The player blocking debate...

Thought I'd start a thread for the immensely interesting and debatable subject of younger players getting blocked and restricted first team action by senior players, or even the dreaded Non qualified foreign mercenaries!!!

This way hopefully a decent thread won't get clogged up, so what do we all think of Non qualified mercenaries taking youth players spots in first teams? Do they hold back young players or bring the level of the club up?

I think I have voiced my opinion on this before.

Whilst it is understandable that non qualified players can bring experience it is only a short term solution.

If a team only develops from within they will build a squad of experienced players anyway who can transfer that experience to newcomers.

But the reality is teams aren't only bringing in experienced players, are they?

No, look at CJ Stander, he has little experience, so why has he been offered a contract ahead of youngsters from Ireland?

Perhaps the answer is obvious?

Biltong CJ won't be getting anywhere near an irish team any time soon.

He recently played in an A game between Munster and Leinster and from all accounts he was outplayed by an 18 year old who had 0 senior caps.

CJ has shown a fair bit of talent, he has had trouble with injuries, and getting stuck behind a superbly balanced Munster backrow, he will get his shot next year and I wouldn't be surprised if he broke into the team. He has had some decent moments in the Rabo.

He has not even said that he wants to play for Ireland yet

His deal was only a two year one if I recall correctly, he will have to break up a fine backrow unit but he certainly has the capabilites.

Irrespective of whether he will make it to the Irish team, why contract a youngster if you are loking for someone to transfer experience and knowledge?

You buy players to improve your squads not for experience. Ireland don't have the never ending dept of forwards that SA have.

Biltong wrote:If a team only develops from within they will build a squad of experienced players anyway who can transfer that experience to newcomers.

What about when smaller nations can no longer hold on to those experienced players due to the cultural offer available abroad?

What about those nations whose governing body does next to sweet fanny adams to help the wheels of the conveyor belt turn?

To me, this is very complex. I think there is a balance. Clearly, clubs/franchises/regions need to be bringing up through their ranks. Not just for the benefit of their national team, but for their own growth - most players don't get picked for their national teams. A core of experienced players cannot be developed overnight. So bringing in a few non-qualified players to fill key gaps and aid with the developing of youth in the squad is good.

I don't care for bringing in older players just to fatten someone's retirement (although i absolutely do not blame the player for that!). I also don't like when teams bring in younger players which really can serve to block developing youth. if there is no one in the offing, then I suppose bring in whomever you like. But it seems there is something not quite right when it seems that significant portions of some nation's Rugby playing population is playing abroad.

I guess the point is teams need to ensure they have players moving up on a regular basis. Not all with be top-level worthy, but having this process will limit, but never eliminate, the need to bring in other players.

If a Province has say a not very good Irish lock, but the others have good locks, whats the problem with getting a good NIQ lock?

Its better to have someone who will raise the level of the squad, than do what Biltong suggests and play the poor Irish lock, as you will just end up with a very experienced crap player.

For big countries like England and France Non qualified foreign players are not really an issue as they have 12/14 top level teams with plenty of qualified players playing each week.

For Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy it is an issue, and each country handles it differently.

A NIQ player that raises the standard of the squad for me is not an issue, esp when there is a limited number of them.

eg, Ulster without our NIQ players, wouldn't have made the H-cup final last year, or prob not be in play offs this year.
With the NIQ we have given younger players more experience in bigger games and had them come into a winning team, with that better hopes of keeping our best players as they club can match thier ambition.

Without the NIQ players, more IQ players would gain experience, however they would not get to the latter stages of comps, they would lose more games than if they had the IQ players, the club could not match thier ambition as a player of silverware and as such they would find the big teams in England and France more attractive to play for. Province does win as much, big players move abroad, gates decrease etc etc.

So I am in favour of them, as long as there are a limited number and IRFU approve them to stop make such the Irish team desn't suffer, Years ago IRFU stopped Ulster getting an outhalf due to it being a problem area, however they have slipped up allowing for NIQ tightheads, they souldn't do this again.

Or the flip side say a team like Dragons that have good young players, they are 2nd bottom of the league have had a few trashings and are prob a bit demoralised, thier players leave to go to the other regions or France quite often.

If they keep brining young players through they will find it hard to move out of bottom 3 of the table, players will leave, fans number decrease.

Now imagine Dragons replaced their NWQ with 5 top class NWQ players. They are more likily to finish higher, maybe get a H-cup place, keep hold of the likes of Faletau, fans will be more willing to attend to see a winning team, and I believe the young players would learn more being part of a good team, and less likily to leave for other regions.

In all in boils down to, is is better to have X number of players getting experince, or have X-3ish getting experience in a better team at a higher level?

Kingshu wrote:Its better to have someone who will raise the level of the squad, than do what Biltong suggests and play the poor Irish lock, as you will just end up with a very experienced crap player.

That's not what I am saying.

In my view there are three options.

1. Find a lock locally by searching every amateur club in the country - That is how eben etzebeth was found, he played varsity cup rugby and that is where he was found, in fact he wasn't even playing lock at the time, so it is about searching for talent and recognising it when you see it.

2. If you can't find any, at least find a few potential locks, then go in search of an experienced ex international who can firstly bolster the regional team, but also share and trnasfer his vast experience and knoweldge onto those potentials found under rocks, in crevaces etc.

3. Find a youngster who can be a star from another county and offer him to qualify for representing your nation.

Now option 1 and 2 in my view is not only the honourable thing to do, but also the wisest, as now you are planning longterm and for continuity of player stock.

Option 3 in my view is a defeatist attitude, a short term solution and perhaps not all that honourable.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Thought I'd start a thread for the immensely interesting and debatable subject of younger players getting blocked and restricted first team action by senior players, or even the dreaded Non qualified foreign mercenaries!!!

This way hopefully a decent thread won't get clogged up, so what do we all think of Non qualified mercenaries taking youth players spots in first teams? Do they hold back young players or bring the level of the club up?

I think your wording needs to be more accurate

We are talking players and not just young players and certainly not what we commonly refer to as "Youth Players"

Stone Motif wrote:

Biltong wrote: If a team only develops from within they will build a squad of experienced players anyway who can transfer that experience to newcomers.

What about when smaller nations can no longer hold on to those experienced players due to the cultural offer available abroad?

What about those nations whose governing body does next to sweet fanny adams to help the wheels of the conveyor belt turn?

The first thing we need to do is look after ourselves (Wales) sort out our own problems and once we are sorted we can start to worry about the problems of others.

Kingshu wrote: Or the flip side say a team like Dragons that have good young players, they are 2nd bottom of the league have had a few trashings and are prob a bit demoralised, thier players leave to go to the other regions or France quite often.

If they keep brining young players through they will find it hard to move out of bottom 3 of the table, players will leave, fans number decrease.

Now imagine Dragons replaced their NWQ with 5 top class NWQ players. They are more likily to finish higher, maybe get a H-cup place, keep hold of the likes of Faletau, fans will be more willing to attend to see a winning team, and I believe the young players would learn more being part of a good team, and less likily to leave for other regions.

In all in boils down to, is is better to have X number of players getting experince, or have X-3ish getting experience in a better team at a higher level?

There is a flaw in this argument.

The O's had superstars and could field an on paper 22 that should have been unbeatable other than winning the league the team did very little else.

I'd agree with you Biltong, 1) then 2)

For me option 3) as you say is least honorable, I still have no Idea why the IRB allow a 3 year residency and the European Union make it 5 years.

Its a silly situtation where a player can turn out to represent a country in international rugby, and yet isnt a citizen of that country.

If the IRB matched the European laws of 5 years residency, then this wouldn't be so much of an issue, but 3 years makes it too easy.

I don't blame the players, I blame the IRB for this at present. Strauss for Ireland I will support, but I wish that it was 5 years. Visser could have been a big draw to promote rugby in Holland, and intrest in the national team, instead he's lining up for Scotland.

Allty wrote:

Kingshu wrote: Or the flip side say a team like Dragons that have good young players, they are 2nd bottom of the league have had a few trashings and are prob a bit demoralised, thier players leave to go to the other regions or France quite often.

If they keep brining young players through they will find it hard to move out of bottom 3 of the table, players will leave, fans number decrease.

Now imagine Dragons replaced their NWQ with 5 top class NWQ players. They are more likily to finish higher, maybe get a H-cup place, keep hold of the likes of Faletau, fans will be more willing to attend to see a winning team, and I believe the young players would learn more being part of a good team, and less likily to leave for other regions.

In all in boils down to, is is better to have X number of players getting experince, or have X-3ish getting experience in a better team at a higher level?

There is a flaw in this argument.

The O's had superstars and could field an on paper 22 that should have been unbeatable other than winning the league the team did very little else.

Durning this time did they not become the best supported Welsh region, and shirt sales were 2nd only to Munster? I also did say they were more likily to finish higher, as there are plenty of other factors that come into it. I don't see it as a flaw, if you have 5 quality players you are more likiey to do better than if you didn't.

As doctor grey says - getting the right balance is important.

Sometimes these youngsters need time to deputise. It helps their game.

E.g. Cole playing 2nd fiddle to Castro at Leicester.

Now Cole has supplanted Castro as first choice tighthead.

It has to be taken into account that not every player is going to become a international class player anyway.

Surely eventually a talented youngster will be picked up by another team if they are disappointed with their gametime?

Youngsters do also have to make most of the chances when they other players get injured.

You are correct King but the support or average gate if I remember correctly was between 6000 and 6.500 per home game.

I'm not knocking your argument I'm pointing out that often buying in oversees players is not going to bring results.

In the long term the use of NWQ's is not going to do the International game any good.

Our Welsh set up is crazy and a few wealthy men want to call the tune.

Kingshu wrote: Visser could have been a big draw to promote rugby in Holland, and intrest in the national team, instead he's lining up for Scotland.

Visser does promote rugby in the Netherlands. The fact that he is the only dutchman playing in the 6 nations and scoring tries against the All Blacks etc has raised the profile of the sport there more than anything else.

Manky-Flanker wrote:

Kingshu wrote: Visser could have been a big draw to promote rugby in Holland, and intrest in the national team, instead he's lining up for Scotland.

Visser does promote rugby in the Netherlands. The fact that he is the only dutchman playing in the 6 nations and scoring tries against the All Blacks etc has raised the profile of the sport there more than anything else.

Would George Best have promoted football in NI better, if he had played for England, in a world cup, scoring against the likes of Brazil? I don't think so, same applies to Visser.

Maybe Visser does promote rubgy a bit, but he'd promote it more playing for the Netherlands national rugby union team, and with players like the Visser brothers playing for them, they would have a better chance of making the World cup, which would really boost rugby.