Unshackled Joy? or Individuals Thrown Together For Mutual Profit?

First topic message reminder :

"
In our country, true teams rarely exist, social barriers and personal ambitions have reduced athletes to dissolute cliques or individuals thrown together for mutual profit. Yet these rugby players. with their muddied, cracked bodies, are struggling to hold onto a sense of humanity that we in America have lost and are unlikely to regain. The game may only be to move a ball forward on a dirt field, but the task can be accomplished with an unshackled joy and its memories will be a permanent delight. The women and men who play on that rugby field are more alive than too many of us will ever be. The foolish emptiness we think we perceive in their existence is only our own.

Victor Cahn, 1973
"

Is this ideal that was seized upon and widely celebrated at the time as both a USP for the sport and also as a kind of elevation of the societal values intrinsic in rugby playing nations, has been kicked about a fair amount since the advent of professionalism, stabbed and poisoned by globalisation and arguably the lid nailed down firmly and the coffin lowered into wet concrete by the announcement of the shall we say, diverse England extended world cup training squad.

The slow and grinding devaluation of international rugby outside of the RWC, the apparent tradability of national identity of both the individual and the team in the search for commerical and sporting success, the dilution and slow decent into irrelevance of stalwart traditions such as the Lions and the Barbarians make the sentiments above sound hollow and naive.

Does anyone still care? Or are we collectively accepting the inevitable progression of rugby into the template set by the round ball and American game? where club competitions proliferate and international games outside of the world cup and period tournaments become "friendlies" or exhibition matches?

Vainikolo lived the first 5 years of his life in Tonga before moving to New Zealand. I think both his parents were born in New Zealand.

Only another 3 years and he'll have lived in England for as long as he lived in New Zealand

I think he went so blatant he came out the other side and is back in subtle now. However, it's all relative. This 'subtle' still needs the dial turning down to somewhere below screamingly obvious.

Wise words SafeAs
Bit like that old English folk tale
Bloke goes into market and buys a leopard. Takes it home and trains it to be a ‘good’ leopard. Then employs it to guard his sheep. Comes back one day to find the leopard chewing on the ribs of a slaughtered sheep.

'I knew it' he says bitterly, 'a leopard never changes his spots'.
'
Actually', says the leopard, 'I’m not a leopard, I’m a wolf.'

'What!' exclaims the bloke - 'A wolf? in leopards clothing? I thought it I had to watch out for a wolf in SHEEPS clothing'!

'A wolf in sheep’s clothing'? sneered the wolf – 'who would have fell for that one'?

The moral of the story being, if you have bought a leopard and it urinates by raising it’s leg up against a tree, make sure you have a BIG catflap

SafeAsMilk wrote:

TrailApe wrote:Is GG a lot subtler than we give credit for?

I think he went so blatant he came out the other side and is back in subtle now. However, it's all relative. This 'subtle' still needs the dial turning down to somewhere below screamingly obvious.

The purpose of the original post wasn't to attack England. Regrettably I was forced to use England as an example, because they seem to be most guilty of this acquired mecenaryism at the moment, unquestionably due to the depth of the RFU's collective pockets.

The question is more asking if any thinks, or cares if the game is losing some of its character by the homoginisation of national sides through very lax qualification criteria and increasing player mobility.

Personally, when I watch England v A.N. Other, I want to see the best England has produced playing the English style, against the best produced in the opposition country invariably playing their style. I don't want to see "England" with a pack of gnarled South Africans, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR/pacific backs playing an opposition side comprising a gnarled South African pack, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR/pacific backs playing pragmatic style du jour whilst 80,000 fans waive irrelevant flags, sing irrelevant anthems whilst banking their hard earned into the XRFU that they feel allegience for. I think this was the point that Mr. Cahn was bemoaing all those years ago in American sports, and I thought it was interesting that 30 years later, his comparison sport of choice is falling over itself to follow suit.

Will the England team ever end up as

"a pack of gnarled South Africans, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR/pacific backs"

I doubt it

England will always have representatives who are of non anglo Saxon origin some may not even have been born here, but most of those not born here will have been educated here & played lower grade rugby here.

Unfortunately with professionalism there will always be sportsman & women who will follow the money and therefore create the residency problem (exacerbatedby the rules created by the IRB).

For the record most money now resides with France hence more non-French players playing in France, however the UK will always be easier because you won't have to learn French.

The solution would be to go back to amateur rugby

There's a difference between being resigned to something, and agreeing with it.

Just because it will happen, doesn't mean you have to like or accept it.

You don't feel in anyway, that despite the overwhelming reality that this will continue and strengthen as a trend, that it's a bit...ugly?

Quote Greyghost: "The purpose of the original post wasn't to attack England."

GG Says

Personally, when I watch England v A.N. Other, I want to see the best England has produced playing the English style, against the best produced in the opposition country invariably playing their style. I don't want to see "England" with a pack of gnarled South Africans, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR/pacific backs playing an opposition side comprising a gnarled South African pack, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR/pacific backs playing pragmatic style du jour whilst 80,000 fans waive irrelevant flags, sing irrelevant anthems whilst banking their hard earned into the XRFU that they feel allegience for. I think this was the point that Mr. Cahn was bemoaing all those years ago in American sports, and I thought it was interesting that 30 years later, his comparison sport of choice is falling over itself to follow suit.



But its fine for NZ to do it ...well apart from the fact that none of your cricket grounds in NZ can hold 80,000.

NZ to do what? There are no South African forwards playing for NZ. An all NZ back row would make sense for NZ, and NZ is a SANZAR nation and pacific island.

What's your point?

As for the folly of building the MS in Cardiff to celebrate your national inadequacy every rugby season. Laughable.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

TrailApe wrote:Is GG a lot subtler than we give credit for?

I think he went so blatant he came out the other side and is back in subtle now. However, it's all relative. This 'subtle' still needs the dial turning down to somewhere below screamingly obvious.

The purpose of the original post wasn't to attack England. Regrettably I was forced to use England as an example, because they seem to be most guilty of this acquired mecenaryism at the moment, unquestionably due to the depth of the RFU's collective pockets.

The question is more asking if any thinks, or cares if the game is losing some of its character by the homoginisation of national sides through very lax qualification criteria and increasing player mobility.

Personally, when I watch England v A.N. Other, I want to see the best England has produced playing the English style, against the best produced in the opposition country invariably playing their style. I don't want to see "England" with a pack of gnarled South Africans, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR/pacific backs playing an opposition side comprising a gnarled South African pack, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR/pacific backs playing pragmatic style du jour whilst 80,000 fans waive irrelevant flags, sing irrelevant anthems whilst banking their hard earned into the XRFU that they feel allegience for. I think this was the point that Mr. Cahn was bemoaing all those years ago in American sports, and I thought it was interesting that 30 years later, his comparison sport of choice is falling over itself to follow suit.

Whoever England pick has to play in the English style - they play for England.

Personally, I have a problem with Hape and Flutey, the fact that they're both from NZ and have both represented NZ should maybe beg the question; what's wrong with their mindset that allows them to represent both countries? This has to be a NZ issue, surely?

I do recall that Mike Catt left SA totally disallusioned by the "Boer" dominance in SA rugby that led to him being constantly berated and abused on the field for being "English" - ironic really that he then moved to England and picked up a WC winner's medal, England having dealt with SA on the way.

I've never seen England play with a pack of gnarled Saffers, a Kiwi back row and SANZAR backs - neither have you. I doubt very much whether either of us will so I still don't see your "point". What I do see is the same old same old...

Sad.

TGG likes to make things up about England. Listen to him you would have thought NZ have NEVER played a foreign born player.

Personally, I have a problem with Hape and Flutey, the fact that they're both from NZ and have both represented NZ should maybe beg the question; what's wrong with their mindset that allows them to represent both countries? This has to be a NZ issue, surely?

It doesn't "beg the question" at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I think trying to lay the blame for England's cannibalism of discarded SANZAR players when they have the largest player base in the world to choose from and more money than any other union to develop them, might be taking the anglocentric view of morality into the realms of delusion, however.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Personally, I have a problem with Hape and Flutey, the fact that they're both from NZ and have both represented NZ should maybe beg the question; what's wrong with their mindset that allows them to represent both countries? This has to be a NZ issue, surely?

It doesn't "beg the question" at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I think trying to lay the blame for England's cannibalism of discarded SANZAR players when they have the largest player base in the world to choose from and more money than any other union to develop them, might be taking the anglocentric view of morality into the realms of delusion, however.

I'm afraid you're wrong again TGG, the petito principii of your argument is that England is at fault for drafting these players into the fold, I was merely pointing out that in actual fact England extends an INVITATION to the players and the players have then to make a choice as to whether or not to accept, this is correct is it not?

Given that the players mentioned have previously pledged their allegiance to another rugby-playing nation (their own incidentally), does it not then follow that regardless of the INVITATION from England, the individuals themselves are the masters of their own destiny and by then pledging allegiance to a foreign "flag" are by very definition nothing less than turncoats?

You did actually state that England were the worst offenders and that you had little choice but to use "them" as an example, where the actuality is that it is your own countrymen that are committing the offence by so readily switching their allegiance. Unless I'm mistaken none of the other players have first represented another nation? I will stand to be corrected of course.

I thank you for raising the question of morality, it is quite unreasonable to levy an accussation of lack of morals to an entire society and it's rugby-playing structure when the "moral code" you allude to is laid down by an independent body (namely the IRB), in this instance the RFU is entitled to extend the invitations that they have and therefore the only question of morality hanging over the entire issue is whether or not the two PLAYERS I mentioned care about the very point you raised.

I fear not, the proof is fairly apparent in any case.

In a nutshell we have the circular argument that lead me to the "begs-the-question" reference that you erroneously dismissed.

Would you like a little more rope or do you feel you have sufficient now for the task in hand?

TheGreyGhost wrote:NZ to do what? There are no South African forwards playing for NZ. An all NZ back row would make sense for NZ, and NZ is a SANZAR nation and pacific island.

What's your point?

As for the folly of building the MS in Cardiff to celebrate your national inadequacy every rugby season. Laughable.

But its fine for NZ to do it ...well apart from the fact that none of your cricket grounds in NZ can hold 80,000.[/quote]

No matter which way you package it, you play more players of other countries than any other in the world but you hide behind education and other excuses. At the end of the day the players are exploited because their nation of origin in the PI's is too poor to contend with NZ.

As for trying to mock the MS and it's ideal position in Wales CAPITAL city, even sillier than your usual rudey poo GG. It's a rugby ground atleast we tore down the old stadium and started from scratch. Unlike Eden park and the cheap option to develop the cricket ground.

Greyghost you old romantic. I agree with you, rugby has lost something. But these things are cyclical. Some hot shot sports scientist will work out that bulking up on protein too quickly is counter productive and that a litre of protein shakes a day should be replaced by a few pints of a high quality stout or bitter ale twice a week. Also that psychologically, group bonding sessions in a social environment are conducive to increased motivation.

No matter which way you package it, you play more players of other countries than any other in the world but you hide behind education and other excuses. At the end of the day the players are exploited because their nation of origin in the PI's is too poor to contend with NZ.

I sincerely hope you have some statistics to back up that bold claim - lest you be referred to the moderators.

I also thought we'd put to bed the tired NH incorrect perception that NZ is somehow exploiting the Pacific Islands and denuding them of their natural talent. Sigh. I guess I'll just keep having to flog the dead horse until the message gets through.

Grey Ghost.

Are you not bored of this topic yet?

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Personally, I have a problem with Hape and Flutey, the fact that they're both from NZ and have both represented NZ should maybe beg the question; what's wrong with their mindset that allows them to represent both countries? This has to be a NZ issue, surely?

It doesn't "beg the question" at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I think trying to lay the blame for England's cannibalism of discarded SANZAR players when they have the largest player base in the world to choose from and more money than any other union to develop them, might be taking the anglocentric view of morality into the realms of delusion, however.

A large part of the RFU's player base is made up of players from SANZAR countries at all levels of the game, even at amateur level. If we're saying these players shouldn't play for England, then they can't be used as part of an analysis on the English player base.

Not when someone serves up some juicy bait like:

"you play more players of other countries than any other in the world but you hide behind education and other excuses"

its hard is suppose to justify england taking players from other countries when they have stunning players. the likes of haskel, flood, tindell, deacon, ashton banahan cueto easter etc

TheGreyGhost wrote:

No matter which way you package it, you play more players of other countries than any other in the world but you hide behind education and other excuses. At the end of the day the players are exploited because their nation of origin in the PI's is too poor to contend with NZ.

I sincerely hope you have some statistics to back up that bold claim - lest you be referred to the moderators.

I also thought we'd put to bed the tired NH incorrect perception that NZ is somehow exploiting the Pacific Islands and denuding them of their natural talent. Sigh. I guess I'll just keep having to flog the dead horse until the message gets through.

Statistic's.......just looks at the players names me old china, full of PI names none of which are common to NZ people. As for statistics, you are the first oh dear to run for cover when asked for evidence for some of the dross you spew out here.

Ok...evidence

Current training squad

Chiefs:
Ben Afeaki (Born NZ),
Hikawera Elliot (Born NZ),
Richard Kahui (Born NZ),
Brendon Leonard (Born NZ),
Liam Messam (Born NZ),
Mils Muliaina (Born Samoa, moved to NZ at 2)
Sitiveni Sivivatu (Born Fiji, moved to NZ aged 17)

Hurricanes:
Aaron Cruden (Born NZ),
Hosea Gear (Born NZ),
Andrew Hore (Born NZ),
Cory Jane (Born NZ),
Ma'a Nonu (Born NZ),
Conrad Smith (Born NZ),
Neemia Tialata (Born NZ),
Victor Vito (Born NZ)
Piri Weepu (Born NZ)

Highlanders:
Jimmy Cowan (Born NZ)
Tom Donnelly (Born NZ)
Jarrad Hoeata (Born NZ)
Colin Slade (Born NZ)
Ben Smith (Born NZ)
Adam Thomson (Born NZ)

So far there are two players not born in NZ and one of those moved to NZ at 2.

When the rest of the players get added it would be easy to do the same with them.

Thanks Hammer -ignorance of the reality, of the system in NZ, seems widespread in the NH.

WelshJohn 369 please provide examples from current palyers who back up your claim - otherwise your statement has zero validity.

Unless you reckon the Kiwis are so good at talent spotting they knew Mils was going to be an AB at 2 - boy that is some scouting system they have !

As for that tripe about ' full of PI names none of which are common to NZ people' - this shows an ignorance of the history of that part of the world it is laughable.

Also we have a young lad at Ulster called Gaston (Norman French surname) -he will be devastated he should not play for Ireland because he has the wrong surname.

geoff998rugby wrote:Thanks Hammer -ignorance of the reality, of the system in NZ, seems widespread in the NH.

WelshJohn 369 please provide examples from current palyers who back up your claim - otherwise your statement has zero validity.

Unless you reckon the Kiwis are so good at talent spotting they knew Mils was going to be an AB at 2 - boy that is some scouting system they have !

As for that tripe about ' full of PI names none of which are common to NZ people' - this shows an ignorance of the history of that part of the world it is laughable.

Also we have a young lad at Ulster called Gaston (Norman French surname) -he will be devastated he should not play for Ireland because he has the wrong surname.

Hey Geoff I live in New Zealand and have done for more than 20 years so enough of the BS pal.
If you know the economic implications of the PI's you would understand why the PI's come to NZ and Australia. Rather than these giants of the Pacifiaca area helping the PI's they sponge the life out of the population who make their home in NZ & Aussie.

I can not talk for Aussie but NZ is about the 3rd fattest nation on the planet (please refer to WHO for stats) Maori being the worse in NZ. PI's are bigger and better than Maori in general and play rugby better. Just look atthe League players in Aussie too. Gold mine for the big 2 down under, dont expect much else..hence all the PI names in the AB's.

Naturally it's Soooooooooooooooooooo different should a NH country poach a player.

The economic mismatch between NZ/Australia and the PI is a much wider question which is worthy of debate.

However you were claiming that NZ are selecting players from other countries which the figures Hammer provided suggest otherwise. Are you suggesting we turn the clock back and only allow people to play from where their ancestors come from. No one with an European ancestary plays for SA, NZ, USA, Canada and Australia for example.


People move for whatever reason, often economic, and settle elsewhere. Are you saying 2nd, 3rd generation people from the PI should not play for NZ ?

No one Hammer listed can be considered a play poached by NZ and only Sivi can be considered a nationailty that is argueable (most people would suggest he has joint Fiji/NZ natioanlity) - the rest are Kiwis by any rational yardstick.

This is going full circle.

Is it safe to assume that if the individual did not come over to the respective country specifically to play professional rugby (either Union or League) then it is ok for them to play for the adopted country?

Is it safe to assume that if the individual come over to the respective country as a child i.e. under 16 years of age then it is ok for them to play for the adopted country?

This ignores the IRB rules but may stop some of the sly digs

I've got no problem with people coming over for professional rugby contracts qualifying. As long as the respective union is not involved in bringing the player over. Why should it matter what the job is? It means that countries with large economic club game has an advantage but they would anyway as they generally encourage immigration.

And that is the point. Of the players named by NZ so far all bar 2 were born in NZ and one of the others went there when he was 2.

If England want to pick "Barney" Waldrum for RWC touring squad then fine, thats their choice.and that someone does check Nannas birth certificate.
In Fact it its probably a good thing.
but come october,If Barney's old Crusader team mate Richie rings, then Barney is honour bound to tell Richie all the moves and calls.....

I would be delighted if England actually had some moves besides the usual;
1. No. 8 pick up & trundle into the oppo back row
2. Flood feed to Ashton on the inside shoulder
3. Hape / Tindall crash ball & failed offload
4. Pass ball down the line whilst across the pitch so the winger has 2" of space to run into

But I would be even more delighted if NZ hadn't spotted this yet!!!

just looks at the players names me old china, full of PI names none of which are common to NZ people.

Yes that's right. People who don't have European sounding names couldn't possibly be from NZ.

Just remind me which of the NZ training squad for the RWC don't have New Zealandy sounding enough names for your nationality criteria?

Just remind me which of the NZ training squad for the RWC don't have New Zealandy sounding enough names for your nationality criteria?.
TheGreyGhost


I'll go for a name in the Junior RWC - The baby blacks if you like - How about Rhys Llewellyn

Rhys Llewellyn.

That's a good King Country name. What're you talking about ?

just looks at the players names me old china, full of PI names none of which are common to NZ people.

???? Next you'll be saying Kurtley Beale isn't Australian cause he doesn't have an "Australian" sounding name.

Or trying to suggest that Manu Tuilagi doesn't "sound" very English...

Manu Tuilagi should change his name to Ethelbert Godwin. Good Saxon name that!

caoimhincentre wrote:In all fairness to england, many of these players won't be selected in the 30 man world cups squad.
So effectively what MJ has done is outsourced tackle bag holders

That's purely conjecture though. I don't see better options for England at center, and Waldrom as the AP player of the year (or whatever it was) will be hard to ignore surely?

TheGreyGhost wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:In all fairness to england, many of these players won't be selected in the 30 man world cups squad.
So effectively what MJ has done is outsourced tackle bag holders

That's purely conjecture though. I don't see better options for England at center, and Waldrom as the AP player of the year (or whatever it was) will be hard to ignore surely?

Seriously GG, i really hope Waldrom isn't picked. It would be a travesty! I think he'll go with Hape and Flutey as he doesn't seem to rate any of the other alternatives butplease not Waldrom!!!!

TheGreyGhost wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:In all fairness to england, many of these players won't be selected in the 30 man world cups squad.
So effectively what MJ has done is outsourced tackle bag holders

That's purely conjecture though. I don't see better options for England at center, and Waldrom as the AP player of the year (or whatever it was) will be hard to ignore surely?

I'm sure he won't be ignored. Sure won't he be told to hold the tackle bags by johnson.

I'm just wondering what the quorum of kiwis/SANZAR players would need to be before I support England as my second team. It's a problem, it could spark an existential crisis that would cost a fortune in counselling.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I'm just wondering what the quorum of kiwis/SANZAR players would need to be before I support England as my second team. It's a problem, it could spark an existential crisis that would cost a fortune in counselling.

Maybe the RFU will start to hire supporters for other countries too. You could be the first flag bearer

I'm so tempted to say "I wonder what flag that would be ". But I won't. I'm sure it would just start a fight. And we wouldn't want that.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I'm so tempted to say "I wonder what flag that would be ". But I won't. I'm sure it would just start a fight. And we wouldn't want that.

Well there's a St George's Cross in your one as it is.

Ironic, isn't it?

Apparently no one has raised the issue with MJ, which is interesting given the noise about it in the media:

"Asked if he could see why the sizeable foreign contingent within English ranks might jar with some observers, Johnson was nonplussed. "I've not had that feedback from anyone.""

"Asked what sort of message the selection of Botha, who qualifies through residency, and Waldrom, who has an English grandparent, would send to young English players, Johnson was emphatic: "Be good.""

"Be good"

Excellent reply from Jonno.

As MJ once represented NZ I think that's a fair enough comment.