Are South Africa Missing out on players with huge potential ?

[doz1991]

I'm sorry for not removing the others, i thought it was a bit obvious what players i was refering to......

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I agree with pretty much everything Heineken has said, apart from Stander and the Bulls c'mon dude. You look at the list and Kockott is the only one who might have more than ten caps at this stage with Stander the only one who could have/has the potential to reach that milestone. Richardt Strauss without all the injury problems could have picked em up with a few injuries and minnow games.

This thread shows that there are more issues with Ireland and mainly Scotland. It shows Ireland lack quantity, none of these players should start (Payne included), but we'd be pretty thin without them in an extended squad. Scotland lack quality and are filling the gaps with Bok rejects, it can and has worked in soccer where defensive tactics against a better team are effective but it wil never work in rugby which is all about player development at international level.

 

[nickdnz]

The reason why those guys moved to aus are because of financial resons, they arent lost from new zealand because new zealand never devolped them in the first place

That list was compiled from the same logic as the one from the initial post of the thread..

It was simply a list of players who have been eligible to play for New Zealand, who were lost in the sense they now cannot. I wasn't making a 'poached' argument (although you could certainly apply it to much of that list who were developed by the NZRU).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Ben Botica's not "lost" is he? He's not been capped by anyone,
Same with Anscombe (though that's just a matter of time).

 

[goodNumber10]

Ben Botica's not "lost" is he? He's not been capped by anyone,
Same with Anscombe (though that's just a matter of time).

More importantly they are all professional players who made their own choice to leave a system they felt didn't value them..... no one moaned about people following the money in the 1980's etc... it was their choice but now it's a poach. ;D

 

[nickdnz]

Ben Botica's not "lost" is he? He's not been capped by anyone,
Same with Anscombe (though that's just a matter of time).

He's lost to NZ under our own selection policy (again following the logic of the first post of the thread). Many of the players scotty mentioned can still technically play for South Africa.

 

[nickdnz]

More importantly they are all professional players who made their own choice to leave a system they felt didn't value them..... no one moaned about people following the money in the 1980's etc... it was their choice but now it's a poach. ;D

Which players following the money in the 1980s? I know a few New Zealand born players had a few games for Samoa, but I think it would be disingenuous to claim Samoa were paying the likes of Michael Jones and Frank Bunce a lot of money. They just were taking advantage of relaxed eligability laws for players who weren't needed by the ABs at that time. We mustn't be too hard on em'. I'm sure that was where you were going with this...

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Which players following the money in the 1980s? I know a few New Zealand born players had a few games for Samoa, but I think it would be disingenuous to claim Samoa were paying the likes of Michael Jones and Frank Bunce a lot of money. They just were taking advantage of relaxed eligability laws for players who weren't needed by the ABs at that time. We mustn't be too hard on em'. I'm sure that was where you were going with this...

I read union to league myself...

 

[goodNumber10]

Which players following the money in the 1980s? I know a few New Zealand born players had a few games for Samoa, but I think it would be disingenuous to claim Samoa were paying the likes of Michael Jones and Frank Bunce a lot of money. They just were taking advantage of relaxed eligability laws for players who weren't needed by the ABs at that time. We mustn't be too hard on em'. I'm sure that was where you were going with this...

how would you know where i am going with it?

I'm talking about the many people who moved all over the world, playing rugby on tenious "job" links.. no one cared then but now it's official they somehow owe the domestic unions for coming through their system?

I frequently read "Oh, we invested XXXXXX in a player he should be ours" on this forum..... you invested that much in a player because he just happened to live in your country and be part of your system, he owes your system nothing, because he is a youth player with little or no say in the matter.

It's a professional game, this is peoples lively hood and rightly they follow the money when the time is right for them, as in any other career or if they don't feel like they are appreciated they move on where they will be.

NZ and South Africa don't want to lose people? then make them a better offer then the one they have or have a coke and a smile and stop whineing about it

 

[sharkfan]

Francois Viljoen, US Eagles
JJ Gagiano, US Eagles
Marcelo Cuttita, Italy
Massimo Cuttita, Italy
Roland De Marigny, Italy
Carlo Del Fava, Italy
Tobie Botes, Italy

Some of these players are still playing, some of them retired. Its just another illustration as to what depth South African rugby had over the years and still has.

 

[Scrum Bum]

Kockott is the only one.

As an ABs fan, hardly any of the younger South African players worry me. Faf De Klerk and Etzebeth will be there for a long time though, they will be world class. I watched a few of the South African teams in the Super Rugby comp this season, wasn't too impressed but I do say Wilhelm Alberts is awesome. Reminds me a lot of Ashley Johnson who now plays in England I think. It's a pity they play in a position with a lot of Springbok depth.

Anscombe I believe is gunning for the Welsh #10 or #15 job. It's a shame because he was regarded as better than the current Blues #10s, just got screwed over by the coach.

 

[nickdnz]

how would you know where i am going with it?

I'm talking about the many people who moved all over the world, playing rugby on tenious "job" links.. no one cared then but now it's official they somehow owe the domestic unions for coming through their system?

I frequently read "Oh, we invested XXXXXX in a player he should be ours" on this forum..... you invested that much in a player because he just happened to live in your country and be part of your system, he owes your system nothing, because he is a youth player with little or no say in the matter.

It's a professional game, this is peoples lively hood and rightly they follow the money when the time is right for them, as in any other career or if they don't feel like they are appreciated they move on where they will be.

NZ and South Africa don't want to lose people? then make them a better offer then the one they have or have a coke and a smile and stop whineing about it

Making posts and not expecting other to know your point, surely is just rambling then.

People do have a choice. The NZRU is an organization that people sign up, and it subsidizes all levels of rugby in New Zealand. It is a choice because they agreed to join them.

Regardless - international rugby is different from club rugby. The very point of it is that the players represent a nation they belong to, not what nation can afford others players, and people reasonably feel aggrieved when countries exploit laws - designed to benefit a few of the home unions who just happen to dominate votes to change. It is very clearly not in the interest of those countries. What's ironic is the level of hypocrisy which New Zealander's have had to deal with for years, about wrongful calls of poaching. It's amazing exactly how libertarian some posters become - when they can foresee benefit for them at the cost of someone else. The same people who would have been up in arms had Armitage been capped by France.

However despite your rant: the topic of the thread was players who are "lost' to South Africa and that potential impact. My own list was players who were lost to New Zealand's selection policy. No one made any moral or ethical call on the matter. It may as well have been criticizing how those players have escaped the system - and what management should do about it. I don't see why your diatribe on player choice was started.

Kockott is the only one.

As an ABs fan, hardly any of the younger South African players worry me. Faf De Klerk and Etzebeth will be there for a long time though, they will be world class. I watched a few of the South African teams in the Super Rugby comp this season, wasn't too impressed but I do say Wilhelm Alberts is awesome. Reminds me a lot of Ashley Johnson who now plays in England I think. It's a pity they play in a position with a lot of Springbok depth.

Anscombe I believe is gunning for the Welsh #10 or #15 job. It's a shame because he was regarded as better than the current Blues #10s, just got screwed over by the coach.

There are a lot of young South Africa players who I think will be absolute world class players. I think Kitshoff is a big loss. Thomas du Toit I think will become a world class prop. I'd say Handre Pollard is already world class. Senatla could be an amazing wing. Jan Serfontein is a little one dimensional for me, but he clearly has potential. Damien de Allende is fantastic.

 

[Shaggy]

how would you know where i am going with it?

I'm talking about the many people who moved all over the world, playing rugby on tenious "job" links.. no one cared then but now it's official they somehow owe the domestic unions for coming through their system?

I frequently read "Oh, we invested XXXXXX in a player he should be ours" on this forum..... you invested that much in a player because he just happened to live in your country and be part of your system, he owes your system nothing, because he is a youth player with little or no say in the matter.

It's a professional game, this is peoples lively hood and rightly they follow the money when the time is right for them, as in any other career or if they don't feel like they are appreciated they move on where they will be.

NZ and South Africa don't want to lose people? then make them a better offer then the one they have or have a coke and a smile and stop whineing about it

They certainly did care in the 80's (at least in NZ they did). To be eligible for the All Blacks, those players had to play in NZ, and you didn't see the same level of player movement offshore that you do now. As for the job links, it was a major area of concern for the smaller unions, who developed the players, getting their players poached by the bigger, cashed up unions.

I'm not quite sure where all these people are that are whining on this forum about player losses; I've been here a while now, and most that I've seen, except that it's a professional game, and rather than see a player as a loss, view it as an opportunity for younger players to take the opportunities.

I could equally argue that some posters whinge about "restriction of trade" placed on players, making them not eligible for the All Blacks, if they don't play in NZ. These are professional players, no one is putting a gun to their heads and saying they can't play overseas; if they choose to forgo more money for the chance to play for their country, no one should stand in their way

 

[smartcooky]

Making posts and not expecting other to know your point, surely is just rambling then.

People do have a choice. The NZRU is an organization that people sign up, and it subsidizes all levels of rugby in New Zealand. It is a choice because they agreed to join them.

Regardless - international rugby is different from club rugby. The very point of it is that the players represent a nation they belong to, not what nation can afford others players, and people reasonably feel aggrieved when countries exploit laws - designed to benefit a few of the home unions who just happen to dominate votes to change. It is very clearly not in the interest of those countries. What's ironic is the level of hypocrisy which New Zealander's have had to deal with for years, about wrongful calls of poaching. It's amazing exactly how libertarian some posters become - when they can foresee benefit for them at the cost of someone else. The same people who would have been up in arms had Armitage been capped by France.

However despite your rant: the topic of the thread was players who are "lost' to South Africa and that potential impact. My own list was players who were lost to New Zealand's selection policy. No one made any moral or ethical call on the matter. It may as well have been criticizing how those players have escaped the system - and what management should do about it. I don't see why your diatribe on player choice was started.

Bravo!!

I have no problem with players following the money to play club rugby, but I have a big problem with them doing so to to play international rugby. I also find it amazing (but not unsurprising) that those who were most critical of New Zealand for allegedly poaching Pacific Islanders, seem to be now be quite comfortable with poaching those players, as well as Saffas, Kiwis ans Aussies, to turn out for Wales, England, Ireland, Scotland and France. Two-faced b'stards if you ask me!!

IMO, once a player has played, say, a season for an elite domestic team in the country of his birth or education or where he first learned to play the game, he should only be eligible to play for that country as of right. If he moves to another country to follow the Club rugby money, he should have to satisfy a minimum of eight years residency in his new country before becoming eligible for that country.

Its about time the NZRU started screwing some cash out of these rich clubs that poach our players. I would love to see the NZRU introduce a five-year retainer contract for ITM Cup. Players would have to sign up for five years if they want to be considered for ITM Cup rugby. If a Club in the NH wants the player, they either have to wait until the five years is up, or buy him out of his contract with a transfer fee. Of course before that, if the player is good enough, he will be offered a further five-year Super Rugby Extension Contract (you cannot play Super Rugby without the extension contract), and his transfer fee goes up. If he is really good, he gets offered a further five-year All Black Extension Contract, and his transfer fee goes up again.

Players in their first couple of years who go to Europe (like Naholo would have) ought to be netting the NZRU about a million Euro in transfer fees.

Of course, the clubs could always poach players before they play ITM cup, based on their grass-roots club form (and good luck getting video of that) then they will get them for free, but they will also be taking the chance on the player, andthe development costs will be theirs to bear.

 

[TRF_heineken]

There are a lot of young South Africa players who I think will be absolute world class players. I think Kitshoff is a big loss. Thomas du Toit I think will become a world class prop. I'd say Handre Pollard is already world class. Senatla could be an amazing wing. Jan Serfontein is a little one dimensional for me, but he clearly has potential. Damien de Allende is fantastic.

Kitshoff isn't necessarily such a loss. He's part of the Bok group in preparation for the World Cup, and he only signed a 2-year deal to play in France. He's only 21 now, so he still has a big career ahead of him for both club and country.

Other players that could be great is Pieter Steph Du Toit (if he stays injury free), RG Snyman (Blue Bulls Lock who played for the U/20's), Jesse Kriel, Jaco Kriel, Andre Esterhuizen, Warwick Gelant and Cheslin Kolbe, to name a few. My concern is the position of Hooker. Strauss and Bismarck are now getting old and we need to get quality in that position. We have been spoiled in that position in the past, but It's time we look at guys to replace him. Maybe Robbie Coetzee?

 

[Scrum Bum]

I think NZ using Pacific players is acceptable if they're born and raised in New Zealand, you guys have to understand that a large chunk of Pacific population resides in New Zealand, much different from Northern Hemisphere countries who "poach". Some however come here on high school scholarships such as Joe Rokocoko and David Smith with the hope of making the ABs. That is poaching. But, if you were a promising young rugby player from a "third world" country where wages are crap, rugby facilities are crap, and the only hope of making a lot of money (not only for yourself but for your family too) lied overseas, you'd probably take it. It is a meal ticket, but then again island rugby is corrupt and not as professionally run as sides such as the All Blacks or the Wobblies. I think it is a double edged sword and you can't just place full blame on the powers that be recruiting Pacific players. There are other factors to consider such as economic disparity, political stuff, etc.

I think it is ridiculous that Pacific players who have no affiliation to say England or France or Wales etc chose those teams over their island team, but it is a money thing and at the end of the day they could've said "no, get stuffed, I'm going to play for (insert island team here)." What needs to be done is making those organisations more professional and develop facilities including stadiums and training stuff, and winning on the pitch and then we may see island rugby become a much more interesting option for these players. However, don't expect the IRB or other unions to do so, because it benefits them to have Pacific islanders to poach.

 

[goodNumber10]

Making posts and not expecting other to know your point, surely is just rambling then.

don't be silly.

People do have a choice. The NZRU is an organization that people sign up, and it subsidizes all levels of rugby in New Zealand. It is a choice because they agreed to join them.

Oh, my mistake, and that's good news. What other unions can they sign and play Rugby Union for then?

Regardless - international rugby is different from club rugby. The very point of it is that the players represent a nation they belong to, not what nation can afford others players, and people reasonably feel aggrieved when countries exploit laws - designed to benefit a few of the home unions who just happen to dominate votes to change. It is very clearly not in the interest of those countries. What's ironic is the level of hypocrisy which New Zealander's have had to deal with for years, about wrongful calls of poaching. It's amazing exactly how libertarian some posters become - when they can foresee benefit for them at the cost of someone else. The same people who would have been up in arms had Armitage been capped by France.

Armitage is a very different scenario, he is capped and already nationality locked. I absolutely oppose anyone exploiting a loophole law that allows them to change allegiance post International honors, but as far as i'm aware only one person has actually done it and he's a New Zealander who now plays for Samoa.

Might be wrong there because i don't follow 7's enough.

On international selection specifically, who are you to define what someones nationality is or isn't? What level of arrogance is that that you can decide what country a person most easily identifies with? Who they belong to (which in itself i find a disgusting comment).

Nationality is a complex subject and people find themselves identifying with different countries for different reasons, the ultimate point is that once they have made that choice they need to honor it.

However despite your rant: the topic of the thread was players who are "lost' to South Africa and that potential impact. My own list was players who were lost to New Zealand's selection policy. No one made any moral or ethical call on the matter. It may as well have been criticizing how those players have escaped the system - and what management should do about it. I don't see why your diatribe on player choice was started.

Because i felt like it.

The topic of the thread is clearly player migration and the effect of it on the nation of origin, i am free to comment on that how i see fit. If it is not appropriate or off topic the MOD's are free to discuss and move or advise otherwise.

Until then i'll comment how i see fit and if you don't like then why not just ignore it or shut up instead of trying to provoke a snidey little argument (again)?


@smartcooky - I'm presuming that little barb about hypocrisy is aimed at me. However all i've ever said is that NZ'rs who criticise the NH unions for selecting on residency are hypocrites as all nations have done it/do it. You don't agree, fine, but the facts are there, you seem to be stuck on using the levels it occurs at as justification but the fact is it happens.

You and others have criticised England for picking Hartley and Tuilagi, but both players who came through england age grades and identify with the English team, I don't see how that is hypocritical by them or by England. They have developed the player, which is the basis of Nicks whole point, and can rightly expect a return on their investment by selecting him/them.

But and you agreed with me on the point about players swapping allegiance within the same age groups I think is wrong and player should be locked for the duration of that age group pathway.

Ultimately the point i'm making is if these Unions don't want to lose players then they need to deliver packages that keep them - the English and French clubs are not the unions they are independent businesses free to trade how they see fit if you can't compete with them financially then don't moan.

 

[TRF_heineken]

don't be silly.



Oh, my mistake, and that's good news. What other unions can they sign and play Rugby Union for then?



Armitage is a very different scenario, he is capped and already nationality locked. I absolutely oppose anyone exploiting a loophole law that allows them to change allegiance post International honors, but as far as i'm aware only one person has actually done it and he's a New Zealander who now plays for Samoa.

Might be wrong there because i don't follow 7's enough.

On international selection specifically, who are you to define what someones nationality is or isn't? What level of arrogance is that that you can decide what country a person most easily identifies with? Who they belong to (which in itself i find a disgusting comment).

Nationality is a complex subject and people find themselves identifying with different countries for different reasons, the ultimate point is that once they have made that choice they need to honor it.



Because i felt like it.

The topic of the thread is clearly player migration and the effect of it on the nation of origin, i am free to comment on that how i see fit. If it is not appropriate or off topic the MOD's are free to discuss and move or advise otherwise.

Until then i'll comment how i see fit and if you don't like then why not just ignore it or shut up instead of trying to provoke a snidey little argument (again)?


@smartcooky - I'm presuming that little barb about hypocrisy is aimed at me. However all i've ever said is that NZ'rs who criticise the NH unions for selecting on residency are hypocrites as all nations have done it/do it. You don't agree, fine, but the facts are there, you seem to be stuck on using the levels it occurs at as justification but the fact is it happens.

You and others have criticised England for picking Hartley and Tuilagi, but both players who came through england age grades and identify with the English team, I don't see how that is hypocritical by them or by England. They have developed the player, which is the basis of Nicks and our whole whole point and can rightly expect a return on their investment by selecting him/them.

But and you agreed with me on the point about players swapping allegience within the same age groups I think is wrong and player should be locked for the duration of that age group pathway.

Ultimately the point i'm making is if these Unions don't want to lose players then they need to deliver packages that keep them - the English and French clubs are not the unions they are independent businesses free to trade how they see fit if you can't compete with them financially then don't moan.

To be fair to Nick and Smartcooky, they do have a point though.

If we look at the current International teams, All of the British Isles nations are guilty of this. But if you Look at NZ, SA, Arg, and Aus, it's not so much the case.

SA can't really be called "poachers" with regard to Beast Mtawarira, as he was born in Zimbabwe, but he went to School in SA even before he applied for Residency. And the same can be said about Pocock.

What irks me the most about this topic is that the NH is milking their financial situation in favour of getting some of our guys. Brad Barritt for instance is someone I personally despise. Before he went to England, he lived the SA culture, having braai's and doing all the traditional things a South African did. And when he wore the SA colours at junior level, he wore it with pride and he sang our anthem with pride. He is a hypocrite if he now says he's a full on Englishman.

WP Nel and Josh Strauss is as much Scottish as I am.

 

[goodNumber10]

To be fair to Nick and Smartcooky, they do have a point though.

If we look at the current International teams, All of the British Isles nations are guilty of this. But if you Look at NZ, SA, Arg, and Aus, it's not so much the case.

The point is they all HAVE though.

SA can't really be called "poachers" with regard to Beast Mtawarira, as he was born in Zimbabwe, but he went to School in SA even before he applied for Residency. And the same can be said about Pocock.

the same can be said for Tuilagi, The Vunipolas and Faletau who were both raised, schooled and played their youth rugby in the UK.

What irks me the most about this topic is that the NH is milking their financial situation in favour of getting some of our guys. Brad Barritt for instance is someone I personally despise. Before he went to England, he lived the SA culture, having braai's and doing all the traditional things a South African did. And when he wore the SA colours at junior level, he wore it with pride and he sang our anthem with pride. He is a hypocrite if he now says he's a full on Englishman.

WP Nel and Josh Strauss is as much Scottish as I am.

Does Barritt not identify himself as a South African then? I don't ever recall reading anything where he proclaimed anything of the sort. He came here for financial reasons stayed was given an opportunity. The RFU didn't openly go out and court him, they did not bring him here under a development program or similar he landed in their lap and then made himself available.

That's not really a poach is it?

The money is where the money is, the English and French clubs are NOT the NH, it's not right or fair to proclaim them as such. Scotland, Ireland, France and Wales all have project player schemes the RFU don't so to call them poachers is a bit unfair, they take players who qualify on residency and make themselves available.

As have every other nation across the world singling out England or a specific country for it is hypocritical.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The point is they all HAVE though.



the same can be said for Tuilagi, The Vunipolas and Faletau who were both raised, schooled and played their youth rugby in the UK.



Does Barritt not identify himself as a South African then? I don't ever recall reading anything where he proclaimed anything of the sort. He came here for financial reasons stayed was given an opportunity. The RFU didn't openly go out and court him, they did not bring him here under a development program or similar he landed in their lap and then made himself available.

That's not really a poach is it?

The money is where the money is, the English and French clubs are NOT the NH, it's not right or fair to proclaim them as such. Scotland, Ireland, France and Wales all have project player schemes the RFU don't so to call them poachers is a bit unfair, they take players who qualify on residency and make themselves available.

As have every other nation across the world singling out England or a specific country for it is hypocritical.

Oh, so basically what you are saying is the RFU didn't do anything to get these players so far as to represent England. The RFU just sat back, relaxed and watched them walk into the England team??