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?

LondonTiger wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Three years residency for players like Teo who has an English mother seems fair...

Not just a mother, Te'o has a passport. You can't add residency conditions to a citizen.

Of course you can, he has a British passport not an English one.

That passport gives him the same employment rights as any other citizen.

Does it give him the employment right to play for Scotland or Wales?

It gives him employment rights in Wales and Scotland, and for now in Ireland (which he used). However non-selection for national teams have not been shown (yet) to constitute a breach of employment law. Of course in Australia this is being challenged by Folau.

Exactly, employment rights refer to club rugby not international rugby.

The Rokoduguni case comes to mind. He had British citizenship via his (active) service in the Army, but some sad sacks thought he shouldn't be allowed to play rugby for England

Funnily enough, I doubt they would have been complaining if he'd chosen their favoured country instead

LondonTiger wrote:Oracle,

I think the new 5 year residency will reduce the amount of "Project" players. Not sure when this started though. 

I would add to your Hadleigh Parkes one from England being Mouritz Botha. Ignoring whether he was good enough to play for England, he came over to work (building trade iirc) and travel. He was playing for a junior club in Bedford. He liked it and stayed here - progressing to the proper Bedford Club and getting paid to play. Then Sarries come along he develops further and eventually plays for England. He was not a loss to SA rugby (again ignoring whether England actually gained), paid his dues and was proud to run out in white.

Yeah, good example LT. Definitely not a ‘project’. And definitely not ‘nabbed’ from the home country’s system. Just happenstance I suppose.

Soul Requiem wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Three years residency for players like Teo who has an English mother seems fair...

Not just a mother, Te'o has a passport. You can't add residency conditions to a citizen.

Of course you can, he has a British passport not an English one.

That passport gives him the same employment rights as any other citizen.

Does it give him the employment right to play for Scotland or Wales?

It gives him employment rights in Wales and Scotland, and for now in Ireland (which he used). However non-selection for national teams have not been shown (yet) to constitute a breach of employment law. Of course in Australia this is being challenged by Folau.

Exactly, employment rights refer to club rugby not international rugby.

Te'o's rights as a citizen are relevant because you cannot apply a criteria to him which you do not to another citizen. The forum to appeal such decisions is the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They Court has frequently struck down capricious selection criteria.

He's a citizen of the United Kingdom not of England so his passport is fairly irrelevant, it does entitle him to play for any national team he chooses to.

LondonTiger wrote:Oracle,

I think the new 5 year residency will reduce the amount of "Project" players. Not sure when this started though. 

I would add to your Hadleigh Parkes one from England being Mouritz Botha. Ignoring whether he was good enough to play for England, he came over to work (building trade iirc) and travel. He was playing for a junior club in Bedford. He liked it and stayed here - progressing to the proper Bedford Club and getting paid to play. Then Sarries come along he develops further and eventually plays for England. He was not a loss to SA rugby (again ignoring whether England actually gained), paid his dues and was proud to run out in white.

Yes the way Mauritz Botha did it, is how it should be. He developed his skills playing rugby in England.

Teo,

A British passport does not entitle you to play for any British country, his English mother qualified him to play for England, as a result of his British mother he can have a British passport which enables him to work in Britain, but only qualify to play for England.

I think the only time you can choose your country is if you are born abroad from British parents whilst serving with the forces or the diplomatic service.

Hi Well Past It, how come children of forces or diplomatic services parents they get to choose out of all 4 nations and not just be restricted to the one/two nations of that person’s parents (e.g. English and Welsh)?

People born in the Channel Islands can represent any UK country. Perhaps the same rule applies to people like me, born in a British Military Hospital overseas?  I know it counted as British soil thus I have no entitlement to German citizenship.

It must be because as LT says you are born on "British" soil, therefore not in any of the 4 countries, not sure how that works with diplomats though.

tigertattie wrote:Its an emotive subject which causes people to think with their hearts more than their heads!

World Rugby have already increased the years for residency so that may help matters.

For me it's the Project player that I have issue with. I'll give you two examples of this to show you where I'm coming from.

David Denton, born and raised outside of Scotland, moved to Scotland for University and while here, played rugby and caught the eyes of the SRU who took him into the Scotland setup and was eventually selected to play for us. Absolutely no issue with this whatsoever. To me this is a man who moved to Scotland and ended up playing rugby for us.

WP Nel, born and raised outside of Scotland, was playing Pro rugby in SA when a SRU scout spotted him and they asked him to come over, play club rugby for 3 years and then get selected for Scotland. While I'm glad we have him, for me this shouldn’t be allowed.

And I don’t get the argument that this allows nations with not as much resources to get a fairer share of the player pool. It allows unions with more money to select the players they want!

With regards to Nel:

Initially I'd agree with you, but, in interviews he discusses his move to Scotland and the fact he has totally resettled his family here. He's on record as saying he's glad his kids are being schooled here and are growing up Scottish. He could leave any time for a big money contract in France but it seems he's just totally committed to living in Scotland with his family. If he's moved here for work and committed to working here the rest of his life and raising his family here does that still mean he shouldn't be considered scottish? Or any other migrant that wants to raise a family here and be scottish?

The same goes for Sam Johnson, he's talked about settling down with his Scottish lady and just committing setting down roots here. Aye, he was a project player but he's proper committed to being Scottish.

We're a country famous for emigrating (combination of highland clearances and subsequent colonialism) so I've got respect for anybody who wants to come here and commit to being Scottish

Theres no 1 way to qualify which makes everyone happy everytime. The point I made on the previous thread was more how eligibility and selection in general is dealt with by the rest of the squad and individuals in the group. I think everyone in this england squad is pulling in the same direction.

The problem is that whatever the rules are, you will find cases which feel unfair.

I think the consensus on here is that we want players representing our country who have a strong attachment to that country. Ideally, we would like this to be players who have developed their rugby skills while in the country, but I think most of us accept that there will always be some exceptions to this. I think this is why there's more sympathy for the likes of Botha or Fourie (who came to England to work or study) than for Nathan Hughes (who came as a pro player)

The change to 5 years residency feels to be a step in the right direction (I'd have preferred 7 or even 10, with this reduced x2 for any time resident in the country before age 18) - the issue generally is with players who are explicitly or implicitly project players, in having moved to a country specifically for professional rugby purposes and who have the aim to qualify by residency.

I accept that some (Nel seems to be a good example, and Les Vainikolo was another) settle and make their lives in their adopted country and develop a loyalty to it, but there are clearly others (Flutey being one) who are much more opportunistic.

Te'o shows that qualification by parents doesn't always feel 'morally' right, but it would be difficult to write regulations that would exclude him but include someone born and raised in England to a Scottish parent being eligible for Scotland (Hastings?).

I've said before that I have no issue with the likes of Faletau or the Vunipolas choosing the country they were raised in rather than that of their birth or heritage (indeed the Vunipola brothers show how complicated this can get, with Tongan heritage, born in NZ and Aus and raised mainly in Wales (at least for some of Mako's childhood) and England).

Cokanasinga is another interestingly convoluted story - born in Fiji, but moved to England as an infant and then was an army brat, with his Fijian father serving in the British Army in Germany and Brunei. Only moved to England permanently at about 16 or 17 years old. Obviously I have no issue with him playing for England or Fiji, but wonder if he could also have been eligible for other of the home nations by residency on army bases outside the UK?

How much of an effect does and accent have on perception if only subconsciously, I must admit that I've never questioned Cokanasiga but Hughes and Te'o always felt wrong being in the team?

Hate to say this but I also think names and physical/racial features come into it with regards to acceptability. Had Connacht signed a Kiwi centre called Tom O’Malley who went on to qualify for Ireland by residency then I don’t think it would cause as much fuss as someone called Bundee Aki with non-white European features. These players stick out a bit more and seem (in my experience) to come in for a bit more stick. Same to a lesser extent with Italian players with British names, etc.

It also seems more acceptable when this happens at a lower lever e.g. Kiwis representing Japan or Ozzie’s representing Canada (I don’t actually know if this has happened with the latter, but just as an example). When it’s the other way around it’s always deemed as rich counties buying in talent, but rarely seen that way with teams ranked lower in the rankings yet they still manage to entice these players to represent them somehow.

Sad but true unfortunately.

Soul / The Oracle

Interesting points. I think perception will vary from country to country - England is probably more multi-racial and so more tolerant of players that look and sound different (noting that there are several English-born coloured or mixed race players in the current squad). Similarly, NZ in particular has a long history of both Maori and other Polynesian players, so seeing someone of e.g. Fijian ancestry in the All Blacks jersey isn't such a big deal.

Ireland (as an example) is, or at least historically has been, less multi-racial in population (indeed, has a long history of emigration) and so perhaps someone like Bundee Aki does stand out more there than he would elsewhere. Whether this makes a serious impact on supporters perceptions of his legitimacy by comparison with e.g. a white South African residence qualified player is certainly a valid question - my feeling is that it probably does make a difference to a minority of fans, but that most would be fairer than that, and just treat each on their own merits (and of course would be strongly influenced by whether the residence qualified player is a superstar or just a good pro).

I'm having to be very careful here, as it is clearly a potentially sensitive subject...

dummy_half wrote:Whether this makes a serious impact on supporters perceptions of his legitimacy by comparison with e.g. a white South African residence qualified player is certainly a valid question - my feeling is that it probably does make a difference to a minority of fans, but that most would be fairer than that, and just treat each on their own merits.

I'm having to be very careful here, as it is clearly a potentially sensitive subject...

I appreciate you being careful, which I then ruin by selective quoting. The size of the minority always worries me a little - it seems at times to be bigger than I hope.

LondonTiger wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Whether this makes a serious impact on supporters perceptions of his legitimacy by comparison with e.g. a white South African residence qualified player is certainly a valid question - my feeling is that it probably does make a difference to a minority of fans, but that most would be fairer than that, and just treat each on their own merits.

I'm having to be very careful here, as it is clearly a potentially sensitive subject...

I appreciate you being careful, which I then ruin by selective quoting. The size of the minority always worries me a little - it seems at times to be bigger than I hope.

To go slightly off on a tangent, I actually think that the gradual acceptance of black players in football over the last 30 year or so has been mirrored by a very significant reduction in racism towards blacks in society generally - I'd actually go as far as suggesting that the success in football led the changes in society much more than any Government initiatives or education. By comparison, I think racism against South Asians has been reduced much less, especially amongst 'working class' people, noting of course that there are hardly any professional footballers from that community (iirc, there are currently 2 Anglo-Asians in professional football).

The situation is still not perfect, but there's really no comparison with the 70s or 80s...

Tramptastic wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Its an emotive subject which causes people to think with their hearts more than their heads!

World Rugby have already increased the years for residency so that may help matters.

For me it's the Project player that I have issue with. I'll give you two examples of this to show you where I'm coming from.

David Denton, born and raised outside of Scotland, moved to Scotland for University and while here, played rugby and caught the eyes of the SRU who took him into the Scotland setup and was eventually selected to play for us. Absolutely no issue with this whatsoever. To me this is a man who moved to Scotland and ended up playing rugby for us.

WP Nel, born and raised outside of Scotland, was playing Pro rugby in SA when a SRU scout spotted him and they asked him to come over, play club rugby for 3 years and then get selected for Scotland. While I'm glad we have him, for me this shouldn’t be allowed.

And I don’t get the argument that this allows nations with not as much resources to get a fairer share of the player pool. It allows unions with more money to select the players they want!

With regards to Nel:

Initially I'd agree with you, but, in interviews he discusses his move to Scotland and the fact he has totally resettled his family here. He's on record as saying he's glad his kids are being schooled here and are growing up Scottish. He could leave any time for a big money contract in France but it seems he's just totally committed to living in Scotland with his family. If he's moved here for work and committed to working here the rest of his life and raising his family here does that still mean he shouldn't be considered scottish? Or any other migrant that wants to raise a family here and be scottish?

The same goes for Sam Johnson, he's talked about settling down with his Scottish lady and just committing setting down roots here. Aye, he was a project player but he's proper committed to being Scottish.

We're a country famous for emigrating (combination of highland clearances and subsequent colonialism) so I've got respect for anybody who wants to come here and commit to being Scottish

Oh dont get me wrong Tramp, I'm glad Nel is here and I'm over the moon that he has made Scotland his home. I'm all for more lovely people with something to add to come over to our country.

My point is that there's two types of player with the eligiability question.

1. Someone who chooses Scotland as thier home then plays rugby for us
2. Someone who chooses to play rugby for us then makes this thier home

Anyone who comes here would rightfully fall in love with the place (unless you are living in Glasgow of course) so its no wonder Nel and SJ have opted to stay here, even after they finish playing rugby.  

My point is that it sticks in some peoples craw when players are chosen to move here with a view to become qualifed rather than those already here/qualifed being chosen.

dummy_half wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Whether this makes a serious impact on supporters perceptions of his legitimacy by comparison with e.g. a white South African residence qualified player is certainly a valid question - my feeling is that it probably does make a difference to a minority of fans, but that most would be fairer than that, and just treat each on their own merits.

I'm having to be very careful here, as it is clearly a potentially sensitive subject...

I appreciate you being careful, which I then ruin by selective quoting. The size of the minority always worries me a little - it seems at times to be bigger than I hope.

To go slightly off on a tangent, I actually think that the gradual acceptance of black players in football over the last 30 year or so has been mirrored by a very significant reduction in racism towards blacks in society generally - I'd actually go as far as suggesting that the success in football led the changes in society much more than any Government initiatives or education. By comparison, I think racism against South Asians has been reduced much less, especially amongst 'working class' people, noting of course that there are hardly any professional footballers from that community (iirc, there are currently 2 Anglo-Asians in professional football).

The situation is still not perfect, but there's really no comparison with the 70s or 80s...

Maybe not, but right now and perhaps for the last 3 years the position has been reversing with race related crimes on the increase. Today on the Beeb reporting about on 47% increase in hate crimes in matches last season : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49752486

Add in the marked increase in hate crimes against muslims after BoJo's Burka Letterbox comments, massive increase in hate crimes against Eastern Europeans following 2016 referendum, I am left to wonder if all we achieved was people disguising their feeling and now they feel empowered again. Sorry, complete tangent but as the father of mixed race girls I do worry.

Not sure if any of you follow two cents on YouTube

In the last few days he has done a video on where WC squads were born and then goes into if born outside the country how they quailifed.

As an example Samoa have 18 non-country born players in their squad.  All but 1 has a parent that they qualify through. The other player is a grandparent.

He talks about how of the remaining squad players many moved abroad at a young age mainly due to work opportunities.

All the PIs have terrible economies and probably every family in those islands have family members in Australia, New Zealand, USA, etc living a better life.  As we move onto the next generation these island communities in West Sydney etc where it is Samoa/Tonga culture not Ozzie culture are we going to say that they aren't Samoan and strip the small player base even smaller.  It will be something that would need to be looked at.

If WR actually put money into a PI SR team based in West Sydney area it would do more for PI rugby then lining the pockets of politicians as has been done.

A name also has an effect, I went a few years assuming that Josh Van Der Flier was born outside of Ireland for no other reason.

dummy_half wrote:Soul / The Oracle

Interesting points. I think perception will vary from country to country - England is probably more multi-racial and so more tolerant of players that look and sound different (noting that there are several English-born coloured or mixed race players in the current squad). Similarly, NZ in particular has a long history of both Maori and other Polynesian players, so seeing someone of e.g. Fijian ancestry in the All Blacks jersey isn't such a big deal.

Ireland (as an example) is, or at least historically has been, less multi-racial in population (indeed, has a long history of emigration) and so perhaps someone like Bundee Aki does stand out more there than he would elsewhere. Whether this makes a serious impact on supporters perceptions of his legitimacy by comparison with e.g. a white South African residence qualified player is certainly a valid question - my feeling is that it probably does make a difference to a minority of fans, but that most would be fairer than that, and just treat each on their own merits (and of course would be strongly influenced by whether the residence qualified player is a superstar or just a good pro).

I'm having to be very careful here, as it is clearly a potentially sensitive subject...

I was actually thinking more of perceptions from outside rather than inside. My fault for not making that clearer. I meant more that, on here for example with our Kiwi posters, I wonder whether they would take as much offence to a Tom O’Malley from New Zealand being ‘poached’ as they do to someone who sticks out a bit more in terms of names and physical features (Bundee Aki as the example). They’re able to instantly spot ‘one of their own’, google where he’s from and get up in arms but perhaps wouldn’t be so quick on the Google for an Irish named and looking fella. Dunno, maybe it’s just me! But I’ve done it myself though - remember seeing Luke McLean turn out for Italy and was instantly on to google asking myself “where the hell is he from?!”. Had he been named Marcelo DiMatteo (made that up) I doubt I would have cared to search even though he might be Australia through and through too. I just get the sense that the perception, and subsequent outrage, is different based on the ‘fit’ of these players sometimes, and perhaps how well they ‘blend’ into the background of the nation they qualify for. So we’ve only seen a bit of stick for Hadleigh Parkes for Wales, for example, but I expect a lot more if/when Willis Halaholo qualifies and is called up...... even though they will both be residency qualified players.

Soul Requiem wrote:A name also has an effect, I went a few years assuming that Josh Van Der Flier was born outside of Ireland for no other reason.

We keep posting at the same time I think! But yes I think we’re saying the same thing.

Soul Requiem wrote:A name also has an effect, I went a few years assuming that Josh Van Der Flier was born outside of Ireland for no other reason.

I went a few weeks assuming that Josh Van Der Flier was a promotional pi-sstake to gain tabloid headlines.

The Oracle wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:A name also has an effect, I went a few years assuming that Josh Van Der Flier was born outside of Ireland for no other reason.

We keep posting at the same time I think! But yes I think we’re saying the same thing.

I'd assumed South African, but interesting that in fact he's the second generation of his family born in Ireland after his Dutch grandparents moved in the 50s. It's a very easy assumption in a rugby context - lots of Van Der ...s over the years in the Springboks, so its obvious (but wrong) that JvdF is either a SA import or one generation removed.

Compare and contrast with Nathan William Jeremy Hughes - a very English name for someone Fijian born and also eligible for Samoa and educated in NZ.

I'd also make a comparison with (for example) Maro Itoje - it's not a name that would immediately suggest a different rugby identity (e.g. Polynesian).

Van der Flier is a Wesley college guy, same school as B and I Lion Eric Miller. Definitely Irish.

Lomu was a Wesley college guy as well...

Fake news

Facts are that all the top tier nations take on players as it suits them. Technically anyone who qualifies for a British passport can play for any of the British areas in addition you have all the other fluidity of movement based on a multitude of exceptions. In fairness the boks and Argentineans are the least worst ( except for the odd Namibian, Zimbabwean or Uruguayan). Everyone is doing it. Maybe pichot will put a stop to it

Soul Requiem wrote:A name also has an effect, I went a few years assuming that Josh Van Der Flier was born outside of Ireland for no other reason.

Lawrence Bruno Nero Dellaglio as an example.

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:Facts are that all the top tier nations take on players as it suits them. Technically anyone who qualifies for a British passport can play for any of the British areas in addition you have all the other fluidity of movement based on a multitude of exceptions. In fairness the boks and Argentineans are the least worst ( except for the odd Namibian, Zimbabwean or Uruguayan). Everyone is doing it. Maybe pichot will put a stop to it

And many of the nations lower down the rankings too.

Going on the name thing, so I'm probably wrong about a few, but the Japanese world cup squad seems quite reliant on overseas players:

Asaeli Ai Valu
Uwe Helu
James Moore
Luke Thompson
Wimpie Van Der Walt
Michael Leitch
Lappies Labuschagné
Amanaki Mafi
Hendrik Tui
Timothy Lafaele
Will Tupou
Lomano Lemeki
Ataata Moeakiola

Then one name that I skipped over but who is Tongan born:
Isileli Nakajima

And another who is South African with a Japanese sounding name:
Kotaro Matsushima

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:Facts are that all the top tier nations take on players as it suits them. Technically anyone who qualifies for a British passport can play for any of the British areas in addition you have all the other fluidity of movement based on a multitude of exceptions. In fairness the boks and Argentineans are the least worst ( except for the odd Namibian, Zimbabwean or Uruguayan). Everyone is doing it. Maybe pichot will put a stop to it

Namibia, Uruguay and Argentina are the only teams with no foreign born players. Of the tier 1 sides Australia and Scotland are by far the worst, and Tonga and Japan are the worst of the tier two nations. SA have 1, NZ and Ireland have 4 residency qualified players, with Wales and England much the same.

I guarantee though if the conditions were right and there was a lot of immigration to the countries with no foreign born players then they would be doing it to. There is clearly a correlation with low immigration and weaker economies and no foreign born players.

It’s the presence of a pro league/pro competition paying decent wages that seems to be the big factor here. If Namibia got a big pro league paying very good salaries then players from other countries would flock to it, no doubt. And then in 3 years some of the top players would end up playing for Namibia.

The real pissstake is that so-called top nations like England, Wales and Ireland have foreign coaches. The coach is the most important factor in a successful team and those three are relying on foreigners to drag them up to a competitive level. People in this thread are quibbling over players but a tier 1 team having a foreign coach is a disgrace.

I mean that is scraping the barrel as a wum but I do wish that WR would bring in the same rules for coaches as they do players.

Same rules for coaches? 5 year qualifying period. That’s actually a sensible idea 7.5. Well done mate.

Or obviously qualifying through parents etc. And then not represent another team.

ebop wrote:Same rules for coaches? 5 year qualifying period. That’s actually a sensible idea 7.5. Well done mate.

You’d just moan about them coming to work at clubs before becoming eligible for the national team. You’d moan about anything. You’re probably moaning about the World Cup starting and how there’s too much rugby on the TV.

The only thing Joe taught Ireland was how to play even more like Ireland than they possibly did under any Irish coach

Thanks Joe.  We bloody hired you to have us play like the blasted All Blacks!!!!  We want our money back!  We is annoyed!

Collapse2005 wrote:

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:Facts are that all the top tier nations take on players as it suits them. Technically anyone who qualifies for a British passport can play for any of the British areas in addition you have all the other fluidity of movement based on a multitude of exceptions. In fairness the boks and Argentineans are the least worst ( except for the odd Namibian, Zimbabwean or Uruguayan). Everyone is doing it. Maybe pichot will put a stop to it

Namibia, Uruguay and Argentina are the only teams with no foreign born players. Of the tier 1 sides Australia and Scotland are by far the worst, and Tonga and Japan are the worst of the tier two nations. SA have 1, NZ and Ireland have 4 residency qualified players, with Wales and England much the same.

I guarantee though if the conditions were right and there was a lot of immigration to the countries with no foreign born players then they would be doing it to. There is clearly a correlation with low immigration and weaker economies and no foreign born players.

Are you sure about Aus? I know they have quite a few players that could have played for Tonga or Fiji, but they were all born in and around Sydney. Wales have 1 residency qualified player, Parkes. The others qualified through the parent or granny rule. I've also discounted players who were born over the border, before swiftly moving back home as those are irrelevant examples.

This is a good watch in and of itself, but dear me, it's not hard to see how Kiwis get themselves in a state about who's to blame in World Rugby.

https://youtu.be/89CI15umv18?t=1178

The Six Nations are presented as these faceless, parasitic overlords to blame for all the ills of Island and even NZ rugby. No delineation between clubs and unions, no separation between any of the 6, and, frankly, a completely revisionist version of reality. Are the 6Ns to Kiwi rugby fans what the EU became to certain segments in the UK? Just read/watch/listen to the media and eventually repeat what they tell you?

Other than that it's a great sympathetic insight in to Samoan rugby that spans the space of a few days by the looks of things, and shows the challenges they face leading in the Japan. But painting the NH in these black and white terms helps literally no-one, especially when there's so little in the way of ownership on the part of NZ of their role in helping Island rugby. If their motivation was primarily altruistic - and not to keep enjoying the boon of Island genetics, with the knock on effect of trying to disrupt the NH at the same time - maybe they'd get a fair hearing. As it is, the longer they play 'big brother' to the Islands, telling them about the big, bag uncle in the north, they're hurting them more than helping them. It all comes across a bit colonial and 'you're OUR natives'.

Fiji showed today how good the Islands can be with a bit of direction and structure. Koroibete - born in Fiji - got the decisive score for Australia. Tuilagi could well be the difference between winning the WC or not. There are 3 (I think?) Island-born players in the ABs squad. The modern world's more complex than ideas of nationality and sport that existed 50 years ago. The NZ media - and Steve Tew, using it as his mouthpiece in a classic case of 'soundbite-posing-as-interview' - would do well to be honest with Kiwis. It makes sense if they're being fed this guff in such a blinkered and partisan manner that they believe the NH is something it isn't - and explains certain activity on these boards over the last few years.

Anyway, good documentary, recommend watching in spite of a few seconds of propaganda.

miaow wrote:This is a good watch in and of itself, but dear me, it's not hard to see how Kiwis get themselves in a state about who's to blame in World Rugby.

https://youtu.be/89CI15umv18?t=1178

The Six Nations are presented as these faceless, parasitic overlords to blame for all the ills of Island and even NZ rugby. No delineation between clubs and unions, no separation between any of the 6, and, frankly, a completely revisionist version of reality. Are the 6Ns to Kiwi rugby fans what the EU became to certain segments in the UK? Just read/watch/listen to the media and eventually repeat what they tell you?

Other than that it's a great sympathetic insight in to Samoan rugby that spans the space of a few days by the looks of things, and shows the challenges they face leading in the Japan. But painting the NH in these black and white terms helps literally no-one, especially when there's so little in the way of ownership on the part of NZ of their role in helping Island rugby. If their motivation was primarily altruistic - and not to keep enjoying the boon of Island genetics, with the knock on effect of trying to disrupt the NH at the same time - maybe they'd get a fair hearing. As it is, the longer they play 'big brother' to the Islands, telling them about the big, bag uncle in the north, they're hurting them more than helping them. It all comes across a bit colonial and 'you're OUR natives'.

Fiji showed today how good the Islands can be with a bit of direction and structure. Koroibete - born in Fiji - got the decisive score for Australia. Tuilagi could well be the difference between winning the WC or not. There are 3 (I think?) Island-born players in the ABs squad. The modern world's more complex than ideas of nationality and sport that existed 50 years ago. The NZ media - and Steve Tew, using it as his mouthpiece in a classic case of 'soundbite-posing-as-interview' - would do well to be honest with Kiwis. It makes sense if they're being fed this guff in such a blinkered and partisan manner that they believe the NH is something it isn't - and explains certain activity on these boards over the last few years.

Anyway, good documentary, recommend watching in spite of a few seconds of propaganda.

Blatant propaganda. They're trying to use the Pacific Islands to put pressure on the 6 nations for part of our gate receipts. Using them in other words.


Apparently NZ union earns more money than any of the Celtic unions BUT the Celtic unions have 2-4 professional teams below international level while the NZRU have super rugby teams and another semi professional level below that. I stand to be corrected on that.


And this level playing field talk is also nonsense. There's no such thing.

Brendan wrote:
All the PIs have terrible economies and probably every family in those islands have family members in Australia, New Zealand, USA, etc living a better life.

Financially and educationally poorer, no doubt. But the values of community are infinitely superior to anything in the civilised, western world. Fatness aside, it's also possible to live a far healthier life as well, but no doubt, in a beuaitful part of the planet barring natural disasters. No doubt, if you're poor in the Islands it's tough.

miaow wrote:

Brendan wrote:
All the PIs have terrible economies and probably every family in those islands have family members in Australia, New Zealand, USA, etc living a better life.

Financially and educationally poorer, no doubt. But the values of community are infinitely superior to anything in the civilised, western world. Fatness aside, it's also possible to live a far healthier life as well, but no doubt, in a beuaitful part of the planet barring natural disasters. No doubt, if you're poor in the Islands it's tough.

Very true, there’s a real sense of the wider family and community that’s not as present in the ‘western’ world, which generally prefers its tighter family unit, 2.5 kids, a mortgage and dog. Not a put down, just a difference in ‘life’ focus.

In the Islands ‘it takes a community to raise a child’ isn’t just an expression. They don’t see themselves as poor in the same way others do.

miaow wrote:

Brendan wrote:
All the PIs have terrible economies and probably every family in those islands have family members in Australia, New Zealand, USA, etc living a better life.

Financially and educationally poorer, no doubt. But the values of community are infinitely superior to anything in the civilised, western world. Fatness aside, it's also possible to live a far healthier life as well, but no doubt, in a beuaitful part of the planet barring natural disasters. No doubt, if you're poor in the Islands it's tough.

This. I remember Ben Ryan, when he was head coach of the Fijian 7s team saying that he had never seen people with so little but yet they were the happiest people he had ever seen.

People in Europe/all over the world like to pretend they're happy these days. For the most part, we lack some of the fundamentals that you need to be happy. Weird world we're living in. We've sort of lost that 90s youth culture cynicism that society is fake and false and superficial - and thrown our lot in with a youth culture based on influencers and superficial 'best lives' and virtual reality in every sense. The video I posted, you see the kids - boys and girls, all sorts of ages - playing backyard 'rugby' with a sandal, having a great time. That's the essence of the sport that's totally lost in the modern game, certainly in Europe, and it reflects wider trends as well.

Anyway, good point above about the gate revenues for NZ. Totally missed that part but you're spot on. It's even worse and just outright manipulative propaganda from Tew and the NZ broadcasting company. Pretty disgraceful stuff really, and we've seen two great performances from the Islanders so far. Let's hope Samoa make it 3.

There are plenty places in rural Ireland were its all about community.  One of the biggest struggles the PI players face is being away from home plus the burden of providing for the village.  It's a double edge sword.

He was born in Sydney and grew up in Wales and England but he thinks of himself as being both English and Tongan, just like his father, Fe’ao, who captained them the first time they played England in a World Cup, at Twickenham back in 1999. “If that’s the case,” Kefu said, mischievously, before the match, “he should be playing for us.”


Vunipola’s eyes kept darting up to the big screen so he could watch the Tongans singing their national anthem, which he knows all the words to, and after the match he joined a group of them in a prayer. “He played well against his brothers, didn’t he?” Eddie Jones said. “That’s not easy to do.” He really did have family on the other side. His grandparents were cousins of the grandparents of Tonga’s prop Vunipola Fifita. But still, Jones was being generous. Vunipola, by his own standards, struggled to get into the game. It did not help him that Kapeli seemed to keep picking him out for special treatment.

Vuna said he wants to persuade Vunipola to come back and play for them when he is finished with England. Vunipola was not having that. “I am who I am,” he said, “I’m proud to represent England, I’ve worked my whole life to be where I am right now and it’s not something I’d turn my back on. It’s just that I know who I am and where I come from.”


I thought these bits from the guardian complimented some of the thoughts on this thread.