Thoughts on residency.

First topic message reminder :

Surely the whole point of the residency rules is that there should be accommodation for players who have had a period of development in a new nation and are prepared to represent them. So long as the players have pride in the shirt then why should they not represent it, it would be like saying immigrants cannot be proud of an adopted country and therefore should not be allowed to support our teams!

When it comes to this subject there may always be a level of contention regarding origins and newly qualified players being chosen over players who have always been of one nationality such as waldrom over narraway (who tweeted his annoyance earlier). I am not sure however why people bring up players such as Shaw and say he should be playing for Kenya despite spending most of his life in england and being of english heritage or joe simpson seems to be the new 'import' despite being brought up in england and playing most of his age grade rugby in the uk.

as you can see this is mainly aimed at the england situation but has equal relevance in many countries and maybe more in countries such as new zealand!

Dec 1972 so if the game was played between Jan-Nov 1994 he would still be 21

I thought the tournament was for UNDER 21's.

That's all getting a while back guys, the reason I listed the guys I did was because they were only a couple of years ago and part of the regional set up.

My understanding is that 21 year olds would be eligible they certainly are in football.You could have a 23 year old representing his country at under 21 football if it's a two year qualifying tournament.

Isn't it that you have to have been U21 at a particular date, like the 01/01 that year. I think that's how it works for the U20 now.

HammerofThunor wrote:There is a massive difference between Barbarians and proper international rugby. The fact that he's played for barbarians but has said he'll only play for Wales if desperate suggests he wouldn't play for Wales rather than he would.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/13915006.stm

Although now qualified to play for Wales under the three-year residency rule, Tito was overlooked by coach Warren Gatland for selection for the 45-man preliminary World Cup squad.

He faces still competition for second-row spots, but the New Zealander says he would relish the opportunity to make his international debut in his homeland this autumn.

"If they were in New Zealand and had a couple of bad injuries and struggling for locks and I was playing alright for the Blues, I'd put my hand up and say I'm available," said the former New Zealand Maori.

So he's not available now but if they suffered a lot of injuries to locks he would play. They point is he's not available now. He hasn't made himself available now. It's not that the WRU have decided not to pick him because he only qualifies on residency. In fact it may suggest he's been spoken to by Gatland and asked if he would play.

HammerofThunor wrote:So he's not available now but if they suffered a lot of injuries to locks he would play. They point is he's not available now. He hasn't made himself available now. It's not that the WRU have decided not to pick him because he only qualifies on residency. In fact it may suggest he's been spoken to by Gatland and asked if he would play.

The only person who ever suggested that Tito might play for wales was a Journalist. Not Tito or Gatland.

What strikes me as most interesting about the debate is the lack of debate in the English media. The arguement seems to have broadened into foriegn born and then says it's within the rules, everyone else does it, it's ok.

I think most people couldn't care less whether the likes of Armatage, Shaw, Tuilagi are included in the squad. The issue is the number of the players who have come over as professional sportsmen and then qualified.

Yes, it might be within the rules. However, the inclusion of half a dozen or so foreign players in one of the top teams is disturbing. It does undermine the international game. The failure of anyone in the British media to really explore the issue is surprising.

Like it or not, the only possible equivilent in the major playing nations is Italy. The tri nations teams are all, or close to it, home grown. I assume the same is the 6 nations sides.

Of as much interest is the pulling of NZ as an example in the British media. I guess it's the old bias. If you actually looked at the backgrounds of teams you could find better examples. Why not look at Australia for example. 6 of their players on the 2010 end of year were born overseas: Huia Edmonds (NZ), Stephen Moore (Saudi Arabia), Dean Mumm (NZ), David Pocock (Zimbabwe), Will Genia (Papua New Guinea), Quade Cooper (NZ). 4 overseas born AB's toured at the same time. It's all pointless when comparing to England as they all grew up in their countries (In the AB's case they all arrived before they started school or during primary school).

Why not use Ireland as an example: 4 foreign born players in the world cup squad. Boss and Court have both represented their native countries at sport before turning up in Ireland as adults, and only qualify through grandparents. By the way still not the same as the like of Flutey and co. Scotland is probably closer, with their Australian and English born and bred players.

So why poke the finger at NZ?

Why indeed...

Actually i think the finger is being poked in other directions than the lamentable Kiwis and their selectioneering...

It is more the amount of Kiwis, Islanders and South Africans that qualify for England at the moment that has really raised the bar

Another statistic connected to NZ's use of overseas born players is that 20% of NZ's current population was born overseas. It's a migrant nation.

Interestingly -tThe no. 1 source of migrants is Britain and Ireland - only AB out of that lot I can think of is John Gallagher but surely there are more. Next is China and SE Asia and South Africa - no ABs out of that lot yet other than Mertens that I can think of. The PIs contribute about the same number of migrants as South Africa/China/SE Asia but we have had quite a ABs out of them.

I can imagine Aus stats to be similar but probably a few more Greeks and Italians due to the old keep Aus White Policy. Anyway Migrant countries both of us.

blackcanelion wrote:Why not use Ireland as an example: 4 foreign born players in the world cup squad. Boss and Court have both represented their native countries at sport before turning up in Ireland as adults, and only qualify through grandparents.

2 of those O'Gara and Heaslip were only because there parents were away, for different reasons. In both cases they can only be considered, and would only consider themselves, as Irishmen.

Boss wont make the cut.
Court is the only player who qualifies through a grandparent (yes he did play another sport, but unlike Hape it wasn't Rugby). With no residency qualified players in the squad Ireland will have the most home grown squad in the WC of all the leading teams.

nganboy wrote:Another statistic connected to NZ's use of overseas born players is that 20% of NZ's current population was born overseas. It's a migrant nation.

Interestingly -tThe no. 1 source of migrants is Britain and Ireland - only AB out of that lot I can think of is John Gallagher but surely there are more. Next is China and SE Asia and South Africa - no ABs out of that lot yet other than Mertens that I can think of. The PIs contribute about the same number of migrants as South Africa/China/SE Asia but we have had quite a ABs out of them.

I can imagine Aus stats to be similar but probably a few more Greeks and Italians due to the old keep Aus White Policy. Anyway Migrant countries both of us.

You have to look at the age rang of immigrants too. Most of NZ's immigrants who came from Britain and Ireland are getting a bit old for playing international rugby ...

geoff998rugby wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Why not use Ireland as an example: 4 foreign born players in the world cup squad. Boss and Court have both represented their native countries at sport before turning up in Ireland as adults, and only qualify through grandparents.

2 of those O'Gara and Heaslip were only because there parents were away, for different reasons. In both cases they can only be considered, and would only consider themselves, as Irishmen.

Boss wont make the cut.
Court is the only player who qualifies through a grandparent (yes he did play another sport, but unlike Hape it wasn't Rugby). With no residency qualified players in the squad Ireland will have the most home grown squad in the WC of all the leading teams.

I don't know if he will make the final cut, but Brett Wilkinson is residency qualified.



blackcanelion, if you don't think the issue has been raised in the British media, then you must not be reading much. It's certainly an issue I remember being consistently raised since I was young and Catt first made an appearance in the 90s (and probably before then as well), when it was very heavily thrashed out.

I agree that NZ should not be 'poked' more than a number of other nations, though I would maintain that you're talking about a minority of idiot journalists like Stephen Jones and worthless message board posters rather than something raised by people and journalists whose opinion is worth anything.

I would contest your claim that "In the AB's case they all arrived before they started school or during primary school" however, Sivivatu didn't arrive till he was 17 and although Thorn was born in NZ, he moved to Australia at 8 and developed as a player there, representing Australia at league before he did NZ at union.

Re Flutey, similar to many others, I would prefer Flutey wasn't picked for England, but it's not correct to suggest he is only residency qualified, he has an English grandfather as well (a similarily lax avenue in my opinion). Fourie & Botha won't make the proper squad, Hape will be the only residency qualified player representing England.



nganboy, it's quite correct that NZ's immigrant population and heritage more than accounts for the heritage of the team. Kiwireddevil is spot on to point out that the demographics of some of those immigrant groups account for their contribution or lack of to the national side. As I raised in earlier posts, the cultural factors of the sport and the ethnic group all play a big part, and it is the grassroots of the sport that most nations' teams reflect, rather than being proportionally true to the nation's demographic.

Thorn I think is an exception again. He played league for Aus but he has never played rugby there. It would be pretty hard to not allow him to play for NZ given his connections with the country which just makes the making of rules around this rather difficult.

I should have califdied by squad I was referring to the final 30 not the training squad.

Brett Wilkinson will also not make the cut and has never played for the the 1st XV and will not do so imv. Healy and Court are better and in 12 months time Paddy McAllister will be a better player as well.

He is like Robbie Diack qualified through the project system but not good enough to put on a first XV shirt