Rugby World Cup - Eligibility, Poaching etc

First topic message reminder :

LondonTiger wrote:
https://rugby365.com/countries/argentina/world-cup-players-born-abroad

To try and avoid other threads getting caught up in discussions about player eligibility and following recent comments from Agustin Pichot and Danny Care I have set up this thread with the above article as a starter. Taken from a NZ website it is as you would expect defensive of NZ. A WoL article would do the same for Wales as would joe.ie etc etc.

Some key things:

Birth does not always tell the full story.

Some examples then given where place of birth is not always relevant.

Number of Foreign-born Players per Country

19 Samoa
16 Tonga
15 USA
14 Japan, Scotland
12 Australia
8 Italy, Wales
7 England
5 France
4 Canada, Fiji, Ireland, New Zealand
1 Georgia, Russia South Africa
0 Argentina, Namibia, Uruguay
The Main Donors
48 New Zealand
18 England
13 Australia, South Africa
8 Tonga
7 Fiji
6 Ireland

It should be noted that these numbers are not necessarily correct. England have 6 players not born in England, the guys writing the article just cannot count.

Now the warning (and I may regret starting this thread):

This is not an excuse to slag off other countries. Please concentrate on your own country as much as possible, after all are you actually losing players you want to keep? 

Just seen this from care as well on the bbc:

Players are just pawns. You look at it and is there much loyalty in it? Maybe not," he told Rugby Union Weekly.

"Some are given an easier route than those who worked a fair bit harder."

Subscribe to the BBC's Rugby Union Weekly podcast

Care, 32, has won 84 England caps, but only one of those has come at a World Cup. He was ruled out of the 2011 tournament with a toe injury and was third-choice scrum-half in 2015, making a solitary appearance in England's 60-3 dead-rubber win over Uruguay.

He says that he holds no hard feelings towards Heinz, who moved to Gloucester in 2015 from Canterbury-based Crusaders, but believes the current eligibility rules are unfair.

Second row Devin Toner was overlooked for Ireland's World Cup squad in favour of South Africa-born Jean Kleyn, who served out the required three-year residency period in August.

At 33, Toner is unlikely to be in contention for a place at France 2023

World Rugby vice president Agustin Pichot tweeted that he was sympathetic to Toner's predicament. The governing body has already changed the rule, extending the residency period to five years from the end of 2020.

"I started playing rugby at five in England, dreamed of playing for my country in a World Cup," continued Care.

"You do all the hard work, you stay in England, don't look to play for a club abroad to make more money because you want to play for England and win a World Cup - now that is not going to happen.

"A lot of players who have done well for whatever country and it comes to the World Cup, the pinnacle, where you hope that loyalty and hard work is paid back and it is taken away from you. That is the disappointment. That is why is hurts so much."

You can understand the bitterness but it's a little me me me and somehow being owed. Comes back for me to those comments coming out about how it's a better atmosphere in the england camp these days. Perhaps you dont want those players who perhaps spit their dummy out a little?

This just turned up in my facebook feed ...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/399759/rugby-world-cup-the-sad-truth-about-the-pacific-nations?fbclid=IwAR39uuJmLKJjA7-hLXiJVJQwSQlt_1TTCeG6dbKkgdJPe9jujo6xMG0Gm_k

Weird anti-Australian tone throughout, dismissive of Wales and Argentina, and doesn't give nearly enough credit to Uruguay, but there are some key points there that hit to the heart of the matter. Should probably watch a bit more internatinal rugby, but I really don't think Antipodeans watch the gaame outside their shores one bit, yet pretend to have a valid opinion about it (in a tone we know all too well from this site, based on assume parochialism which is actually ignorance). Anyway, still right about a few things.

Super Rugby teams sign PI players on the proviso they make themselves available to the ABs/Wallabies, or no test rugby.

NZ pick PI players for a handful of caps then turf them out and pretend the problem is with the laws. Yeah right...

And he's right, they never tour there because they're too concerned about claiming half the gate at Twickenham, instead of rebuilding Eden Park in to a more modern, larger stadium themselves.

Still think the facts are being overlooked. Fiji have killed the 'giants' of Wales in the RWC. This was Uruguay's giant killing. Credit where it's due. The standards these players play is incomparable - Fiji is full of French based players, the Uruguayans play in the US and/or for amateur clubs in S America. Add in tactical/mental naivety, and the 4 day turnaround, and you have to say Fiji hurt themselves as well as being at a structural disadvantage, which is old news by now, but not irrelevant. It's still all a bit colonial, all a bit controlling, to talk about them as if they couldn't f up the game like any other team. Because that's what happened, they got several things wrong up to and on the day itself, and they f'd it.

Fiji are infinitely better than they were 8 years ago. Wales won something like 66-0 in NZ. Boks even bigger score. Bit of perspective needed.

'Doesnt give enough credit to Uruguay'

'You don't want to take anything away from Uruguay... '
'Again, good on Uruguay,'
'Good on Uruguay. Beating Fiji represents a truly great day in their rugby history.'

Aha.

Some selective editing, there, T dog:

"Again, good on Uruguay, but this is not a time for World Rugby to rejoice."
"You don't want to take anything away from Uruguay... but...their 30-27 Pool D win over Fiji wasn't about them"
"Good on Uruguay. Beating Fiji represents a truly great day in their rugby history. For the world game, though, it's a day of sadness."
"Fiji's defeat wasn't a shock or an upset. It was actually nothing but a sad inevitability." (really? don't think so - go and see how the uruguayans spend their time between WCs)

That one in bold is just dull (said in Brian Moore angry voice).

The Fijians are playing in top competition week in, week out. Their 'access' is infinitely superior to the Uruguayans. Do your homework, Hamish, rather than rely on your prejudice - which, again, is increasingly racist and colonial and dismissive of Fiji. Praise them when they're good, but criticise them when they're poor on the field as well. They didn't front up against Uruguay. Can't mitigate that away.

After watching the Wales V Australia game yesterday I was absolutely gob smacked with the amount of Fijians, Samoans, Tongans Australia had playing for them.

LordDowlais wrote:After watching the Wales V Australia game yesterday I was absolutely gob smacked with the amount of Fijians, Samoans, Tongans Australia had playing for them.

I  think they had 4 players not born in Australia in the starting line-up (3 Fiji, 1 Tonga) and two on the bench (both NZ). I am not going to look into when they made the move to their current country, though I know some were still infants. Sounds like what we see in many teams.

NH teams currently topping every pool. The obvious big one is Wales beating Australia, where no other tier 1 North v South will now occur until the knockouts. Wales have no PI project player in their side. Only Hadleigh Parkes has qualified on residency grounds. Everyone else Welsh by blood. Good stuff, bucking the idea of the North is only successful because of SH players.

Only pool topping of note at this stage is Wales, they have won their most important match.

Old Man wrote:Only pool topping of note at this stage is Wales, they have won their most important match.

Italy top the New Zealand pool. Let's give them their rightful moment in the sun.

miaow wrote:NH teams currently topping every pool. The obvious big one is Wales beating Australia, where no other tier 1 North v South will now occur until the knockouts. 

Not sure I understand this part. Argentina and Italy are Tier 1 nations and have pool games against England, SA & NZ.

Oops...you made me look a fool now with the quick fingers.

I'll get you back. I gotta loonnnnnnnnnnnng memory.

Good point LT. I was a bit premature, and chalked those up as guaranteed wins for the favourites. Italy could shock SA, it's not out of the question, and they've effectively 'eaten their greens' with 10 points from the first two games.

That said, by and large, the 'big' tier 1 teams have avoided each other bar Pool D (Wales' pool?).

England v France, SA v NZ, Scotland v Ireland. It's very much hemispherical.

Heaf wrote:This just turned up in my facebook feed ...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/399759/rugby-world-cup-the-sad-truth-about-the-pacific-nations?fbclid=IwAR39uuJmLKJjA7-hLXiJVJQwSQlt_1TTCeG6dbKkgdJPe9jujo6xMG0Gm_k

Some of the sentiment is fine.  But it seems strange to write this article after losing to someone like Uruguay.  I can imagine the article being well timed if Fiji were spanked by one of the big bad 6N or Tri Nations sides.  You know, those nations that pilfer away the talent from Fiji (OK, maybe leave out SA from that).  But Uruguay don't have access to the top leagues.  Well, they have access.  But their players don't play there as I guess they're not good enough to get the top contracts.  There's a couple of Uruguay players in the French lower leagues.  But the rest are mainly in the US, Canada or Uruguay according to wiki.  Whereas even with the 'pilfering', Fiji's players are pretty much all with top teams in top leagues being paid very good salaries.  So I think this article perhaps covers up Fiji's poor display against Uruguay and looks to lay the blame at the feet of the top sides.  Are Uruguay super rich?  Are they attracting the best talent from the PIs or Tri nations or Europe over to Uruguay to qualify on residency?  No!  So Fiji shouldn't really be losing to them given the level of their players.  The short turnaround didn't help too.  But more credit needs to be given to Uruguay in my opinion, rather than blaming the 'sickening' behavior of rugby's top nations.

Heaf wrote:This just turned up in my facebook feed ...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/399759/rugby-world-cup-the-sad-truth-about-the-pacific-nations?fbclid=IwAR39uuJmLKJjA7-hLXiJVJQwSQlt_1TTCeG6dbKkgdJPe9jujo6xMG0Gm_k

Apart from NZ (maybe Oz) I don't think any other country is capping people who could play for the PIs just to stop them playing for their ancestral nation.  How may PI players in the NH have less than 5 caps.  Most seem to be main stays in the team. Any with less than 5 received theirs on merit but were passed out by other better players.

When it says T1 it means SH as the NH teams play a PI team nearly every year and even go there on tour.

It is also aroganance that he basically says there are 4 teams at the World Cup and everyone else except maybe Ireland are a waste of space at it.

Like in Soccer an African Team outside of North Africa is unlikely to ever win a WC because their tactics is attack, attack, attack.  The PIs do not have the ability to be one of the top  teams even with all possible players until they adjust their game style.  Until they have solid set pieces and controlled defence they will struggle.  Japan have surpassed them because they have a more rounded game and better domestic structures.

When it says T1 it means NZ players and Europe's money. Been reading more an more of the Kiwi media and watching their video output. Very illuminating. Genuinely horrific in its bias, all predicated on dominance and superiority, some of it earned, some of it delusional.

Yeah, but the single minded determination and bias of winners.

You have to be arrogant, I think.  In a constructive way.  You have to fully believe you deserve to be where you are. Humility is a weakness that lets in acceptance of mediocrity.

They can be suffocating in their tunnel vision ( the Kiwi media) - and never try to track down too much praise after your own team has done some good.  You won't find much of it.

But it's indicative of their desire to stay top of the pile.  I've read them and you learn to accept it's who they are in sporting terms, and it's served them well to date in rugby at least.  In theory, I have no issues with it - of course in practice sometimes you sigh and say still no recognition.

But then too - the English media can appear as pompous navel gazers, at least to the many Scots who always complain about the Guardian rugby coverage studiously avoiding serious analysis of them.

Irish media would I'm sure appear right up their own asses to external readers.  And of course WOL is often a favourite target for attention on these pages.  So.  It's the same old story really.  We see things more clearly about others than we often grasp about ourselves.

To a point. But this is journalists we're talking about. They're not actually part of the winning culture - more producing mythology longside it.

SecretFly wrote:Yeah, but the single minded determination and bias of winners.

You have to be arrogant, I think.  In a constructive way.  You have to fully believe you deserve to be where you are. Humility is a weakness that lets in acceptance of mediocrity.

They can be suffocating in their tunnel vision ( the Kiwi media) - and never try to track down too much praise after your own team has done some good.  You won't find much of it.

But it's indicative of their desire to stay top of the pile.  I've read them and you learn to accept it's who they are in sporting terms, and it's served them well to date in rugby at least.  In theory, I have no issues with it - of course in practice sometimes you sigh and say still no recognition.

But then too - the English media can appear as pompous navel gazers, at least to the many Scots who always complain about the Guardian rugby coverage studiously avoiding serious analysis of them.

Irish media would I'm sure appear right up their own asses to external readers.  And of course WOL is often a favourite target for attention on these pages.  So.  It's the same old story really.  We see things more clearly about others than we often grasp about ourselves.

Nice. as Miaow says it is journalism and believe me we squirm at some of the stuff our own write as well but there's a truth to what you say.

Brendan wrote:

Heaf wrote:This just turned up in my facebook feed ...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/399759/rugby-world-cup-the-sad-truth-about-the-pacific-nations?fbclid=IwAR39uuJmLKJjA7-hLXiJVJQwSQlt_1TTCeG6dbKkgdJPe9jujo6xMG0Gm_k

Apart from NZ (maybe Oz) I don't think any other country is capping people who could play for the PIs just to stop them playing for their ancestral nation.  How may PI players in the NH have less than 5 caps.  Most seem to be main stays in the team.  Any with less than 5 received theirs on merit but were passed out by other better players.

When it says T1 it means SH as the NH teams play a PI team nearly every year and even go there on tour.

It is also aroganance that he basically says there are 4 teams at the World Cup and everyone else except maybe Ireland are a waste of space at it.

Like in Soccer an African Team outside of North Africa is unlikely to ever win a WC because their tactics is attack, attack, attack.  The PIs do not have the ability to be one of the top  teams even with all possible players until they adjust their game style.  Until they have solid set pieces and controlled defence they will struggle.  Japan have surpassed them because they have a more rounded game and better domestic structures.

I think, particularly for the Islands, given the contribution they have made to world rugby, that they should be able to play for their national side (i.e the side they qualify for) when they are not wanted by others. I don't mean chop and change between tests, but perhaps something like they must declare which side they are available for 'this year, season' etc.

Their situation is unique and there is a constant of families splitting, something more foreign as a concept to Pacific Islanders than most cultures involved in Rugby.

Being able to play for their country could bring back some well deserved respect, harmony and pride to their families, and people, particularly if they are able to field teams of genuine strength.

Should Manu Tuilagi for example, no longer be good enough for England, should be able to play for Samoa, in the same way that players end their careers overseas for money, some should be able to play for their country of origin, and Tuilagi, with his families moving to England, missed a whole life of Samoan involvement. He will feel that, no matter how good he has it in England.

If you chose a country you choose it. I don't think the PIs should get special treatment. I do think u20s should not be used as a means of tying players to countries as the countries B side.. If a country doesn't have a B side then go get one or lose out.

Even if all of the players from Samoa played for them would they be a good team like Scotland but not a potential winner. Same goes for the Tonga and Fiji.

Brendan wrote:

Heaf wrote:This just turned up in my facebook feed ...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/399759/rugby-world-cup-the-sad-truth-about-the-pacific-nations?fbclid=IwAR39uuJmLKJjA7-hLXiJVJQwSQlt_1TTCeG6dbKkgdJPe9jujo6xMG0Gm_k

Apart from NZ (maybe Oz) I don't think any other country is capping people who could play for the PIs just to stop them playing for their ancestral nation.  .

What an absolute load of garbage. Wheres the proof that NZ are doing that outside some journo's assumptions.

Has Hansen said he has selected players for that reason? No.

We have many PI players in NZ either born in NZ or not born in NZ and all can play for their Island of origin.

If that assumption is correct the only reason the north arent doing it is because they contract players to club level once they have become pro's. Most of ours we develop from youth.

Is it a fluke that Te'o ended up with England, Aki with Ireland, hastings with Scotland? etc etc.

The only ones doing it obviously are the 6N sides.

Brendan wrote:If you chose a country you choose it.  I don't think the PIs should get special treatment.  I do think u20s should not be used as a means of tying players to countries as the countries B side..  If a country doesn't have a B side then go get one or lose out.

Even if all of the players from Samoa played for them would they be a good team like Scotland but not a potential winner.  Same goes for the Tonga and Fiji.

I could pick a Samoan and probably Tongan based side that would decimate Scotland. Get real. Talk about sheltered knowledge of this game and who plays it

The bigger issues for the Pacific Island sides are their crappy infrastructures and corruption in their administration. We can argue all day and night about who is ‘poaching’ who, but they often shoot themselves in the foot. Individual players might light up the game for their own nations and elsewhere but their governing bodies are often their downfall.

I’m not saying World Rugby and the bigger unions shouldn’t do more to support the game in that area but they often don’t help themselves.

Nah, its not that., They don't have the local population to either generate or support professional rugby, so they lend off others. NZ, SA and Oz have the same issue higher up the scale which is why all roads lead to the north.

Money talks, and in that respect the Islands are at the bottom of the pile.

There is no point having discussion on this forum any longer if all it has become is SH=good and NH=bad.

It really has become a cruddy place to discuss rugby.

Cyril wrote:There is no point having discussion on this forum any longer if all it has become is SH=good and NH=bad.

It really has become a cruddy place to discuss rugby.

Hopefully the more this repeated, T mght start listening.

Fortunately, the dual natonality law wiill never be allowed by WR, because if it did, it would trap the Islands in perpetual servitude to Oz/NZ. The realty is, one day, the Islands could be better than NZ. Aim for the top. Don't just accept the postion as hand me downs for the old colonialists posing as stewards and mentors.

Cyril wrote:There is no point having discussion on this forum any longer if all it has become is SH=good and NH=bad.

It really has become a cruddy place to discuss rugby.

That is the reality Cyril. Your trying to suggest solutions while behind you boatloads of professional rugby players are turning up on your doorstep, helping you win your comps.

Is there the same trend of players going south, or to the Islands? No.

Whats the point of having a have your cake and eat it too setup and expecting to resolve the issue at the same time.

Most of the Tongan, Samoan and Fijian national sides all play their rugby in the NH. We have them here as well as they have to play for some one, and some of them are club only here.

Explain how that is not a NH SH 'thing? Love to hear it.

And sorry but when I hear things like the All Blacks are holding back players just so they can't represent their Island countries I'll say something because that is the same ill conceived comments of the 'SH' by mentioning NZ and Oz.

...

Trivia time:

Interesting to see 3 Welsh head coaches at the World Cup. None of which are with Wales. Can you name which countries they’re coaching, without looking it up?!

I think I counted 6 NZ born head coaches too! Can you name the countries they’re coaching, again without looking up?!

Russia, Canada, Namibia.

Wales, Ireland, NZ (3 obvious and don’t know the rest without guessing).

Japan have a kiwi coach, Jamie Joseph. The next two are far from obvious. USA?

Fiji and Georgia!

Interestingly there are no English head coaches at the WC this time.

Yes theres a whole lot of other countries not here that have NZ coaches as well, every so often we see stories of past players popping up in the most unlikely places. One thing our players can be thankful for is the life experiences the game can provide...I guess...

Are there any other sports other than Rugby Union where the nationality of Head Coaches/Managers/Etc is seen as such a huge issue? Most other sports seem to just accept the crossing of boundaries and the existence of travel and relocating as a concept. Sometimes rugby seems very backward in this aspect.

Maybe the relatively late move from amateur to professional for the sport is the answer.

Not sure any other sport has had one team (NZ) be so dominant for so long, and with such a small number of top sides in the world. Rugby Union is pretty unique in that respect. Well, perhaps Rugby League has an even smaller number? So perhaps it’s no surprise that coaches from that NZ are popular.

I’m not saying it’s an issue either. You’ve decided that! Just pointing out the phenomenon. I just sort of stumbled across the Wales coach thing - completely forgot they were there until seeing Kingsley vs the All Blacks earlier. Then realised Lyn Jones was there and Phil Davies too. All failed club coaches, incidentally. And coaching 3 of the worst sides at the tournament! That’s why we look outside Wales for coaches!

No issue with it personally. Players, yes. I can see an issue with importing talent and residency, etc. But coaching is a job (wheres playing for a country is a privilege) and as such the job advert should be open to everyone from around the globe, just as the head of accounts for an organisation should be too. No problems with that.

Oracle, agreed. Though, my comment has more towards our NZ brethren. Money is often the deciding factor for players and coaches (and also a new challenge).

Its also availability. Every past player in NZ has an option to coach and as most NZ pro players are usually involved in winning (bar the Blues at the moment) more than losing over most overseas sides coaching overseas becomes a real option. Fact is the average NZ pro player wins their matches, and if theyre losing, its usually to other NZ sides.

With only 5 pro sides in NZ, Sevens, Maori and the ABs, 8 or 9 positions as a pro head coach doesnt meet the demand.

Maybe they could try other sports? It’s common for top sportsmen and women in Europe to diversify.

Taylorman wrote:

Brendan wrote:If you chose a country you choose it.  I don't think the PIs should get special treatment.  I do think u20s should not be used as a means of tying players to countries as the countries B side..  If a country doesn't have a B side then go get one or lose out.

Even if all of the players from Samoa played for them would they be a good team like Scotland but not a potential winner.  Same goes for the Tonga and Fiji.

I could pick a Samoan and probably Tongan based side that would decimate Scotland. Get real. Talk about sheltered knowledge of this game and who plays it

Lets hear this great Samoan team that can decimate Scotland and by inference making them a team equal or better than England, Wales or Ireland. It is not true and we all know it.  The PIs don't have the player number to produce amazing squads.  It is like saying England/Wales etc would be world champions if they could pick every player they possibly could.  There was uproar over Shields being picked by England who was never capped by NZ, but the PIs should get 50+ capped AB players who moved North and thus retired themselves from international duty. It's not like teams from Europe lost their place in this WC allowing Samoa and Canada to get in (due to only facing Germany) over a few u20 caps. Didn't hear much outrage.

If you play a few times (less then 10) when you are young I guess you might have made a mistake but 20+ AB or Oz caps, players should not be allowed to line out for the PIs.

In relation to capping players don't you remember a few years back when NZ sent a second string squad to Japan and gave out cheap caps. How many of those players could have been at the WC for the PIs but can't because NZ decieded to tie the players to NZ.

All players making whichever AB side want to make their mark for the best team available. They know full well what that means. They should not get the chance to play for the worlds best side? Hansen’s supposed to say, sorry, we think you’ll be better off with Samoa, without actually knowing that they will be. Yeah sure. He didn’t make the rules.

And yeah, easy to pick a Samoan eligible by ethnicity,side to beat Scotland.

Potentials... sonny bill Williams, manu tuilagi, Richie mo’unga, nepo laulala, Patrick tuipulotu, Steven Luatua, reiki ioane, Jerome kaino Ma’a nonu, Charlie faumuina, Ardie and Julian savea, Christian lealiifano, dalton papalii, Ben te’o, John afoa, and that’s not even having to think about it those in the oz side or all those in the nh.

A lot of these players were born raised and trained in nz but there’s no denying their talent. Tonga has Folau, the Vuniploas, Charles Piutau, Faletau and several others, all better than their Scottish equivalents.

What I’m saying is it’s ok to play for the test sides they do but Pacific island resettlement into other countries is very recent, last forty years max for the most, and that makes them unique. They are still tied to their home island and I’m saying they should be able to represent them should they not be wanted for whatever reason by the ‘other’ sides that pick them up. And I count NZ born PI’s for that reason.

Taylorman wrote:All players making whichever AB side want to make their mark for the best team available. They know full well what that means. They should not get the chance to play for the worlds best side? Hansen’s supposed to say, sorry, we think you’ll be better off with Samoa, without actually knowing that they will be. Yeah sure. He didn’t make the rules.

And yeah, easy to pick a Samoan eligible by ethnicity,side to beat Scotland.

Potentials... sonny bill Williams, manu tuilagi, Richie mo’unga, nepo laulala, Patrick tuipulotu, Steven Luatua, reiki ioane, Jerome kaino Ma’a nonu, Charlie faumuina, Ardie and Julian savea, Christian lealiifano, dalton papalii, Ben te’o, John afoa, and that’s not even having to think about it those in the oz side or all those in the nh.

So very few actual Samoans then, you know born on the islands.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Taylorman wrote:All players making whichever AB side want to make their mark for the best team available. They know full well what that means. They should not get the chance to play for the worlds best side? Hansen’s supposed to say, sorry, we think you’ll be better off with Samoa, without actually knowing that they will be. Yeah sure. He didn’t make the rules.

And yeah, easy to pick a Samoan eligible by ethnicity,side to beat Scotland.

Potentials... sonny bill Williams, manu tuilagi, Richie mo’unga, nepo laulala, Patrick tuipulotu, Steven Luatua, reiki ioane, Jerome kaino Ma’a nonu, Charlie faumuina, Ardie and Julian savea, Christian lealiifano, dalton papalii, Ben te’o, John afoa, and that’s not even having to think about it those in the oz side or all those in the nh.

So very few actual Samoans then, you know born on the islands.

Yes I edited to explain that. They are a people first, and PI’s born here still speak their own language for the most. At this tournament they should be able to celebrate who they are.

Kaino and nonu for example, should be able to play for Samoa this time. This is a tournament that should have the very best players on the planet at it. Those two for Samoa would lift the side and give Samoan fans something to cheer for and identify with.

Taylorman wrote:Kaino and nonu for example, should be able to play for Samoa this time. This is a tournament that should have the very best players on the planet at it. Those two for Samoa would lift the side and give Samoan fans something to cheer for and identify with.

If all these players were proud of their heritage, and wanted to represent the country of their ancestors, then perhaps they should have done it before switching their allegiance at a drop of a hat for the money. It's obvious that money means more than anything to these SH players.

On a T2 forum not alot of love for Canada and Samoa and their qualifying paths compared to other teams

Canada - Had three shots at qualifying.
Samoa - Three shots at qualifying.

For the next WC the America cup will determine the two WC places and playoff spot.  They believe Brazil has a 50:50 chance of beating them especially as Canada has an older team.

Their main problem is how places for WCs are by Region not playing ability for the non 6N and RC teams, this has not changed since 1999 even though the PIs are not the best of the rest they use to be.  America has 2 spots.  North America has 1 and then the loser of N. America plays the winner of S. America.  They have fixed this for the next WC.

They feel (and I agree) the the PIs get a much better deal from WR in terms of WC qualifying, international games v T1, funding and special player rules (such as the 7s rule)

When  we only focus on the PIs with a romantic nostalgia of the pre-professional era we don't see the bigger picture.  Europe is strong at T2 with 5 strong teams.  Excluding this year's mess since the first professional WC of 99 we have had Georgia, Rominia, Russia and Portugal qualify from 2.25 spots.  Spain would have made it a 5th team in 6 WCs.  If the WC goes to 24 Europe should get 2 more spots on merit.  By rankings Europe make up 50% of the top teams but are limited to only 40% of teams (5/10 10/20 15/30).  We want better teams pick them. Each country has good domestic setups and becoming more professional.  Add in the 6 professional leagues (pro14, Eng 2,  Fra 3) that are always looking for players and you can only see things improving.

Up until this year you had 7 u20 teams from Europe out of 12 at the top table. In the second tier the European quailifed team (only get one) finishes in the top 3 since 2015 (1 winner 3 second places). The teams were Georgia, Spain and Portugal so it's not like it's one team flying the flag at underage.
u20s non T1 teams
Year Non-Euro/Euo
2008 6/0 out of 16
2013 3/0 out of 12 (no italy)
2019 1/1 out of 12 (has been since 2016)

America have just had the 3 from 2.25 spots so no growth.  But changing to their new format they are likely to see Brazil push Canada.  The MLR will also help.  It is not surprising that they are copying Europe so they can bring on teams like Chile and Brazil to add to their 3 regular teams.

Africa have 1, Asia 1 and PIs 3, none changing.  These are the areas falling behind the other two. Add in that u20s has seen these area fall down aswell.  Africa is improving under Nambia but then that might also be because Namibia are getting worse. Hong Kong are stuck in no man's land as Japan are too good the everyone else not enough.  They and Japan should be put into a Pacific Nation Cup with 3.25 spots.

If WR don't start treating Tonga and Samoa more fairly we will continue to see their decline with only the odd surprises here and there.  If they actually do stuff like Fiji who has a domestic team in a professional league and 7s program where talent can be identified so they can get good contracts, Bill Mata being a great case in point.  Fiji is much more in line with the European domestic setup hence their improvement. If the RC did go to 6 teams with Fiji and Japan then Samoa and Tonga will fall more. It's also no surprise that Fiji are the only PI team at u20s at the top table.

LordDowlais wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Kaino and nonu for example, should be able to play for Samoa this time. This is a tournament that should have the very best players on the planet at it. Those two for Samoa would lift the side and give Samoan fans something to cheer for and identify with.

If all these players were proud of their heritage, and wanted to represent the country of their ancestors, then perhaps they should have done it before switching their allegiance at a drop of a hat for the money. It's obvious that money means more than anything to these SH players.

Nonu went home to try be an AB.  Like I said I can understand if a rule was done that 5 or less caps can change or the football one of only compeditive games (So RC/6N etc but not out of window games).  But are you saying that players who have 50 caps for their country like kaino, Nonu should be able to just rock up and play for their heritage because the PIs deserve it.
It's ideas like that that are ruining Samoa and Tonga, fix the problem like Fiji have done.

As LD says at what point did these players deciede they were PI rugby players not ABs.

Taylorman wrote:...With only 5 pro sides in NZ, Sevens, Maori and the ABs, 8 or 9 positions as a pro head coach doesnt meet the demand...

You have an overseas coach in charge of the All Black Sevens, though.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...With only 5 pro sides in NZ, Sevens, Maori and the ABs, 8 or 9 positions as a pro head coach doesnt meet the demand...

You have an overseas coach in charge of the All Black Sevens, though.

Currently, after about 100 years it seemed of the same kiwi one.

LordDowlais wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Kaino and nonu for example, should be able to play for Samoa this time. This is a tournament that should have the very best players on the planet at it. Those two for Samoa would lift the side and give Samoan fans something to cheer for and identify with.

If all these players were proud of their heritage, and wanted to represent the country of their ancestors, then perhaps they should have done it before switching their allegiance at a drop of a hat for the money. It's obvious that money means more than anything to these SH players.

Yes, there is that view, one I’d expect not being familiar with Pacific Island culture. Getting a pro contract is gold for some of these players but that doesn’t mean it’s not hard for them, and their families, though I wouldn’t expect those in the land of have your cake and eat it to to understand that.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...With only 5 pro sides in NZ, Sevens, Maori and the ABs, 8 or 9 positions as a pro head coach doesnt meet the demand...

You have an overseas coach in charge of the All Black Sevens, though.

And their last two head coaches needed NH international rugby experience before getting the top job.  All their other coaches that didn't go overseas where't great WC time so I guess there is something missing in NZ that the coaches need from outside.

Let's be honest who was the last  SH coach to come two a 6Nation country and hit the ground running at Club or Country. I think all the successful SH coaches in Europe had to learn new things before they became successful.  It's not like they teach all the systems Joe or Gats have down in NZ, but it's par for the course here. Listen to Rassie talk about how Pro14 made him a much better coach compared to what SR would have done.