, and they have, by the length of a rugby field, been the most successful in New Zealand at that.
It is reasonable to maintain that genetic and cultural characteristics influence how many Polynesians play rugby.
And it is fair enough for a team, like the Crusaders, to have a distinct style and therefore to be cautious about the number of its players, brown or white, who play a particular way.
But the Crusaders are too clever to be sucked into the racism that applies generalisations to particular individuals.
They know that Polynesian players, like any others, will come with a wide range of attitudes, styles and skills, and they will carefully pick and choose players on one fundamental premise: will the player help us win? The All Black selectors are the same.
The imperative to win means they exhaustively examine individuals for what they want, leaving no room for extraneous distractions.
They will not be fooled by stereotypes, even if too many other people are.
