Should More be Done to Support PI Countries?

In the Professional Era:

Samoa have hosted - Scotland (2012), Ireland (2003), Italy (2000) & France (1999)
http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;orderby=date;orderbyad=reverse;team=15;template=results;type=team;view=match

Fiji have hosted - Scotland (2012), Maoris (2008, 2005, 1999, 1996), Italy (2006, 2000), France (1998)
http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;orderby=date;orderbyad=reverse;team=14;template=results;type=team;view=match

Tonga have hosted - Ireland (2003), France (1999), Maori (1996)
http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;orderby=date;orderbyad=reverse;team=16;template=results;type=team;view=match



Is this good enough?

Yes there should be much more done. They have some of the most natural rugby players in the world.

Yes, I do beleive there should be more done for the PI nations.

I was reading a comment the other day where someone suggested that the Rugby Championship should be held only every two years.

Year 1.
Rugby Championship - SA, OZ, NZ, ARG
Pacific Nations cup - JAP, TON, SAM, FIJI
June Tours
November tours

Year 2. SH competition - includes SA, ARG, OZ, NZ, TON, SAM, JAP and Fiji.
NO other tours, just a home and away series for the year 14 tests in total per country.

Year 3. Rugby Championship.
Pacific Nations Cup.
June Tours
November tours

Year 4. All test prior to the RWC as warm ups for the nations. SH teams play one another, Each of the Rugby Championship Nations have a home tour and away tour of three tests against two of the second tier nations
RWC.

I added a bit to what he suggested, but n my view that is a brilliant way of keeping interest high in all formats.

The NH, can work on pretty much the same type of format.

Its hard at times to not get the feeling that there are countries positioned just a little bit higher than Samoa on the IRB rankings that dont seem to want any of these tier two teams given anything that might be perceived as an advantage.

There absolutely should be more done to support these nations, I have a feeling that the All Blacks have never actually played a test in either Fiji or Samoa (can't remember which) which is pretty ridiculous considering the benefits New Zealand rugby has enjoyed from players whose origins are in the Pacific Islands.
As a Scotland supporter I'm glad we included Fiji and Samoa on our summer tour (should have gone to Toga as well probably) and from what I read the players very much enjoyed the experience.

Knocked on
You will be aware that Scotland played Samoa in Apia just four months ago, tell me what did you think of the Television coverage?

Now you might see the sense in us hosting games against the ABs in cities like Auckland rather than Apia, Nukualofa or Suva. we sell the television rights and it then gets passed on to the paricular pacific Island rugby union. plus we get a far bigger gate by playing games at Eden Park or the cake tin.

That is a valid point Aucklandlaurie but the media rights issues have not always been as important and lucrative as they are now, still feel that the bigger nations (eg NZ) should have played in the PIs historically as nothing beats the atmosphere of seeing the likes of the All Blacks live. We're probably in for a tanking but I'm going to Murrayfield on Sunday, can't wait.
The TV coverage from Samoa wasn't the best but it had a certain charm as a one off, actually wasn't much worse than the current North Tonight 'live from Aberdeen', anyone who's seen that will be familair with almost nightly 'technical issues'

It would be great to see Samoa, Fiji and Tonga included into the Rugby Championship in the next few years too.

Re organise the structure a bit but would be of a huge benefit to the game, I am sure we are all about to see how much Argentina have progressed by their inclusion.

Knocked on

Are you sure you have seen a telecast of the game against Samoa?

Anyway, rugby in New Zealand is quite big and there are many arms to it not just the All blacks. in a couple of weeks time the New Zealand Heartland XV is going to play two games in samoa (yes, they wear black adidas jerseys too), But if we are really all serious about helping these countries maybe we could let them have more presence, audience and voting rights at the IRB?

I agree with previous comments that these areas produce some of the most naturally gifted rugby players in the world ...but in a full on 15 game v the top nations just how competitive are they?

Whilst they might get the odd good result here and there (beating Australia, Wales etc)...quite often they are found on the receiving end of a cricket score.

Now regular competitive games against the bigger nations will undoubtedly bring them on...and this is imperative.

It needs to be looked at, but done correctly.

A combined PI greatest ever...would be a frightening proposition i imagine...as would just the individual Teams greatest ever...Samoa in particular...

With AIG filling the NZRU coffers there should be every effort made by the All Black management to play a test in the islands before the next world cup.

I was slightly disappointed when the Lions announced they were playing the Barbarians in Hong Kong. The Barbarians isn't really what it used to be, and it would have been a great opportunity to play a warm-up test match against Samoa, which would have been a more attractive and competitive fixture.

The sad reality is that their isn't that much money in the game outside of France and England.

SA is seen as a cash cow and couldn't sell more match day tickets, shirts etc yet even the might Bulls can't even keep hold of their best young stars such as CJ Stander... who is off not to FRA but to Ireland.

AUS, NZ, SCO and WAL all have noticable financial difficulties, any % taken away could have dramatic impacts on field... if they can't keep their best players, performance will dip.

I myself believe if they toured as the PI full time shy of the RWC then they would get more lucrative tours, more sponsorship and maybe even tournament recognition.... on their own they are too weak in all departments to compete.

It didn't work before sure but make it serious, not just a lions type touring side but a real force... like the West Indies in cricket.

Get a Super rugby side for PI players (maybe based in Auckland???)

They will get nowhere long term if they aren't able to generate their own revenue..... financial support is not the answer or trickle down revenue from the larger unions.

Thomh
Instead of Barbarians a game against the Pacific Islanders rugby union team would have been good.

I always think that the BandI Lions first game should be against an assembled side as well. as a country may be able to beat them in thier first game, if wanting an unbeaten record, you have to biuld up to the test matches, against lower opposition, thats when the Baba's are a good first team as they are a scratch team as well, then play super XV and some scratch Super XV player sides to build up to test level.

But instead of the Barbarians a game against the Pacific Islanders rugby union team would really have made them feel part of it. Argentina also want to be part of it, wishing the Lions to tour there again. However I think a final game against Argentina each tour would be sufficient.

Well we're doing our bit....Newcastle Falcons v Tonga..a week on tuesday

There should be more done to support the PI Nations, financially as much as with fixtures.

From a competitive point of view some teams that have been put out have been very competitive in one-off games, if not consistently.

Now I know, having been lucky enough to visit them that the PI Nations have very distinct cultures and are rightly proud of that. But for the next few years and in order to perhaps afford a more sustainably competitive team why not suggest a Lions style mixed team?

This is a possibility:

1. S Tonga'uhia
2. T Paulo
3. C Johnston
4. S Timani
5. J Tekori
6. S Mafi
7. M Ravulo
8. O Trevainus
9. K Fotuali'i
10. S Bai
11. A Tuilagi
12. S Mapusua
13. G Pisi
14. D Lemi
15. V Lilo

16. A Lutui 17. L Mulipola 18. J Johnston 19. D Leo 20. M Fa'asavalu 21. N Matawalu 22. H Tonga'uiha 23. V Goneva

This looks a pretty decent side and would give quite a few teams some serious difficulties if you ask me. This might not be the finished article but it's a seriously quality side.

The problem is their players a more loyal to clubs because clubs pay their wages.

The IRB has to concentrate on developing new rugby countries

Chjw131 wrote:There should be more done to support the PI Nations, financially as much as with fixtures.

From a competitive point of view some teams that have been put out have been very competitive in one-off games, if not consistently.

Now I know, having been lucky enough to visit them that the PI Nations have very distinct cultures and are rightly proud of that. But for the next few years and in order to perhaps afford a more sustainably competitive team why not suggest a Lions style mixed team?

This is a possibility:

1. S Tonga'uhia
2. T Paulo
3. C Johnston
4. S Timani
5. J Tekori
6. S Mafi
7. M Ravulo
8. O Trevainus
9. K Fotuali'i
10. S Bai
11. A Tuilagi
12. S Mapusua
13. G Pisi
14. D Lemi
15. V Lilo

16. A Lutui 17. L Mulipola 18. J Johnston 19. D Leo 20. M Fa'asavalu 21. N Matawalu 22. H Tonga'uiha 23. V Goneva

This looks a pretty decent side and would give quite a few teams some serious difficulties if you ask me. This might not be the finished article but it's a seriously quality side.

They did do that, the Pacfic Islanders team I talked about earlier, only thing was to be finicially beneficial to the 3 nations they needed to tour every two years, IRB were only setting it up as every 4 years (like the Lions) and Somia have pulled out and they haven't toured since 2008.
I think every second year if they toured the Northern Hemp as Pacfic Islanders (rather than seperatly) they could draw bigger crowds, the next year the nations tour.
It appears that one of the 6 Nation sides will play one of them every summer, meaning they only play a 6 nation team once every 3 years, it may be better to have the PI team for these create a PI, NZ then Aus tour with 3 of the 6 nations sides.

Or even tour Argentina when summer tour is on

The problem with the Pacific Iasland combined side is very similar to the British Lions.

Whilst its fabulous as a one off 4 year spectacle.. the individual nations dont want to lose their own identity by playing more than that.

Samoa, Fiji and Tonga are very proud people and want to represent their country not the whole area.

What fixtures do they have this AI?
I know England play fiji on Saturday...at Twickenham...which is great for them...but do they play all the home nations?

Likewise whats Tonga and Samoa playing?

Geordie

The New Zealand Heartland team is playing up in Samoa this week.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10842527

Yes ioof courese the4y should - perhaps a teams playing there on toursa dn a PI lionbs to go on away tours.

Its a total stain on SH rugby that they have allowed the islands to languish without decent games

TJ wrote:Yes ioof courese the4y should - perhaps a teams playing there on toursa dn a PI lionbs to go on away tours.

Its a total stain on SH rugby that they have allowed the islands to languish without decent games

Yes, thats probably as a result of us having to put so much time and energy into trying to get the Northern Hemisphere right.

Didn't the IRB announce 'forced' tours a while back, I.e. the leading nations had to tour some of the other smaller and/or developing nations rather than just play each other? I think Wales were signed up to tour Japan as a result. Can't remember where I saw that though. Did I dream it? I'm pretty sure there was a schedule drawn up.

Here, found it. Probably not enough, but Wales are doing Japan next year and the Pacific Islands in a few years. I think other nations are doing similar, which is maybe why Scotland went to Samoa, I.e. the first of a new wave of tours to these nations. I think this was as a result of IRB pressure:


Welsh rugby has announced the national team's nine-year touring schedule.
Coach Warren Gatland will take his team to New Zealand for the 2011 Rugby World Cup before returning to the southern hemisphere in 2012 to tour Australia.
Wales will go to Japan in 2013 and South Africa in 2014 before the 2015 World Cup in England.
Wales will return to tour New Zealand in 2016, the Pacific Islands in 2017, Argentina in 2018 before returning to Japan for the 2019 Rugby World Cup.
The arrangements have been negotiated between the WRU and their opponents with the guidance of the International Rugby Board and exact details such as locations, dates and kick-off times for the games will be announced later
Wales' 2013 tour to Japan and 2017 tour to the Pacific Islands will involve players and coaches not selected for the British and Irish Lions tours.
Roger Lewis, the Welsh Rugby Union's group chief executive, said: "We have reached agreement on an exciting itinerary of Wales tours with fixtures against the best and most exciting nations playing the game today.
"Detailed advance planning is at the heart of our strategy to create long term sustainability for Welsh rugby both on and off the pitch.
"Our business has benefited greatly from this thinking. Our rolling five year financial and strategic plan reflects this.
"Most importantly this schedule allows the fans to consider following the team on tour.
"There are mouth-watering opportunities for our supporters to head for Australia and New Zealand where Wales will match up against the top tier nations playing the game.
"I am delighted that Wales will be revisiting Japan and Argentina which have hosted some great Welsh international encounters in the past. Most importantly the team will get to experience Japan ahead of the Rugby World Cup in 2019."
Wales' nine-year touring schedule:
2011: New Zealand (Rugby World Cup)
2012: Australia
2013: Japan
2014: South Africa
2015: England (Rugby World Cup)
2016: New Zealand
2017: Pacific Islands
2018: Argentina
2019: Japan (Rugby World Cup)

One of the best ways to help the PIs would have been to allow players to 'step down' from tier 1 countries as was suggested a while ago. Realistically this would mostly be ex all blacks who are also PI qualified through parentage. Having good quality experienced players could only help the youngsters and bring an increased focus on professional training/diet etc. For example I'm sure Sivivatu would still be able to offer a lot to a Fiji squad now, if he was interested in doing that.

Obviously there are some potential issues with this plan but if it were to happen I think we would see PI victories as less of a shock.

Bathman_in_London wrote:One of the best ways to help the PIs would have been to allow players to 'step down' from tier 1 countries as was suggested a while ago. Realistically this would mostly be ex all blacks who are also PI qualified through parentage. Having good quality experienced players could only help the youngsters and bring an increased focus on professional training/diet etc. For example I'm sure Sivivatu would still be able to offer a lot to a Fiji squad now, if he was interested in doing that.

Obviously there are some potential issues with this plan but if it were to happen I think we would see PI victories as less of a shock.

A lot of thier best players hardly ever or infact never play with their national teams. For example Matanavou has never appeared for the Fijian 15s team. Thats why the PI's are suffering. Thier best players aren't playing.

Bathman

Youre on the right track, ex ABs are already going back and doing coaching in Samoa, fiji and Tonga, they just need a couplr of ex Abs or Wallabys around which to base the team.

Griff wrote:Here, found it. Probably not enough, but Wales are doing Japan next year and the Pacific Islands in a few years. I think other nations are doing similar, which is maybe why Scotland went to Samoa, I.e. the first of a new wave of tours to these nations. I think this was as a result of IRB pressure:


Welsh rugby has announced the national team's nine-year touring schedule.
Coach Warren Gatland will take his team to New Zealand for the 2011 Rugby World Cup before returning to the southern hemisphere in 2012 to tour Australia.
Wales will go to Japan in 2013 and South Africa in 2014 before the 2015 World Cup in England.
Wales will return to tour New Zealand in 2016, the Pacific Islands in 2017, Argentina in 2018 before returning to Japan for the 2019 Rugby World Cup.
The arrangements have been negotiated between the WRU and their opponents with the guidance of the International Rugby Board and exact details such as locations, dates and kick-off times for the games will be announced later
Wales' 2013 tour to Japan and 2017 tour to the Pacific Islands will involve players and coaches not selected for the British and Irish Lions tours.
Roger Lewis, the Welsh Rugby Union's group chief executive, said: "We have reached agreement on an exciting itinerary of Wales tours with fixtures against the best and most exciting nations playing the game today.
"Detailed advance planning is at the heart of our strategy to create long term sustainability for Welsh rugby both on and off the pitch.
"Our business has benefited greatly from this thinking. Our rolling five year financial and strategic plan reflects this.
"Most importantly this schedule allows the fans to consider following the team on tour.
"There are mouth-watering opportunities for our supporters to head for Australia and New Zealand where Wales will match up against the top tier nations playing the game.
"I am delighted that Wales will be revisiting Japan and Argentina which have hosted some great Welsh international encounters in the past. Most importantly the team will get to experience Japan ahead of the Rugby World Cup in 2019."
Wales' nine-year touring schedule:
2011: New Zealand (Rugby World Cup)
2012: Australia
2013: Japan
2014: South Africa
2015: England (Rugby World Cup)
2016: New Zealand
2017: Pacific Islands
2018: Argentina
2019: Japan (Rugby World Cup)

Any idea where the schedules are for other Teams ?

The International Rugby Board has insisted it was prepared to impose "significant sanctions" if it found examples of players being prevented from representing their country.

The global governing body said it would be keeping a close eye on the issue during this month's international matches in Europe in the wake of former Racing Metro backs coach Simon Mannix's allegations that the French club paid players to not be available from the Fiji World Cup squad.

The FRU confirmed on Thursday it has officially complained to Racing Metro over Jone Qovu's unavailability for Fiji's current European tour. Qovu refused selection claiming to be injured, but later played a club match.

FRU spokeswoman Talei Mow said the union would make a statement later this week indicating whether it would alert the IRB to the issue. Chief executive Manasa Barivilala is currently in England with the Fiji team.

IRB Regulation 9 forbids clubs from offering disincentives, either through "contract or conduct", to players to represent their country but critics insist officials have not done enough to enforce the rule.

But in a statement issued from its Dublin headquarters, ahead of an opening weekend of November Tests including England's match with Fiji at Twickenham, the IRB said it would act on breaches of regulation nine.

"Player release is central to the integrity and economic sustainability of the international game and the IRB continues to be proactively committed to assisting (national) unions with player release issues when requested by them to do so under regulation nine," the statement said.

"The regulation is designed to deliver a fair, equitable and proportionate framework for facilitating the release of the world's best players for international duty within designated windows without impediment irrespective of country of employment.

"This regulation goes to the very core of supporting the integrity of the international game.

"The IRB takes any breach of the regulation very seriously and acts on release issues where it is formally requested to do so by a union or if it is presented with credible evidence provided by a union or recognised rugby body that would allow it to pursue its own enquiry," the statement added.

"Unions also have a clear obligation to do everything possible to uphold the regulation within their territory or they risk significant sanctions.

The IRB also said the subject of "release issues" during this month's internationals would be on the agenda for their November meetings in Dublin.

seems like argentina are being exploited by the French clubs as well as the Pi nations

Argie Coach Santiago Phelan says:

"For this tour we had a special agreement with the French union about not taking more than two players from each club (for each game), and in some clubs we have more players so we had to think what was best for this game as they have club games in France."

Bathman_in_London wrote:One of the best ways to help the PIs would have been to allow players to 'step down' from tier 1 countries as was suggested a while ago. Realistically this would mostly be ex all blacks who are also PI qualified through parentage. Having good quality experienced players could only help the youngsters and bring an increased focus on professional training/diet etc. For example I'm sure Sivivatu would still be able to offer a lot to a Fiji squad now, if he was interested in doing that.

Obviously there are some potential issues with this plan but if it were to happen I think we would see PI victories as less of a shock.

Do the PI nations really need it though? They've all beaten the sides sitting just above them in the world rankings. Do Samoa need All Blacks to be competitive against Wales? No, they're more than competitive enough and have beaten us on a few occasions. Fiji? Nah, they've beaten us too.

Maybe tems like Ireland, Wales, Scotland should have players step down (from somewhere) so that we can challenge the All Blacks???!

It seems to me that more help could be given to PI players by getting them more involved in playing Super Rugby. The SR teams have fairly restrictive rules on the number of foreign players they allow play for them. Perhaps if these rules were relaxed somewhat and players signed up on the basis that they are an assigned PI player already, and can't be poached or sign for another country.

For example, Australia can't support five teams, and should concentrate their players into the top three teams, and make the Force and Rebels more development teams that bring in PI talent, much like the French teams hire Argentine players. The Highlanders and Cheetahs could do something similar.

SH rugby needs to become 6 or 7 nations not the three plus one it currently is.

I'm not sure if cash strapped unions like NZ should be required to support the development of players for the PIs and NH countries. Already these countries benefit from the investment (at ITM cup and Super level) in young players who then go off and play for them. You could argue that Samoa is a force in rugby only because of the players who learnt their rugby in NZ - 15 in their RWC squad were born in NZ

I'm all for PI teams being strong, but what were they like before the invention of the RWC and even professionalism? Would it be fair to say that PI teams are stronger now than they were historically.

it comes down to money. playing infront of 60k+ at Twickers and Milennium or with 20k at Apia or Suva. Unless the IRB are willing to compensate the other unions then the ABs or RSA in the Islands won't happen

If the wealthier unions were forced by the IRB to pay poorer lower ranked teams the same amount that top three teams get for an international they would be in a much better financial footing.

Player release has to be strictly monitored by the IRB. There are far too many stories of overseas players for nations being prevented from playing international rugby by their clubs.

The PI teams don't seem to need hand me down players, they just need support from the IRB.

It would also make team less willing to play for them (I think the IRB sort out the schedule so that shouldn't be a problem).

Player release is a tricky one. Is there anything 'wrong' about not signing a player because he's going to be away a lot for internationals? Not really. If PI players are away more they must expect their 'value' to a domestic team may go down. Plenty may well refuse internationals in the early days to cement their place or show their worth to a club. And then go to internationals. You can't force clubs to hire players (especially when they're looking of place to replace internationals who are away more than ever)

The best way this can be sorted out is a season restructure. Games will HAVE to be played during internationals. Only have league games played during the 6 nations (only 6 nations involved) and have LV or clear weekends for the AI (potentially all nations involved). Organize the internationals better regarding the 4Nations now too due to the Argentinos involvement (or leave it to 'encourage' more Argentinos to stay home or move to S15).

There is a good case for the IRB to limit the amount of internationals we play, also for them to have more say in who plays who for the greater good of the expansion of the game.

We are currently playing a seemingly ever increasing number of international games.

A limit of 10 per year and the encouragement of their one, top seven ranked teams, to regularly include home and away fixtures with Tier two nations, ranked 8 th to 16th would spread the wealth of the game.

Expanding the Rugby Championship to a seven nation champs including Samoa, Fiji and Tonga with only anually alternate home and away fixtures, like the Six nations, would be a huge help too.

How about the Lions doing a couple of warm up games in the PI before the main tour starts? At least get some great coverage every 4 years

The IRB do have a 'limit' of 11 for NH side (I think, it's in Reg. 9). But this is regarding free access to players rather than a true limit.

I do have a feeling that the IRB sanction every single International game and the reason the dropped the Churchill Cup was that these sides were supposed to be getting more tours.

Unfortunately everyone wants to play the 'big three', partly to make money/partly to improve themselves. Whenever a tier 2 nation players it often seems to be against a weakened side.

Riskysports, I reckon they'd be better off with one of the Lion nations doing a full tour there.

HofT - I expect so, but due to money requirements, seems quite unlikely, so while Lions in not the end result, may be a stepping stone

Well the IRB have to sanction all internationals. All they have to do is say that each nation MUST tour the PI every 4, 6 or 8 years.

As I understand it this is exactly what is happening, which is why Scotland went this year (or at least one of the reasons). I believe Wales are going at some point in the next few years.

The IRB is concentrating too on developing rugby in the worlds biggest nations like the USA and Russia. I think thats a mistake.

In my opinion the IRB should be developing rugby in smaller nations especially in western Europe.

HammerofThunor wrote:Well the IRB have to sanction all internationals. All they have to do is say that each nation MUST tour the PI every 4, 6 or 8 years.

As I understand it this is exactly what is happening, which is why Scotland went this year (or at least one of the reasons). I believe Wales are going at some point in the next few years.

Yep, and a good call IMO:

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2062854.html

profitius wrote:The IRB is concentrating too on developing rugby in the worlds biggest nations like the USA and Russia. I think thats a mistake.

In my opinion the IRB should be developing rugby in smaller nations especially in western Europe.

Yeah, developing is a funny word. We talk about development of rugby in the PI countries but in most of them rugby is the national sport and obsession. How can you develop it more than that?! Financial development maybe, but if the country is poor then it's hard to grow it financially too. Proper development, in terms of awareness and participation, should be done in places like Western Europe, like you say.

According to some NZ'ers, it's still all about money! Their way of developing the PI's is to have their players first and then give them back so they can play for their PI country. WRONG it's never going to happen.

We know we will get the same blinkered view from Kiwi's, that they were born, live etc in NZ thereforethey are Kiwi. This may all change very soon seeing how many Maori & European NZ'ers are moving to Aussie.

What is apparent is the bitterness of the media / fans who turn their nose in disgust at NZ'er who play for other nations, Quaid Cooper prime example. Fickle bunch the kiwis, after all the MAJORITY hated Henry after 2007 and wanted him gone.....how they changed eh.

We know we will get the same blinkered view from Kiwi's, that they were born, live etc in NZ thereforethey are Kiwi.

Yep. Those bloody blinkered kiwis thinking if someone is born and raised in a country they're from that country. Tut. Don't know how they have the gall.

The whole idea of allowing people to play for multiple international teams that gets brought up every time the PI's are mentioned is so short sighted. If you allow that for one nation, you have to allow it for all. You cant make special rules for some teams that dont apply to others. International rugby becomes an uneven playing field and undermines itself. Fiji and Samoa have recently been equal to scotland for example in the rankings, so shouldnt we be getting guys like Richie McCaw, Ali Williams and Adam Thomson because theyve got scottish heritage and are coming towards the end of their all blacks careers? No, that would be ridiculous. And even if it did happen, how much would these guys really add? Someone mentioned Sivivatu above, Sivivatus been at Clermont for a season and a half now, and on what hes done there I honestly wouldnt select him for Fiji over Matanavou, Nagusa, Nalaga, or Goneva. In his prime sure, but in his prime he was still playing for NZ.

Also, what happens if ex all blacks start playing for samoa and they coincidentally rise to a top 5 ranking? Do they still get hand me downs or are they now deemed good enough that they make do with one team players like everyone else. It would be quite a ludicrous situation if you had say the 2nd top team in the world was the top team from a couple of seasons ago wearing a different strip.

Imperialbigdave wrote:Also, what happens if ex all blacks start playing for samoa and they coincidentally rise to a top 5 ranking? Do they still get hand me downs or are they now deemed good enough that they make do with one team players like everyone else. It would be quite a ludicrous situation if you had say the 2nd top team in the world was the top team from a couple of seasons ago wearing a different strip.

This is the key point against the originally mooted idea. I'm not against the concept of players representing multiple sides but if it comes in it HAS to be in a way that is sensible. Until such a method is found (if it exists) it shouldn't happen.

Exactly. I think people forget how far the PI nations have come in the last few years. They are good sides. Fiji and Samoa were ranked above Scotland not too long again (although Scotland have improved a lot also).

Italy could call for this too really, couldn't they? They're around the same place in the rankings. Or is it that their players do not go to other countries? But this player drain is a myth too in terms of the PI teams. If you ask the NZ fans they'll show you that 'poaching' has actually been very minimal over the years by NZ. It has been the other way round, I.e. players born in NZ have gone on to represent the PI nations through parents and grandparents.