France pick three more non French players through qualification rules.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16022_8712873,00.html



With Japan, England and France drawing the worlds talent to their shores for the high wages on offer in club rugby the qualification issues that arise are predictable.

Every team In the world has players born in different countries. But when players move for a wage and repatriate their allegiances to the nation with the greater earning potential I worry about the future of a game that always tried to spread the game and encourage the weaker nations or clubs to improve.

Last year the Fijian coach cited France and French clubs of preventing Fijians from representing their country, now France are selecting Fijians in their squad.

Will the IRB address the qualification laws in Rugby?

red_stag wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

For me the 5 year residency rule, coupled with citizenship should be the first criteria. If you want to represent a country, prove your loyalty to that country by becoming a citizen.

Make it 7 and ill vote for you...

I find it a bit ridiculous that it would take longer to gain rugby qualification than it would to gain citizenship based on residency.

Agree. 3 is too short but 7 is too long. 5 is a good middle ground.

Five is fine, it takes six months to complete the paperwork anyway.

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:In soccer it seems the national pride in representing your nation despite working in another country supercedes rugby.

That is an important point and I wonder why?

I mentioned above...in France for example where trend was from players of African backgrounds like the French colonies (Senegal, Cameroon etc) to go to France and play for them...the next generation are going the opposite way. Still earning their money in France etc...but now electing to play for the country of their decendancy...ie their parents brith countries etc...because those teams are now becoming major global forces...

Could this happen to the likes of Alesana and Manu Tuilagi etc.....their kids playing here to earn their money but electing to play for Samoa...etc? You never know...

If you think 5 years is enough so be it.....

Oh and if you've played in one rugby code for a country...you cant change nationality if you switch code.

GeordieFalcon wrote:If you think 5 years is enough so be it.....

Oh and if you've played in one rugby code for a country...you cant change nationality if you switch code.

Agree with that.

Biltong wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:If you think 5 years is enough so be it.....

Oh and if you've played in one rugby code for a country...you cant change nationality if you switch code.

Agree with that.

+1.

Though RL's very loose residency rules could cause issues there - Lote Tuqiri played RL for Fiji in the 2000 RLWC, then switched to the Kangaroos in 2002

Brad Thorne Switched from Oz to AB etc, Henry Paul, Vainikolo....just think its pushing it a little...but i see what you mean Pete

And also add in a line which says if you have represented another country, even in another sport, you are tied to that country (Hape etc). I would also like to see the same rules brought in for coaching staff.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And also add in a line which says if you have represented another country, even in another sport, you are tied to that country (Hape etc). I would also like to see the same rules brought in for coaching staff.

Where will all the new Zealanders get jobs?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I would also like to see the same rules brought in for coaching staff.

Now thats an interesting one.

Not sure about the coaches mind...think they should be free to travel

Its definitely an interesting debate but I think you have to allow coaches that freedom to move abroad looking for work.

You have a squad of 40 guys on a rugby team. You have just 2-3 coaches on a panel; there is much less opportunity to work.

Also coaches get sacked. So for example Andy Robinson gets England job, gets sacked and therefore can never coach again? Nope it wont work.

Coaches moving abroad helps spread new ideas. For example that could be Graham Henry working with Argentina or Nick Mallet working with Italy.

Nick Mallet working with Italy..

hhmmm...Thinking about it...yup stop coaches moving

Seriously though, yeah i agree with what you say Stag..

The football comparison is interesting as there is much less playing for other countries (with the exception of some Brazillians and half the Ireland team of a while back!).

I think the reason for this is that the club game is huge in football. Players don't make their money from international games. In rugby the opposite is true, the international game is definitely top of the tree and you get very few players from 'smaller' countries who become a big success at SXV/HC level but still play for a minnow. Also in football there are fewer rules about % locally qualified players.

I guess in many ways rugby is at a bit of a crossroads in that it could either continue with making the whole system work around the international game, or it could become like football in that the richest clubs buy the best talent, but those players are able to represent their own countries without being penalised.

I wonder if there was a world club championship and that became the pinnacle of rugby, would there be less incentive for top players to change allegiances?

thebluesmancometh wrote:Take the Welsh system for example...

4 Academies offering the best facilities, best coaching and best chance of playing pro rugby in Wales, therefore for a certain position there is at best 4 players a year per position making the grade of pro rugby, take into account the competition of pro players from previous years, those who are succesfull and those who are not the conversion rate of succesfull prospects to fully fledged pro rugby players is about 6.5% (if I remember correctly)

Meaning 1 player in every position every in 16 who graduate from the academy system in a position makes it as a pro player, that is all the room there is for potential pro players in Wales, therefore every spot is precious, and only the very best is offered the chance to play pro rugby, 15 others play amateur and fall away. If Wales come across a player who can be qualified and up to the standard of pro rugby they need to fit him in somewhere to develop their player pool, wherever he comes from whatever nationality he may be.

Welsh football talent is in a potential far better place as even Welsh league football is competitive enough to keep the player depth high, they can export players to English leagues in their hundreds with no chance of ever becoming English internationals, they can cap the best players at an age early enough to tie them in (ala Giggs, Bale, Ramsey) and allow the best training facilities in the world to develop their players, rugby players do not have that option as moving to England means they are less likely to play for Wales, and the players good enough for pro rugby who move uncapped are far more likely to be offered caps by other nations through easier qualification rules.

Have any players moved to England or France and gone on to represent them in international rugby due to residency qualification? In the professional era at least

'Also coaches get sacked. So for example Andy Robinson gets England job, gets sacked and therefore can never coach again? Nope it wont work.'

Never coach an international team again. Or at least have to spend the residency period in whichever country. Just think it's weird people get so wound up about Tuilagi etc representing their country but are quite happy for the English to represent France etc as coaches.

No 7&1/2 wrote:'Also coaches get sacked. So for example Andy Robinson gets England job, gets sacked and therefore can never coach again? Nope it wont work.'

Never coach an international team again. Or at least have to spend the residency period in whichever country. Just think it's weird people get so wound up about Tuilagi etc representing their country but are quite happy for the English to represent France etc as coaches.

Would you relax your stance for lower tier nations. So for example Eddie O'Sullivan is having trouble finding work and the Georgian RFU approaches him and says Eddie we'd love you to try take us to the next level. You worked with Ireland for years and worked with USA and we are interested in showing our guys a new coaching style.

Eddie has to go coach Tbilsi RFC for three years first?

Or in fact really low IRB member states like Ghana for example. I coached a bit of rugby in Ghana for a while. If a top flight rugby coach wanted to he couldnt get involved with their national team?

Coaching doesnt really bother me what country their from strangely enough...its whats on the pitch that matters.

Stag, that must have been a great experience...im lived in Liberia for quite some time...

What was your opinion of the players you coached...real potential?

I believe the game in Africa could really take off soon...more and more are getting into the game....

HammerofThunor wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Take the Welsh system for example...

4 Academies offering the best facilities, best coaching and best chance of playing pro rugby in Wales, therefore for a certain position there is at best 4 players a year per position making the grade of pro rugby, take into account the competition of pro players from previous years, those who are succesfull and those who are not the conversion rate of succesfull prospects to fully fledged pro rugby players is about 6.5% (if I remember correctly)

Meaning 1 player in every position every in 16 who graduate from the academy system in a position makes it as a pro player, that is all the room there is for potential pro players in Wales, therefore every spot is precious, and only the very best is offered the chance to play pro rugby, 15 others play amateur and fall away. If Wales come across a player who can be qualified and up to the standard of pro rugby they need to fit him in somewhere to develop their player pool, wherever he comes from whatever nationality he may be.

Welsh football talent is in a potential far better place as even Welsh league football is competitive enough to keep the player depth high, they can export players to English leagues in their hundreds with no chance of ever becoming English internationals, they can cap the best players at an age early enough to tie them in (ala Giggs, Bale, Ramsey) and allow the best training facilities in the world to develop their players, rugby players do not have that option as moving to England means they are less likely to play for Wales, and the players good enough for pro rugby who move uncapped are far more likely to be offered caps by other nations through easier qualification rules.

Have any players moved to England or France and gone on to represent them in international rugby due to residency qualification? In the professional era at least

Not to my recollection, there are a few who couldve decided to represent Wales though Morgan for example, also the Vunipolas played rugby in Wales as juniors and I'm sure they wouldve been highlighted as future internationals by the WRU had they stayed and followed cousins Falataus route, but Englands player pool is far larger than Wales, and the national passion for the sport (as in % of nation which highlights a perceived national game) does give Welsh players a larger sense of ownership and tie to Wales IMHO.

But my point was rather the other way around, that Wales have so few pro spots available they are more likely to feel the pinch and adopt foreign born questionable qualified players, players like Tito, and Manu were viable options through the residency rule, Ben Morgan was a distinct possibility had England not been interested, and James Percival and Olly Kohn both had a shot at pretty left field cracks at international rugby because of Wales lack of depth and quality.

Considering the English team (and I'm sorry if this is just a rehash of a tired old argument) it's amazing that with their player pool, and depth of talent that they bother with the short term fixes that are foreign but qualified players such as Barrit, Hartley, Hape, Vainakolo etc...

I think that when Wales were in the duldrums of the 90's and struggling for performances and wins they tended to look outside the box player wise, plenty of questionable ties then, and similarly the English have done so since the RWC 2003 (where they had an immensely cultivated plan for RWC focus and no set plan for post RWC).

Is France doing a similar thing now, after their worst 6N for lord knows how long are struggling for answers and looking for a short term fix? Does this mean the downfall of French competition on the world stage for a while until they get their house in order?

Please though I am not slating England for being poor, or cheating etc, they are doing nothing wrong, but from all I know and remember of rugby from my childhood England were always the NH powerhouse, and I'm sure thats where they are trying to return to, but without a long term plan they'll struggle to be consistently top of the pile.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Stag, that must have been a great experience...im lived in Liberia for quite some time...

What was your opinion of the players you coached...real potential?

I believe the game in Africa could really take off soon...more and more are getting into the game....

Yes I thought they were actually very good. I organised my first rugby tour actually down there. I brought a Ghanaian U13 kids team from Cape Coast to London. I now organise rugby tours for a living.

Ghana is a former British colony so they have quite an understanding of British culture - soccer is huge there of course but rugby was surprisingly popular. I was working every day with different schools and universities coaching people off all abilities.

Sevens is the gateway game in Africa.

Bluesman..

I can tell you now as an England fan ive been dismayed with the likes of Vainikolo, Henry paul etc representing England.
You've just stated what ive been saying for years, England were so focused on winning the WC they forgot about the future...whilst clubs seemed to hire foreign journeymen. This now has changed with RFU financial incentives pointed out above...and a push towards academies churning out real local talent.

I believe the welsh issues was caused quite alot by the switches to the then professional RL which lost them a huge amount of talent...however now they too seem to be producing the goods...

Both now have the players...but we need to follow the SH ideals...have the solid core of a team, and its much easier to introduce new players one at a time and make them feel comfortable at this level...than blooding 12 players at once....

PS...Hartley's the odd one out..he has an English mother, and has been here since he was about 16... so does qualify genuinely...

Yes 7's is the big game in Africa your right Stag...but if it introduces players to the main game then so be it...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yes 7's is the big game in Africa your right Stag...but if it introduces players to the main game then so be it...

Personally I don't see 7s as a gateway game. I think it is becoming a rival code.

red_stag wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:'Also coaches get sacked. So for example Andy Robinson gets England job, gets sacked and therefore can never coach again? Nope it wont work.'

Never coach an international team again. Or at least have to spend the residency period in whichever country. Just think it's weird people get so wound up about Tuilagi etc representing their country but are quite happy for the English to represent France etc as coaches.

Would you relax your stance for lower tier nations. So for example Eddie O'Sullivan is having trouble finding work and the Georgian RFU approaches him and says Eddie we'd love you to try take us to the next level. You worked with Ireland for years and worked with USA and we are interested in showing our guys a new coaching style.

Eddie has to go coach Tbilsi RFC for three years first?

Or in fact really low IRB member states like Ghana for example. I coached a bit of rugby in Ghana for a while. If a top flight rugby coach wanted to he couldnt get involved with their national team?

I don't think those in charge would actually listen to me anyway! There is generally a bit of wriggle room for the smaller nations isn't there. I just don't accept that teams like England, France etc can't have their squads populated by people who would qualify to play for them.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bluesman..

I can tell you now as an England fan ive been dismayed with the likes of Vainikolo, Henry paul etc representing England.
You've just stated what ive been saying for years, England were so focused on winning the WC they forgot about the future...whilst clubs seemed to hire foreign journeymen. This now has changed with RFU financial incentives pointed out above...and a push towards academies churning out real local talent.

I believe the welsh issues was caused quite alot by the switches to the then professional RL which lost them a huge amount of talent...however now they too seem to be producing the goods...

Both now have the players...but we need to follow the SH ideals...have the solid core of a team, and its much easier to introduce new players one at a time and make them feel comfortable at this level...than blooding 12 players at once....

PS...Hartley's the odd one out..he has an English mother, and has been here since he was about 16... so does qualify genuinely...

Ye but it's easy to lump him in there as I just dislike the kind of guy he is.

It does sound odd, but the RWC win really set England back years, the impatience of the media and fanbase for success straight after meant every coach had to come up with a quick fix rather than build the infrastructure and foundations for long term success, which is where Wales got lucky with Graham Henry IMO.

The issue is, England has always had the talent, and player pool, it's just the wrong guys have been appointed, who brought in the wrong type of 'outside the box' thinking at the wrong times, compiled with a few false dawns that have been totally misread by the governing body.

SCW had a very special group of players and was the first coach to impliment the LTAD, localisation of players and peak performance indicators in the pro era of the game, this worked well for 12 months until the core group of players retired and everyone realised there was no plan for post RWC as SCW probably knew he was off on the final whistle.

Short term fixes such as foreign EQ players, older journeymen (Tindall jumps to mind) and the attitude of winning the next game at all costs opposed to developing a squad to win the next tournament has really hurt England and is part of the reason I like Lancaster so much, he seems to know the worth of balancing experienced players who are in the squad already while developing superior replacements, and he doesn't fear trusting youth knowing it could pay off far greater in the long run for succesfull youngsters than dropping unsuccesfull youngsters.

If Lancaster is left to do the job I think he's doing I expect England to be a real competitive force in 2015, and It wouldn't surprise me to see them and Wales qualify from the group and be challenging for the competition win

But the poinbt remains, are France following down a trodding path of proven failure both Wales and England have tasted in the past?

If any England coach/manager didn't select someone qualified because they didn't meet their standards of 'Englishness' I'd be outside the RFU protesting every free weekend. Once they're qualified they're qualified and enter the player pool as equals. The facts that most are going to experienced players means they sometimes get selected. It's got nothing to do with player pool size, etc.

Now, not selecting someone because they don't really care about representing England, it's about the money, glory, etc. No problem whatsoever but that would apply is someone only qualified for England by Birth, parentage and residency.

Also there is a slight difference between actively recruiting foreign players who are somehow qualified and making use of people who come here by their own right (but that's history right?)

The thing that does my head in is when people have issues with Botha for England and are fine with Heathcote for Scotland.

HammerofThunor wrote:If any England coach/manager didn't select someone qualified because they didn't meet their standards of 'Englishness' I'd be outside the RFU protesting every free weekend. Once they're qualified they're qualified and enter the player pool as equals. The facts that most are going to experienced players means they sometimes get selected. It's got nothing to do with player pool size, etc.

Now, not selecting someone because they don't really care about representing England, it's about the money, glory, etc. No problem whatsoever but that would apply is someone only qualified for England by Birth, parentage and residency.

Also there is a slight difference between actively recruiting foreign players who are somehow qualified and making use of people who come here by their own right (but that's history right?)

The thing that does my head in is when people have issues with Botha for England and are fine with Heathcote for Scotland.

I see what your saying, but if thats the case NZ's proximity to the PI teams, and subsequent aids offered to young PI players would mean they would stand to reap the rewards for much longer as they have in the past, don't you think any system which is set up to manipulate the flow of talent toward the few is wrong?

Would NZers be particularly happy with the NH nations setting up posts in the PI to invite young PI talent educational, social and financial support, directly or indirectly?

It has to be done carefully. Surely it has to (at some level) be able who the players want to represent? Look at Nacewa.

I still think what needs sorting out before you can sort out eligibility is what/who International Rugby is supposed to represent. It started out as the best players within that system. People seem completely dead against that, mainly because with a professional system the 'stronger' economies 'win'.

I personally don't really care for the nationalistic side. I'd prefer it was more to do with where you learnt your rugby, including as an adult as players don't stop developing. But I'm in a minority (possibly of 1)

HammerofThunor wrote:It has to be done carefully. Surely it has to (at some level) be able who the players want to represent? Look at Nacewa.

I still think what needs sorting out before you can sort out eligibility is what/who International Rugby is supposed to represent. It started out as the best players within that system. People seem completely dead against that, mainly because with a professional system the 'stronger' economies 'win'.

I personally don't really care for the nationalistic side. I'd prefer it was more to do with where you learnt your rugby, including as an adult as players don't stop developing. But I'm in a minority (possibly of 1)

I see your point, but any system even inferior ones will churn out a higher % of quality players with an influx of naturally talented players, for example the USA system has recently looked at poaching from other sports and disciplines to find natural athletes (ie Carlin Isles) and the U20 will be at the junior worlds again after winning the 2nd tier comp, now if USA rugby decide to move on from (and had some considerable funding) that to start enticing PI heritaged /Maori/Aboriginal/British juniors to move to specialised schools and colleges in the US would this be seen as an abuse? Or would it just be viewed as to how the PI parents see a route to NZ and a better life?

Not in the slightly is it abuse. Bringing in 16-18 year olds probably could be but significantly below that it doesn't mean anything. Some one born somewhere doesn't belong to that place. For example, Freddie (I think) Tuilagi's kids are in the Leicester academy. He's been in the UK since he was 24 (he had a couple of years away with Blues and Castres but don't know if his kids went with him). So his kids were probably born here and if not have been here for most of their lives.

Do they owe something to Samoa? I don't see why. If they want to play for them fine but is it an issue if they wanted to play for England?

HammerofThunor wrote:Not in the slightly is it abuse. Bringing in 16-18 year olds probably could be but significantly below that it doesn't mean anything. Some one born somewhere doesn't belong to that place. For example, Freddie (I think) Tuilagi's kids are in the Leicester academy. He's been in the UK since he was 24 (he had a couple of years away with Blues and Castres but don't know if his kids went with him). So his kids were probably born here and if not have been here for most of their lives.

Do they owe something to Samoa? I don't see why. If they want to play for them fine but is it an issue if they wanted to play for England?

Well with regards to being born somewhere of course your right, but actively encouraging a migration pattern of juniors already playing elsewhere? if Tuilagi was offered a position in the USA with the kids going with now and electing to play for USA?

It depends how old someone is. Not sure how old the Tuilagi kids are but we'll run with it anyway. Let's assume they're 14 and started at 8 in the UK. So 6 years training in the UK. If they moved to the US they would then be developing under the US system from 14 to about 18. In terms of training I don't think there's anything in it so why shouldn't he play for the US?

Now if he was around a significant amount of core development has already been done so he should have to spend a significant time in the US, training in their system before he represents them. After 5 years (the most common suggested time) he'll be 23 with 5 years in US and 10 years playing in the UK. I don't see anything wrong with that guy playing for the yanks.

I'd say a balance would need to found regarding when a national system can take some credit for developing a player. Is 5 years enough? How good would a player be after 5 years in a non-developing system?

HammerofThunor wrote:It depends how old someone is. Not sure how old the Tuilagi kids are but we'll run with it anyway. Let's assume they're 14 and started at 8 in the UK. So 6 years training in the UK. If they moved to the US they would then be developing under the US system from 14 to about 18. In terms of training I don't think there's anything in it so why shouldn't he play for the US?

Now if he was around a significant amount of core development has already been done so he should have to spend a significant time in the US, training in their system before he represents them. After 5 years (the most common suggested time) he'll be 23 with 5 years in US and 10 years playing in the UK. I don't see anything wrong with that guy playing for the yanks.

I'd say a balance would need to found regarding when a national system can take some credit for developing a player. Is 5 years enough? How good would a player be after 5 years in a non-developing system?

I'd tend to agree, but from all the research and theories on physiological development and skill aqcuisition (including my diss) the potential of a juniors abilities are instilled in the junior by the age of 13, with most physiological factors determined by genetics and the early stages of windows of trainability.

In numerous sports all over the world player ability and potential can be shown as determined before the ages of 8-12 (depending on puberty rate), and the main areas for cause can be determined as nurturing environment (propped up by genetics and biological factors).

There is a reason most sprinters tend to be black, long distance runners black, powerlifters white, that a disproportionate amount of footballers south american etc... yes there are huge cultural and social factors, but a lot of differing heritages, races are proved more susceptible to different attributes. Thats why for me NZ have always been superior, they have had the genetic boost with Maori and Polynesian participants coupled with an infrastructure that nurtures talent far superior to any other system, a lot of people talk about the weight class system being better because of safety etc... but it really does keep from positional specification too early, negates the onset of early puberty to a greater extent and the only negative I can consider is the psychological maturity differences which will effect agression and thought process', but even this can be negated later on.

I would love to be able to set up my own junior player pathway based around far superior thinking than the school system employed in the UK

Bluesman,
You'll have to excuse the late response I've been away. I'm not saying that at all. The opposite in fact. I'm saying I'm happier if players like Halai and Noholo who have arrived here as teenagers represent Tonga or Fiji rather than NZ. The other players like Muliana and Kaino came here as/or as close to at as matters, preschoolers (i.e. they've grown up here).

I always find the debate about NZ/Pacific players interesting. I'm guessing part of the issue is progressive reports by the likes of Stephen Jones. People who have, in my opinion never really understood what they write about. The reality is the issue with NZ stealing pacific players is much smaller than British papers would imply. The vast majority of players have been either born here, or been here since a young age (e.g. Mils was 3-4 and Kaino was 6).

For me the issue is essentially scouting players, bringing the overseas and those players becoming unavailable to their country of birth or heritage. The irony is that the current system provides for a stronger Samoan team. The reality most Samoan NZer's will chose the AB's (at least in terms of kids in my kids teams (mostly PI's)). It shouldn't be surprising given that they have grown up in NZ, their friends and play mates are Kiwis. It's a bit like saying NZ'ers are stealing players from England, Scotland and Ireland (e.g. Ali Williams parents are Scottish). Choosing to play rugby in Europe or league in the NRL (NZ$100,000 pa) is probably a better pay cheque than the playing NPC in NZ. The other issue is that the NZ system is totally focussed on the AB's. The reality the super 15 rosters are based on developing players for the national side. At some point players have to make make a choice. For most choosing Samoa means leaving.

My point is: there is an issue with treating players as commodities. Trading in talent with schools and clubs should be separate to the national sides. It's an issue that effects all teams. It is a minor issue in NZ, but no where as big as the British press would have us believe. Football does a better job than rugby, what's their secret.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I'm with you on this. It doesn't affect that many players. Noholo and Halai come to mind (scholarships to Wanganui and Wesley). Even though they have secondary schooling here it sits more comfortably with me if they'd chosen to play for Fiji and Tonga (they both have 7's caps for NZ).

dallym wrote:As others have pointed out, the NZ idea of PI players repping with NZ or Aus then going back to their Island is flawed.

Samoa is as good as (if not better than) Scotland. If it's to increase the competitiveness of tier 2, why let Samoa benefit and not Scotland?

Case 1. NZ born with PI ancestry. This player is a New Zealander and should be representing the All Blacks. Nationally, they are not Samoan or Tongan so they shouldn't be representing them too

Case 2. PI born living in NZ. If they come young, like Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino then they should be allowed for the All Blacks. If they come later (like Sitiveni) they should represent their Island. If we bring in the dual representation idea then this player would play for the All Blacks at their peak, and then when they are washed up they can play for Samoa or Fiji and it'll be a case of an old geezer taking up a spot that a promising youngster should have. This scenario is not helping these smaller nations.

So what your saying is it's ok to entice the special talents at a young age with promise of financial, educational and social support (ie Muliaina, Toveoa, Kaino) but to allow uncapped uncompetitive NZ players the opportunity to play international rugby is wrong?

In todays game international rugby is about such small margins, and individual players provide match winning performances every top class player to leave the PI nations (in ANY direction (including the likes of Tuilagi/Falatau etc)) weakens the PI nations teams, 100 inferior players will not aid the international set up as 1 world class player can, and lets be honest all 3 PI nations would be far stronger if they could keep hold of their best and brightest (some of the best players ever to play the game). The trend of NZ receiving the benefits of the PI nations is one that will now be followed around the world, and the big money in France and England will start cultivating PI talent of the highest quality.

I'm interested to know how NZers feel about this, if France and England (or any other nation) start making concsious efforts to outbid the quality of life offered by NZ to the best and brightest young talents in the PI's, is this wrong or is it just the trend of rugby in the pro era that teams are looking for every edge they can to gain an advantage?

thebluesmancometh wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It depends how old someone is. Not sure how old the Tuilagi kids are but we'll run with it anyway. Let's assume they're 14 and started at 8 in the UK. So 6 years training in the UK. If they moved to the US they would then be developing under the US system from 14 to about 18. In terms of training I don't think there's anything in it so why shouldn't he play for the US?

Now if he was around a significant amount of core development has already been done so he should have to spend a significant time in the US, training in their system before he represents them. After 5 years (the most common suggested time) he'll be 23 with 5 years in US and 10 years playing in the UK. I don't see anything wrong with that guy playing for the yanks.

I'd say a balance would need to found regarding when a national system can take some credit for developing a player. Is 5 years enough? How good would a player be after 5 years in a non-developing system?

I'd tend to agree, but from all the research and theories on physiological development and skill aqcuisition (including my diss) the potential of a juniors abilities are instilled in the junior by the age of 13, with most physiological factors determined by genetics and the early stages of windows of trainability.

In numerous sports all over the world player ability and potential can be shown as determined before the ages of 8-12 (depending on puberty rate), and the main areas for cause can be determined as nurturing environment (propped up by genetics and biological factors).

There is a reason most sprinters tend to be black, long distance runners black, powerlifters white, that a disproportionate amount of footballers south american etc... yes there are huge cultural and social factors, but a lot of differing heritages, races are proved more susceptible to different attributes. Thats why for me NZ have always been superior, they have had the genetic boost with Maori and Polynesian participants coupled with an infrastructure that nurtures talent far superior to any other system, a lot of people talk about the weight class system being better because of safety etc... but it really does keep from positional specification too early, negates the onset of early puberty to a greater extent and the only negative I can consider is the psychological maturity differences which will effect agression and thought process', but even this can be negated later on.

I would love to be able to set up my own junior player pathway based around far superior thinking than the school system employed in the UK

If you're talking just biology that that has nothing to do with. No-one owes anything to the environment that 'breed' any genetic traits common in that region. It may well result that the PI decented population of England goes up because of the onset of professional rugby. Great, it makes us a more diverse nation which I love.

Then there is the other issue regarding training, which is much more complicated.

Wasn't really mentioned in here (I think). Clermont have set up an academy in Fiji. Additionally, Toulouse are going to undertake a policy of buying foreign players rather than developing French players from this offseason in order to compete with teams like Toulon.

A bit off topic...but regarding genetics and regional physicality...

Michael Johnson the great olymipan did a programme recently on the black sprinters from the carribean and america and why they were traditionally the best ...

One suggestion was that during the slave days only the very strongest and fittest would survive the trips from Africa to America on the boats...the rest would die...and as they made it across the stronger genetics made them stand out. He himself came from a background of slavery.

Its an interesting suggestion and one i could possibly agree with...

GeordieFalcon wrote:
A bit off topic...but regarding genetics and regional physicality...

Michael Johnson the great olymipan did a programme recently on the black sprinters from the carribean and america and why they were traditionally the best ...

One suggestion was that during the slave days only the very strongest and fittest would survive the trips from Africa to America on the boats...the rest would die...and as they made it across the stronger genetics made them stand out. He himself came from a background of slavery.

Its an interesting suggestion and one i could possibly agree with...

Thats particularly interesting, havn't seen that any chance of a link/info?

It would make sense to a point, but there are flaws to that theory, and numerous other reasons for Carribean American performance...

One huge flaw is the African domination of long distance events, i'm sure slavery was based around selecting the biggest and strongest, yet the descendants do not have the ability on every physical front just a certain few.

Another huge flaw is the fact that one of the biggest tests for determining acceleration and speed is vertical jump height. There is a direct correlation, however the same domination of sprint events doesn't occur in other high impact events such as long jump or high jump, with white europeanss competing on an even level.

I would suggest one of the biggest factors would be social and economical. The USA and carribean islands are huge sprint fans, and the economic structure has been toward focus on these events. Therefore a genetic makeup designed greater for sprint events added to the popularity of the sprint over any other event is the more likely cause, although I have done no research it is just a theory off the top of my head and a reaction to what you suggest.

West Africans are notable for their own production of sprinters albeit on much smaller budgets, lower opportunities for children, issues with health and malnutrition and much higher death rates to their youth (potentially robbing them of future track stars).

Take away this and I would imagine the difference would be far lesser than it is between North American sprinters (assuming all are of W.African descent) and West Africans themselves.

They didn't go through the same levels of "slavery selection" as their brethren went through which you explained.... although it does sound logical but I doubt its the defined reason.

China for instance could put together a breeding program together of their finest sprinters etc to make future champions but I would bet they would never get to the levels which both West Africans or North Americans get to now... you have to have a base level of attributes to work with in the first place.

fa0019 wrote:West Africans are notable for their own production of sprinters albeit on much smaller budgets, lower opportunities for children, issues with health and malnutrition and much higher death rates to their youth (potentially robbing them of future track stars).

Take away this and I would imagine the difference would be far lesser than it is between North American sprinters (assuming all are of W.African descent) and West Africans themselves.

They didn't go through the same levels of "slavery selection" as their brethren went through which you explained.... although it does sound logical but I doubt its the defined reason.

China for instance could put together a breeding program together of their finest sprinters etc to make future champions but I would bet they would never get to the levels which both West Africans or North Americans get to now... you have to have a base level of attributes to work with in the first place.

Well that base level you say is more like a genetic predisposition and advantage, it does in no way mean every black sprinter would be quicker than every white sprinter, but it does give an advantage of susceptibility toward training.

Another example of this is boxing, the key attribute being speed of movement, generally dominated by black athletes.

I see your point regarding African potential athletes issues and the pool of talent being smaller, but then how do you explaing certain African nations domination of long distance events despite having some of the lowest mortality rates, highest levels of crime, and famine?

true bluesman...

Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on the planet. The rest of us came solely from a small number of Africans when we broke the land bridge however many thousands of years ago... only a small proportion of the people in Africa at the time.

You're 100% right. its not a black white thing... but rather Africans from certain regions. Something like 80-90% of all Ethiopian international runners come from one distinct mountain region.

Everyone thinks SA should have awesome African sprinters but we don't, at least not African sprinters bar the odd one like Chavhanga (who was from Zimbabwe). In fact the fastest rugby players and sprinters are either Cape Coloreds (Habana, new boy Peterson at the Kings) or Europeans.
Africans in SA are derived from east africa and are therefore much slower and better suited to long distance (why SA has very good African middle and long distance runners).

Some good points there guys...and again very good arguements to the one i susgested above.

Bluesman...it was a channel 4 program, ill see if i can get a link for you.


The other thing of course...kids in the developed countries sitting playing x-box are unlikely to achieve the same standards as developing countires - say fiji where they throw rugby balls around on the beach as soon as they can walk....
or in Africa where a child might have to run 3 miles just to get drinking water yet we just turn a tap...

All plays its part i think...

Done for you both

At the 2008 Olympics, every man in the 100 m final was a descendant of the slave trade. In Channel 4’s fascinating Survival of the Fastest, Michael Johnson, who won gold at 200 m and 400 m in the 1996 Olympics, set out to discover whether the brutality of slavery determined the genetic make-up of elite black athletes. This being television, it also took him on a personal journey into his own past, unearthing the remarkable story of his great-great-great aunt, born into slavery in 1851.
Johnson, a charming and intelligent narrator, presented compelling evidence that only the strongest survived the horrors of the slave trade. During the Atlantic crossings, which had a mortality rate of between 50 and 96 per cent, those with higher testosterone, thicker skin and better muscles were more likely to endure six months of beatings, low oxygen levels and lying in bodily fluids.
Genetic changes could easily have taken place within a lifetime under such extreme conditions, pointed out one of the many scientists he interviewed. Only the toughest slaves made it as far across as Jamaica, the last stop on the route from Africa. The tiny country won five gold medals at sprint events in the 2008 Olympics, whereas people born today in West Africa rarely succeed as sprinters.
The degrading selection process did not, of course, stop once the slaves had reached the Americas. The tallest and the strongest fetched the highest prices at auction. The hardiest were most likely to survive gruelling marches and the back-breaking years in the cotton fields. And the owners would force their favourites to breed, like cattle, to produce a new generation of strong slaves.
In an excellent – and thoroughly shaming – documentary, Johnson maintained just the right neutral tone, even providing one moment of glorious light relief. “The speed gene isn’t working right now,” he quipped, as he struggled to open a pack of swabs to take a DNA sample from his cheek.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Some good points there guys...and again very good arguements to the one i susgested above.

Bluesman...it was a channel 4 program, ill see if i can get a link for you.


The other thing of course...kids in the developed countries sitting playing x-box are unlikely to achieve the same standards as developing countires - say fiji where they throw rugby balls around on the beach as soon as they can walk....
or in Africa where a child might have to run 3 miles just to get drinking water yet we just turn a tap...

All plays its part i think...

Although I agree the numbers of sedentary kids in the UK has gone through the roof, the specialisation of sports at such a young age, break throughs in sport science, coaching standards rising and funding for sports increasing all will contribute to the level of elite performers rising. For similar reasons a huge amount of (underprivaliged) African athletes now train and live for the most parts in europe, the infrastructure just isn't there in that mountainous district in Ethiopia (I watched a documentary on that place). A lot of these Athletes also compete for differing nations, through loyalties to the system they etc, it is a whole melting pot!

I read recently that 2011 Gwent teenagers were the most obese in western europe - Scary!

It is only a matter of time before the perfect rugby player is bred through the perfect combo of parentage, system and development pathways, and If I could find a Polynesian woman who would have me, allow our first born son to live in Wales, but be brought up through the kiwi system, as a 6'4 inch 10, who through my carefully planned pathway has the agility of Shane Williams, the outright pace of Ngwenya, the destruction of SBW, the vision of BOD, the boot of Carter and the agression of Botha, then I will be famous in my own right for what I have acheived

And what exactly would your genes be bringing to the wonder-player blues?!