With an unsurpassed two World Cups, the Wallabies can rightfully claim to have surmounted Mt. Rugby and planted their flag at its peak. On the field, they are more of a menace than off it notwithstanding the continued efforts of abrasive commentators like David Campese.

In cricket, Aussie dominance is fundamentally a matter of historical fact. The actual game of cricket is interwoven with and spiced with off-the-field statistics; here too the Australian pioneers have long ago bagged all the prime real estate.

In fact, if you're not an Australian fan, the sporting horizons looks pretty grim.

Proteas' fans, who are less inclined to submitting to these facts, try desperately to chip away at them. My latest quixotic attack on 'Fortress Australia' slings a couple of pebbles at the Aussie Goliath.

Stumbling desperately through the ruins left by the Australian 5-0 Test crusade through Africa, I was startled by an interesting facet of Australian invincibility, to wit, ambivalent Aussie sentiments within the various international socio-political landscapes of their successes and its effects upon umpires.

(I doubt this elaborate hypothesis works for anyone other than desperate South Africans trying to clamber to the top, but hey... give a fan a break!)

In the context of no context, the Aussies are the undisputed, unstoppable gods of cricket, but WITHIN the context of each contest against South Africa the matter looks very different.

Today, I want to blame umpires for the growth of this Australian cricketing godzilla. I got out of bed and thought, 'Hey, there must have been some pretty one-sided umpiring (even if marginal) that could be blamed'.

So I set to work constructing a theory which would prove the Australians benefited during times when South Africa was persona non grata. It wasn't very difficult, as things turn out, South Africa has a long history of being 'out of favour' where we have either been at war with the English Empire, or have been the monsters of racism.

Within the context of this sporting persona, the umpires, who for most of the history of the game have been English gentlemen, have, I'm convinced (and trying to convince you) fulfilled an English agenda.

So how does this translate in South African terms? We'll if you were a Boer cricketer playing cricket against the Australians (Pommy wannabes) and the umpire was an Englishman you had been shooting at two minutes ago, during the Anglo-Boer War, he'd more likely give you out LBW than if you were of Anglo-Saxon decent, like the Aussies!

In this desperate fashion, I'd like to call into question ALL the umpiring decisions favouring the Aussies since 1902 versus South Africa, and thus swiftly nullify their incessant bragging.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to say, the Aussies have truly given us the finger when we've toured Down Under, and a similar mindset would explain their parochial determination to put one over us.

The Aussies by contrast have enjoyed great hospitality in South Africa and the positive or at least ambivilent mindset towards them is reflected in the history books.

My theory was starting to gain momentum and then I had my first sip of coffee and had forgotten to add my sweetner and wondered, 'Maybe the Australian's are simply better?'

Such a bitter brew, I sweetened it and said they crooked!