Player Poaching Argument Errupts

First topic message reminder :

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10843110

Interestingly, after years and years of the old "player poaching" debate rattling around on forums such as 606v2 we see national unions bickering in the same way.

To catch up anybody who hasn't been paying attention:

First the Aussies taunted Steve Hansen about NZ's talent identification approach as kiwi Mike Harris booted Australia to a draw that is apparently being treated as moral victory at Wallaby HQ.

Steve Hansen retored by suggesting they learn to develop their own players rather than poaching Kiwis.

No stranger to controversy, or being totally wrong about everything, John O'Neill waded in with a familar lack of dignity or logic raising the widely debunked notion that NZ notriously "poached" pacific Island players for the All Blacks.

Hansen then came back with some stats that staggeringly only 72 of over 1100 All Blacks were foreign born, and that 80% of the Samoan team in the RWC were actually born in NZ, and that he'd picked a Kiwi coach.

John O'Neill then came back that Hansen was just a WUM and was making it all up.

Hansen then pointed out that not only was John O'Neill wrong and coudn't argue, but that he probably just the latest incarnation of the Grey Ghost, but he probably wasn't even Australian and had been putting on the accent to hide his identity.

John O'Neill referred the comments to the ARU for moderation and tried to divert attention from his comments by starting another thread of conversation naming his Australian XV to tour the northern hemisphere, notably leaving out Higganbotham.

Steve Tew then lept in and re-opened the wound by calling O'Neill "insulting and ill-informed" said Australia lacked depth, had an ugly uniform that was made by a Kiwi company too.

O'Neill then tried to drag Tew into the discussion about his Aussie XV and whether he thought the ban for Higganbotham was fair or too lenient.


So what is your opinion? Personally I believe Kiwireddevil and Biltong should be sent in to sort them out.

Manky-Flanker wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Can't agree with you though, where you learn your rugby has everything to do with it. that is where the learn a certain culture of playing.

The problem there is do you want to be the one to tell a Samoan lad that he can never play for Samoa, because he his playing his rugby in NZ?

You need to read my earlier posts mate. i did say say tier 2 and lower countries must be exempt of this ruling.

Thought Pocock was from Zimbabwe?

Biltong wrote: You need to read my earlier posts mate. i did say say tier 2 and lower countries must be exempt of this ruling.

Right you are, you did indeed say that, sorry.

Change Samoa to Scotland and NZ to England

Biltong wrote:

Manky-Flanker wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Can't agree with you though, where you learn your rugby has everything to do with it. that is where the learn a certain culture of playing.

The problem there is do you want to be the one to tell a Samoan lad that he can never play for Samoa, because he his playing his rugby in NZ?

You need to read my earlier posts mate. i did say say tier 2 and lower countries must be exempt of this ruling.

To me the Samoa issue is not about tier 1 or tier 2, there is a very close tie between the two counties both geographically and politically and really this is some special case where the ebb and flow of people is more like the movement of people between cities than countries. A lot of the generation in concern were born to parents who were born when Samoa was a "protectorate" or "special administrative region" of NZ, despite being "independent".

A bit late into this one, but interestingly Hansen poached an aussie player himself when he was coach of Wales.

So shoots down his theory of developing your own players and not to poach huh??

Quote:
Brent Cockbain ... The brother of Wallaby Matt Cockbain, the then 28-year-old was recruited to Wales? 2003 World Cup cause by Steve Hansen.

Plus these other ones for Wales...
Brett Sinkinson, born NZ
Colin Charvis, born England
Hal Luscombe, born Laingsburg Western Cape
Andy Marinos, ex Western Stormers and the Bulldogs, born Zimbabwe


..oh and Sivivatu for the All Balcks

I have a problem with the ARU and IRFU with their 'project player' systems. It is blatant player poaching and the three year residency rule is a joke. It should be 5 years minimum.

South African teams cannot compete with the power of the euro and pound. In the recent case of CJ Stander, the Bulls could not match Munster's offer. Seducing a youngster with mega contracts is too easy.

It's wrong on many levels. Wrong for up and coming AUS and IRE players, their development and confidence. It's wrong for SARU. And it cheapens what international rugby is all about. It's about your country's best, patriotism, player development , history, culture etc. As a Bok fan I'd hate to see SA adopt such an approach.

As mentioned, a 5 year rule would be a fair amount of time before playing for an adopted country.

I think the grandparent rule is fair though as many people have strong connections to their grandparents homeland. This is clearly evident in SA when looking at the Italian, Greek, Lebanese and Portuguese communities.

Thankfully SA has capped Brits a couple of times!

Gee AWOP you must be stroking a white cat your plan was so cunning.
Anyway what about transfer payments would that help?

I think the issue between today and the amateur past is the club and country package. It's a combination of wanting to build a strong club and a strong national team. I think it's a relatively simple solution for NZ. Making the under 20 side the nominated 2nd side would remove eligibility of most of the players.

Kerr Barlow was born in Darwin I think they said tonight- wanted to live in NZ at 13 'to be an All Black'.

Geez these ozzies instil some confidence in their youth!

MMaaxx wrote:I have a problem with the ARU and IRFU with their 'project player' systems. It is blatant player poaching and the three year residency rule is a joke. It should be 5 years minimum.

South African teams cannot compete with the power of the euro and pound. In the recent case of CJ Stander, the Bulls could not match Munster's offer. Seducing a youngster with mega contracts is too easy.

It's wrong on many levels. Wrong for up and coming AUS and IRE players, their development and confidence. It's wrong for SARU. And it cheapens what international rugby is all about. It's about your country's best, patriotism, player development , history, culture etc. As a Bok fan I'd hate to see SA adopt such an approach.

As mentioned, a 5 year rule would be a fair amount of time before playing for an adopted country.

I think the grandparent rule is fair though as many people have strong connections to their grandparents homeland. This is clearly evident in SA when looking at the Italian, Greek, Lebanese and Portuguese communities.

Thankfully SA has capped Brits a couple of times!

CJ Stander won't play for Ireland.

First part of this article is pretty persuasive for me:

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_8204595,00.html

http://www.rugby365.com/article/50382-oosthuizen-has-wallaby-goals

There goes another one!

Recruiting a youngster, offering free uni, contract, home, etc but..... you have to make yourself available to represent Australia and reject South Africa.....nice

Who would say no,. especially some young kid looking for guarentees in life

Not to sure what you're trying to say there MMaaxx. Are you on about Etienne Oosthuizen?

Because there's no offering free uni, he is going to the Brumbies to play full time. A contract and home will, I'm sure, be offered to any pro signing a contract overseas. Plus Oosthuizen was recruited by Jake White, and Oosthuizen says ""My goals are to become a regular Brumby and then further down the track, to represent the Wallabies", so what is the point you making there please?

OzT, i think it is just a case of another south African leaving for "a promised land"

Sure it isn't anything against Australia in particular, more the situation.

MMaaxx wrote:http://www.rugby365.com/article/50382-oosthuizen-has-wallaby-goals

There goes another one!

Recruiting a youngster, offering free uni, contract, home, etc but..... you have to make yourself available to represent Australia and reject South Africa.....nice

Who would say no,. especially some young kid looking for guarentees in life

Aussies mate, you can't trust them. We learned that way back here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K65_spUU05s

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I come from a mixed race background, my father being born in Wales and my mother being born in Scotland.

Oh dear God. We can't be friends anymore.

Thanks Biltong. No I thought he was citing that as an example of a youngster lured away from his homeland to be groomed for the test side. I was making the point that Oosthuizen is, in my mind, an adult making his choice.

Not sure about the promised land living in Canberra though, even aussies wil tell you that is defo NOT the promised land!!

I, and I think all of us, would love our national side made up of nationals. But I accept there are many adults who would move to play for another country because they want to, and for me that is fair enough, they are fully in the national side of their choosing. doesn't change their nationality though I don't think. I'm sure most of them woudl go back to their homeland after playing, unless of course they married someone who doesn't want to go back.

Both my boys were born in England, and they have only spent a year of so in Oz when they were young. But whilst one of them wants to play for England, the other wants to be a wallaby. It would be a shame if the law changes too much that when he finishes uni he can't go there and be eligable for the wallabies unless he spends years there, maybe losing his playing ability in that time. My dream would be for them to face each other on opposite sides in an international!

That's funny OzT, I was about to make the same point about Canberra being far from the promised land.

Awop, of course you can't trust us... we are a bunch of thieving crims after all.

tough one for you OzT.

I think I have posted my opinion on this enough times. I simply don't like it.

There is nothing I can do about it, but I don't have to like it.

For me it is simple, go make your money anywhere in the world you want, but when it comes to national representation be true to your roots.

I thought the overseas "fad" would reach a saturation point, but it seems it is only now gaining momentum.

I suppose we can't all be traditionalists, but as long as the Springboks are represented by players that have learnt their rugby here in the good RS of A, I will be a passionate Bok supporter. When that changes, and I can no longer dentify with my national team, I will become a casual observer.

That is pretty much what happened to me in our domestic rugby, players hop around from one province to the next and there is no longer a pride in representing your region, only money.

It doesn't mean I don;t enjoy watching our domestic rugby, I just no longer have a vested interest in a particular team.

I now look for the individuals in a team I like and observe who I think should be springboks.

Biltong wrote:
That is pretty much what happened to me in our domestic rugby, players hop around from one province to the next and there is no longer a pride in representing your region, only money.

I agree!!! For me it's not Union, we don't have much of a union scene back home. But in League, I supported Norths. Used to go to the clubhouse couple times a week for drinks, and often meet the players there, and chat. Most of the players were recruited quite locally, at least in the sense they knew who Norths were from their childhood. For sure even then there were journeymen pros. Then the system changed and clubs merged, now it is big money back home, and the chance of meeting a player after a game in the clubhouse is nil... unless you're at a members club somewhere swanky on the northern beaches!!

This player migration will not stop now, will only go on I think. But as long as the majority of the squad is on the national, with just one or 2 overseas players who have qualified properly, I'll still look on at the side as a truly representative side. A test match is all about national pride, to watch high grade rugby I reckon club rugby's a better standard, but without the passion of a test.

The change to the Super structure in NZ means more players are playing super rugby in franchise that is different from their province. eg Nonu in Blues and Highlanders but still registered with Wellington.
Don't like that - but I guess its better than him heading off overseas.

nganboy wrote:The change to the Super structure in NZ means more players are playing super rugby in franchise that is different from their province. eg Nonu in Blues and Highlanders but still registered with Wellington.
Don't like that - but I guess its better than him heading off overseas.

I don't actually mind a bit of movement at franchise level, if it means players stay with their provinces. I like that Dagg and Guildford for example have stayed loyal to Hawkes Bay. Before they'd have shifted to Canterbury as well as the Crusaders

I'm the same kiwi, club football is 'professional' and you'd expect movement between clubs within NZ and between clubs in other countries. I'm a chiefs supporter and I want them to assemble the best possible team from whatever resources are available and from wherever.

But it's this professional philosophy transferred to the international scene that really really gets my goat, shouldn't and mustn't happen. Otherwise international rugby is just another club competition, and that'd be a shame.

NZ born samoans playing in the ABs, that makes sense as we're neighbours. Fijian born Fijians playing for England, not convinced sorry.

But it's this professional philosophy transferred to the international scene that really really gets my goat, shouldn't and mustn't happen. Otherwise international rugby is just another club competition, and that'd be a shame.

It seems to me that is the point many don't get.

It is about national pride. But then pride has often been forsaken for the almighty dollar, pound and other poorly justifiable reasons.

With regards to player poaching I would just like to say that I much prefer mine fried or boiled, poaching players like Hartley and Botha is the wrong way to go about things; both are much more suited to being hard boiled although I must confess that Hartley would appear to be the runny yoke type.

you'd need a keg of vinegar and more than 4 minutes to poach Hartley, but why would ya?

I have to disagree with that ebop - I think Hartley is that rare type that actually self-boils without the need for water, gas or electricity. Ideal to have when you're stuck in the acrtic - a real self-boiler, Grant Batty was the original self-boiler though

Forgive my ignorance, is this a frangipani?

Full Credit wrote:That's funny OzT, I was about to make the same point about Canberra being far from the promised land.

Awop, of course you can't trust us... we are a bunch of thieving crims after all.

Jeez what a place...i arrived on a sunday evening for two days and the fecking pubs were all shut!!!

But place is a great hotbed of wife/gf swapping though..... just got to know which house to go to...

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

nganboy wrote:The change to the Super structure in NZ means more players are playing super rugby in franchise that is different from their province. eg Nonu in Blues and Highlanders but still registered with Wellington.
Don't like that - but I guess its better than him heading off overseas.

I don't actually mind a bit of movement at franchise level, if it means players stay with their provinces. I like that Dagg and Guildford for example have stayed loyal to Hawkes Bay. Before they'd have shifted to Canterbury as well as the Crusaders

True