Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu

First topic message reminder :

Having some fun on twitter

http://twitter.com/#!/Eliota_Sapolu

GavinDragon wrote:and i agree he was terrible not just with samoa at the breakdown but itn the set piece,

we have a scrum that goes 5 yards forward then turns as the front rows stand up and he tells us 'we must use it' rather than penalises the samoans for wheeling and standing up

we were not allowed to drive a lineout today everytime we did the samoans stood off and then it was 'blocking' this law needs clarification!

I remember one penalty given where the lifters were ahead of the jumper, that was the correct call.

In general he didn't police the breakdown very well. Both teams were going off their feet equally as often and both were getting away with it.

we were not allowed to drive a lineout today everytime we did the samoans stood off and then it was 'blocking' this law needs clarification!

Didn't see the game but that sounds perfectly legal and smart by Samoa.

As to the twitter monster. He has a massive point. We saw the same in England's game where Georgia had played on wed, were competitive till bout 50 min mark but then just dropped off. And even before that they were struggling a lot.

I would much prefer top seeded teams have a short turn around but it'd never happen sadly. It's an old boys club and the top teams would close ranks against any changes.

As to his comments, well they get the point across don't they?

Clive - I did get your point, but my argument was that there's more articulate ways he could've made his point about unfairness. You can't make comparisons to events like The Holocaust and Apartheid and in such a flippant way. For a start, those two events were born out of hatred, anti-semitism and racism. IRB rules aren't regardless of how unfair you think they are. Secondly, using two massive historical events like those grossly exaggerates his own point whilst belittling those events at the same time and detracting from the unfairness point he is trying to make.

How do people know he wasn't complaining about it before hand? It had been mentioned on here and said to be unfair, which it is.

Regarding the ref, I though he missed loads of things from both sides but he seemed to be consistent.

And Cymroglan, Georgia played on Wednesday before playing England yesterday. That's not fair. It's even more unfair when you consider their squads won't be as strong anyway. It should be the tier one sides playing mid week if someone has to

Neither side stayed on their feet at the breakdown. Lying on top of the tackled player with your legs streched out is not on your feet. Another ref would have pinged both sides off the park. THe scrum that was mentioned above was 100% a penalty to Wales though

yappysnap wrote:
As to his comments, well they get the point across don't they?

I think they overshadow his point, which is counter productive.

yappysnap - standing off the driving lineout was a smart moce by the samoans, but sme refs penalise the attackign side while others dont, there needs to be consistency

If you stand off and the jumper comes down with lifters on either side, it's play on. In the match on Sunday the lifters were in front of the jumper. It has nothing to do with standing off, even if the Samoans were in contact with the lifters it would still be obstruction.

Maybe take this bit to the "Ask the ref" section?

Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu could face disciplinary action following a Twitter rant after Samoa's 17-10 loss to Wales.

The centre accused the International Rugby Board of "unfair treatment" as Samoa played for the second time in four days while Wales had a week off.

The Gloucester centre, 30, accused the IRB of exploitation and compared Samoa's treatment to slavery, the holocaust and apartheid.

An IRB spokesman said: "It is very disappointing."

Fuimaono-Sapolu could be disciplined if he is found to have broken the Rugby World Cup code of conduct, which contains social media guidelines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/14968400.stm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is understood the only way the IRB can solve the current fixture issue would be to reduce the tournament to 16 teams, which would undermine the desire to grow the game

He got his point across albeit using some pretty dodgy comparisons.

Having said that at least he seems to have a bit of a grasp of history. I wouldn't imagine players like Mike Phillips, Henson or Byrne would even know what he's talking about!

I'm guessing that this guy didnt learn much history at school. If he did, he would not have come out with something so appallingly ignorant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/14968400.stm

"Unfair treatment, like slavery, like the holocaust, like apartheid".

Yes - just like all of those things...

Already being discussed

https://www.606v2.com/t14169-eliota-fuimaono-sapolu

clivemcl wrote:Like I said, Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu wasn't comparing their human cruelty and oppression, he was comparing unjustness. Actually... I can't be bothered... I'm just gona quote myself again, you clearly didnt read, or werent thinking when reading...

Lets be clear guys, he's saying the 3 days thing is UNFAIR. He's saying that slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were UNFAIR. He's saying all these things have UNFAIRNESS in common. Which is true.

He doesn't say in equal amounts, he doesn't say by similar motives, or by similarly evil/cynical people.

Seriously people, we all know he has a point, we know he's understandably upset, we know he probably wouldn't intentionally want to undermine the calousness of slavery, the holocaust and apartheid.

So why must we punish someone and hate him rather than empathising.

It sickens me how much judgement is in the world today. How about being reasonable and looking for best case scenarious.

there is judgement and there is comparing the charmed life of a professional sportsman to one of the biggest atrocities in human history.

I agree... its unfair.
Its an Old Boys Club


but.....

Money Talks, the so called Tier 1 nations have by far the larger amount of viewers (bar Scotland and Japan). More Viewers = more advertising sold = more money to the IRB.

I think that large RWCs that have a large £ turnover (like France and England) should have a greater sum spent on developing nations than the 6N and sanzar nations.

Dunno how to change it, but it won't for the foreseeable future.

Standulstermen wrote:Neither side stayed on their feet at the breakdown. Lying on top of the tackled player with your legs streched out is not on your feet. Another ref would have pinged both sides off the park. THe scrum that was mentioned above was 100% a penalty to Wales though

The problem I had with the breakdown is that both sides were going off their feet but Rollands default was to penalise Wales. I only remember one penalty against Samoa for the same thing. Also they were clearing so far beyond the ruck they were virtually in our backline. I'm happy with the win but I would despair if Rollaind had to ref us again. Totally agree about that scrum. Could not work out how he wasn't giving a penalty. the front row stood up and the back row broke off early. not to mention the scrum half being offside...

I understand what he is trying to say. Is it fair? No. Does that make it the IRB's sole fault? No. Sadly its a business at the end of the day. They need to maximize profits. Sponsors want to see weekend slots for the big teams. The same goes for the fans. Dont think anyone wants midweek games by choice.

However someone needs to play midweek games which result in double up matches by the weekend against the seeded sides. Samoa while a good team on the pitch wont provide the money in TV, ticket sales & Sponsorship that a side like England does. The IRB can't extend the period of the WC either as clubs are already annoyed by the missing stars as is and player release is already a major headache for the IRB.

So to abuse the IRB on this is a little naive on his part. By signing for Gloucester he is buying into the whole ethos of the scenario. Dont kid yourself in thinking that the IRB are the powerbrokers of the sport. Its the various proffessional Unions and the fans,sponsorhip and tv deals they bring with them. So like I said, is it fair? No. Grow up and accept that life is rarely fair. Most of us accept the cards we are dealt and move on.

At the end of the day he had a chance to represent his country at a World Cup. Take a moment and think about all those people who dont get a chance to represent their countries and count yourself fortunate.

BTW - I actually dont think the turnaround affected the game anyway.

I understand 3 is less than 7 (by 4 to be exact).

I dont buy the "samoa HAD to play their best players becuase they had a do-or-die game against Wales next".

Wales and SA went into their "do-or-die" game straight away against each other with their players "cold".

That game would have taken a huge amount out of Wales, Samoa were done by half-time against Namibia and it showed in the secondhalf when they really took their foot off the gas.

I understand that it logically makes more sense Wales would have recovered better.

The 4 days difference is not the reason for the loss. The fact Wales scored more points than Samoa is the reason for the loss.

I also understand the love for the under-dog and people sticking up for Samoa, but this guys just a massive knobber. He made derogatory comments about Saracens after Glouscester lost the playoff semi final to them this year, he even compared their style of play to the US Military's tactic of bombing out Obama.

Its not about being "PC", its about the fact this guy is a knobber.

Like Wales against SA the week before, Samoa played well, but not well enough to win the game, i dont buy the 4 days difference as the scoreline difference.

We have to remember these fixtures were not planned 2 weeks ago, Samoa had months to plan for the 2 games in 4 days and had the option to use thier squad, this competion requires the teams to utilise 30 players the best way they can, Samoa didn't, too many 'what if's' etc for my liking, a good hard earned result for Wales.

He made derogatory comments about Saracens after Glouscester lost the playoff semi final to them this year, he even compared their style of play to the US Military's tactic of bombing out Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a pretty crazy tactic

yappysnap wrote:He made derogatory comments about Saracens after Glouscester lost the playoff semi final to them this year, he even compared their style of play to the US Military's tactic of bombing out Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a pretty crazy tactic

I know, but apparently Saracens are a lot better at it than the US armed forces.

Does he think that Samoa were the only team who got little rest? Scotland got 3 (maybe 4) days aswell between romania and georgia, and we got ground into the dirt by romania so had more reason to be knackered than samoa who had a pretty comfortable game.

the key difference was that our management team planned for that and rotated the squad.

Im not saying that the scheduling isnt more harsh on the smaller nations, but its not exclusively harsh to them.

Embarrassing words from a sore loser. His comparisons border on madness considering other sides that aren't "my people" recieved the same treatment. I also don't recall hearing any complaints of this nature before the game, Fuimaono-Sapolu could merely be exploiting circumstances now that he's forced to resort to drastic measures to maintain his illusion of Wales being unable to match Samoa.

There are arguments against the regularity of playing time. If Samoa had won, sore Welsh players and fans could have so easily opened their mouths and let fly some desperate nonsense like the Samoans being more match-fit having played more often within the week than Wales.

Imperialbigdave wrote:Does he think that Samoa were the only team who got little rest? Scotland got 3 (maybe 4) days aswell between romania and georgia, and we got ground into the dirt by romania so had more reason to be knackered than samoa who had a pretty comfortable game.

the key difference was that our management team planned for that and rotated the squad.

Im not saying that the scheduling isnt more harsh on the smaller nations, but its not exclusively harsh to them.

Actually, for the purposes of this conversation, Scotland are one of the smaller nations. The big teams are the top 8 seeds- Argentina, England, New Zealand, France, Australia, Ireland, South Africa and Wales. Italy, Fiji, Scotland and Tonga are all on the brink but they have slightly less favourable schedules than the main seeds.

Apparently he's a qualified solicitor, so you'd think he would know better. Also, he did tweet about the bad scheduling before the Wales game as well as after.

Comfort wrote:I dont buy the "samoa HAD to play their best players becuase they had a do-or-die game against Wales next".

Wales and SA went into their "do-or-die" game straight away against each other with their players "cold".

The difference being that SA & Wales both went into that match cold, it was an even playing field. If Samoa hadn't given its first choice squad a run out against Namibia they would have been going in cold, but Wales not. It's also worth noting that Samoa was one of those teams that the big teams weren't keen to offer pre tournamnet warm ups to. Samoa's last game was 2 months before the tournament, compared to Wales' 3 weeks before. You need a game to take rustiness off players if they are going to perform against higher ranked and better prepared teams.

Quite aside from those extra days that a full week's rest gives making a world of difference in general recovery (I don't play at international level and I certainly still feel the bruises and aches at midweek training), one of the main things is the difference it would have made in getting their first choice FH back. He had to pull out at the last moment, having not quite recovered in time. Pisi's control of the team has been vital in their recent performances, not to mention his kicking, out of hand and from the spot (1 miss from 9 against Namibia compared to Williams' 50% success rate against Wales, resulting in them not even attempting kicking penalties after a while). By the end of the match they were playing a SH at 10 in his first cap.

niwatts wrote:You miss the point of what I said, the selection wasn't about beating Namibia. You can't expect players to perform to the highest level (which was what would have been needed to beat Wales) if they haven't had a warm up run out first, particularly when your oposition have had that opportunity the previous week with a recognised amount of rest inbetween. If they hadn't selected their first choice side for Namibia then the players selected as first choice 4 days later would still have been going in match cold. The IRB forced Samoa to choose between gambling on going into their biggest match comparitively depleted or cold. I think Samoa made the right choice, but it was certainly an unfair handicap.

Actually the Samoans played the Pacific Nations Cup against Tonga, Fiji, and Japan as their warm up, followed by a win in Australia, so to say they weren't prepared is silly. By their own admission they have had the best preperation of any Samoan team ever!

Finally the world Cup is all about generating money, to be reinvested in the developing nations.
The fixtures are at the mercy of TV companies who pay for the rights. They want to biggest games at the best times. The IRB have stated the only way to get the fixtures away from the 4 day rule is to revert to 16 teams like they did in 1987, 1991, and 1995.
Of course what this means is less teams will get the chance to appear at the tournament which in turn hurts the development of the game!

And what makes the comments of this person funny, is that if there wasn't 5 teams per pool then Samoa wouldn't be in the Cup at all!
It's likely the USA, Romania, Russia and Samoa wouldn't be at the World Cup, if it was a 16 team tournament, based on qualification rules at the moment.

Namibia are the bottom seeds in pool D. As Oceania 1, they would have at least been in some kind of play-off system if there were only 16 teams in the cup, one I'd back them to win against other 4th/5th seeds.

AlynDavies

Neither Fiji, Tonga nor Samoa were able to field a near full strength side during the PNC because most of their players are in Europe and were refused release by their clubs... in fact Fiji were barred even taking players to the RWC by European clubs due to their contracts.

Its like saying the churchill cup were warm up games for England.... how many players in that team made the RWC squad... 1.

The Pacific Nations Cup was at the beginning of July, the Australia match mid July, so as I've already said, their last match was 2 months before the WC, (compared to Wales' & SA's 3 weeks since their last matches). 2 months is the same amount of time between the AIs & the 6Ns. The off season for our domestic leagues is only 4 weeks longer. It would be a bit of a stretch to consider them warm up games.

As fa0019 rightly says, the PNC saw them able to field only a small number of their first choice players, hence the loses of 18-36 to Fiji, 19-29 to Tonga and finishing bottom of the competition table (4th).

fa0019 wrote:... in fact Fiji were barred even taking players to the RWC by European clubs due to their contracts.

Any contract that does this goes against IRB regulations and would be void. The club would also be sanctioned and possibly banned from the game.

HammerofThunor wrote:

fa0019 wrote:... in fact Fiji were barred even taking players to the RWC by European clubs due to their contracts.

Any contract that does this goes against IRB regulations and would be void. The club would also be sanctioned and possibly banned from the game.

In theory. We all know there is a gulf between theory and practice here, let's not beat around the bush.

Not really. It can't be in any contract. It may be a verbal agreement and they won't get an extension but it won't be contracted. We've seen Samu Manoa refuse to play for USA because he can get his appearance bonus during the World Cup while Lawes is away. It's also his chance to force his way in as a starter.

Can't help but think of the uproar if NZ got 8 days and wales 4 and Wales had key injuries replacing them just before the match and then lost by a couple of points.

Welsh fans would be livid at the schedule- and rightly so.

too true

WTF has this got to do with Wales what do you expect us to do or say ?
We turned up to the game on the date given blame the IRB

Absolutely. It needs to be looked at. I didnt think it would be as big as it is but we're now facing the reality of it.

If we want the lower tier teams to raise their abilities we don't need to handicap them from the start. Samoa sat there and watched for a whole weekend, then were rushed into 2 matches.

No criticism on Wales. Any team in this situation is affected.

Nothing personal Taylorman but I just get this feeling that there would not be this fuss if Samoa had been playing South Africa last week end.

Cymroglan

You shouldn't be so defensive dude... this isn't about Wales.

All the 6N & 3N sides are given the same allowances.... and generally all those who are not tend to suffer.

This is no dig at Wales in particular but I would have thought Samoa would be a bigger draw than Wales on a global scale.... one of the main reasons why the schedule is anti lesser nations.

Samoa is a very well respected rugby nation specifically in NZ, Aus, SA & Europe and they play a very attractive brand of rugby.... free running and big tackling.
Wales is a more conservative rugby nation (albeit one of the more adventurous 6N sides) who probably have little appeal outside of Europe (or even the UK).

Shane Williams & Adam Jones aside I would say on a neutral perspective Samoa are a more entertaining side.... which matters in terms of TV ratings and appeal.

This is why I don't necessarily buy the TV ratings excuse given by the IRB.... we all know the IRB is an old boys club where everyone looks after themselves and their mates first... they increased the RWC to by 4 to 20 to help develop these teams???? When has a team benefited from taking a 100-nil, 80mins of humiliation match?

Samoa will never host a RWC, major test series etc so they won't have a big voice at the IRB. The 6N sides all stratch each others backs... just like in RWC07 when in return for voting for FRA, FRA awarded home pool test matches to both Scotland & Wales. Maybe IRE, SCO & WAL will want to host a RWC in the future.... hmm, we better keep ENG, FRA & ITA sweet then. Its the same for everyone in the club.

This isn't about Wales then you did nothing but talk about Wales in your post.

Cymroglan

Just used them as an example because of the recent Wales Samoa match where this all started...

I could have easily replaced Wales with Italy, Scotland (my own team) and it would have been the same.

Its different for IRE or ENG because they have a massive expat following wherever rugby is generally a major sport.

http://stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/records/team/highest_attendance.html?id=17;team=15;type=trophy
Looks like Samoa only fill a stadium when they play Wales it's a good idea to do some homework first before you post things.
I could post the home nations attendance if you wish so we can have some idea who pulls in the crowds.

Cymroglan wrote:http://stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/records/team/highest_attendance.html?id=17;team=15;type=trophy
Looks like Samoa only fill a stadium when they play Wales it's a good idea to do some homework first before you post things.
I could post the home nations attendance if you wish so we can have some idea who pulls in the crowds.

Those stats are fairly meaningless though. They don't really reflect on the two sides drawing power in New Zealand, on the other side of the world.

Cymroglan wrote:Nothing personal Taylorman but I just get this feeling that there would not be this fuss if Samoa had been playing South Africa last week end.

That is so paranoid and largely untrue.

I don't see how your point is valid... I was talking about TV audiences esp. in countries where the home team is not playing... not fan loyalty & mobility which Wales are fortunate to have... and your whole point was based on one match which just happened to be a home RWC in Wales, in a new stadium where Samoa were your toughest pool draw. Of course it was going to be packed.

Your statistics are misleading anyhow? So they played a lot of their early matches in tiny stadiums such as in Ponty? So that means that they are not a big draw team?

Well here is a stat for you.... more people attended Samoa vs. USA in RWC07 then attended Wal vs. SA in RWC11... and I bet there were more Saffas & Welsh fans in NZ then there were Samoans & USA rugby fans in France.
And before you ask its not just about stadium size. the Samoa USA match had less empty seats by number and were fuller on a % of maxmium.

07 - 34124 in max 35616 stadium
11 - 33331 in max 36000 stadium

So do you honestly believe that Samoa will have more pulling power than the home nations for instance ?
New Zealand have only played them five times and the last time was in 2008. Attendance 22518

[quote="Notch"]

Cymroglan wrote:http://stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/records/team/highest_attendance.html?id=17;team=15;type=trophy
Looks like Samoa only fill a stadium when they play Wales it's a good idea to do some homework first before you post things.
I could post the home nations attendance if you wish so we can have some idea who pulls in the crowds.

Well i suppose the Samoan fans would smell a scalp on the way when they play Wales hence filling up the stadium to see it live...........

Give me some evidence that the viewing TV figures will be higher when Samoa play than they would be if a home nation side went to the Southern Hemisphere or vice versa.

We both know that TV viewing figures are not publised regularly and will not exist in the public domain so what you ask is unobtainable for sure.

This was never even a FACT - Samoa are a bigger draw card post either... it was that from a neutral perspective I would say Samoa are one of the top 5 most watchable rugby teams around at the moment.

Are Scotland (my team) an entertaining rugby team? No and they haven't since 2000. If you were trying to explain why rugby was a great sport to someone unfamilar with the game would you show them a Scotland match?? Well they probably get higher attendances, but that doesn't mean people around the world will tune in, and for a good reason too. Samoa on the other hand have always been entertaining, worth tuning in no matter who they play.

So it has nothing to do with actual viewing figures or that they pull in the crowds,
This is all based on your belief that they play attractive rugby and they are in your top five.
I'm with you now but personally I would rather watch Fiji or even Japan against one of the weaker nations.