Are South Africa Missing out on players with huge potential ?

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Zimbabwe could've a hell of a pack really when you think about it:

1) Beast
2) ?
3) Mujati
4) Mike Williams
5) Armonld
6) Ewers
7) Pocock
8) Denton

Find a good hooker and that pack would be up there in terms of fire power.

Didn't some Dixon guy who played for Bath was born in Zimbabwe ?

- - - Updated - - -

How many players in the Scottish Isles are you missing out on?

You do realise that NZ is in the South Pacific don't you?

Murray Field was AWESOME

A nice way to make my list bigger, thanks

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

The pacific isles are losing a good few talent themselfs

Fiji:
Seta Tamanivalu (NZ)
Waisake Naholo (NZ)
Henry Speight (AUS)
Tevita Kuridrani (AUS)
Samu Kerevi (AUS)
Taqele Naiyaravoro (AUS)
Semesa Rokoduguni (ENG)
Noa Nakaitaci (FRA)
Samuela Vunisa (ITA)
Joe Rokocoko (NZ)
Sitiveni Sivivatu (NZ)
Lote Tuqiri (AUS)
Radike Samo (AUS)
David Raikuna (NZ)

Tonga:
Ofa Tu'ungafasi (NZ)
Malakai Fekitoa (NZ)
Taulupe Faletau (WAL)
Christian Loamanu (JPN)
Lopeti Timani (AUS)
Tolu Latu (AUS)
Frank Halai (NZ)
Pauliasi Manu (NZ)
Alfie Mafi (AUS)
Sitaleki Timani (AUS)

Samoa:
Mils Muliaina (NZ)
Manu Tuilagi (ENG)
John Schwalger (NZ)
Chris Masoe (NZ)
Casey Laulala (NZ)

American Samoa:
Nepo Laulala (NZ)
Jerome Kaino (NZ)
Alex Tulou (NZ)

Papua New Guinea:
Will Genia (AUS)

and i'm 100% sure there are more that could be added to the list

Hopefully you'll research (google), are you aware that in the last RWC, 90% of the Samoan team were actually born in NZ (Aotearoa).

Look up stats bro.

Are you saying that Pacific Islanders born in NZ aren't New Zealanders?

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Personally, I don't recall anyone being brought to the premiership with the intention of giving them National honors - in fact some coaches have complained because they didn't buy them for England.

AHAH! Sam Burgess. Not quiteeeeee the same, but he was brought into the Aviva with the intention of giving him... uh... MORE national honours.

 

[smartcooky]

@smartcooky - I'm presuming that little barb about hypocrisy is aimed at me.

Not particularly. Why? Guilty conscience have we?

It was aimed anyone who used to whinge on about how NZ were poachers and have fallen silent about it now that England and France are the master poachers. You forget, you're a newbie here. Some of us kiwis have been harrassed about this for along time before you came on the scene, right back to the early 2000s when quite a number of posters here were on the (now defunct) IRB Forums!

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.

Get your facts straight before flinging unfounded allegations about. I have NEVER said to you or anyone else that England should not select Hartley or Tuilagi. I am fully aware (and was well before you were) that Hartley moved to England when he was 14. My son was in his class at Rotorua Boys High School in the 3rd form (Year 9) before he left for England. My lad reckons he was a right arrogant little sh¡thouse then too!! Nothing much changes does it?

BTW, the England selectors are quite welcome to pick that particular walking liability of they like.

 

[goodNumber10]

Not particularly. Why? Guilty conscience have we?

It was aimed anyone who used to whinge on about how NZ were poachers and have fallen silent about it now that England and France are the master poachers. You forget, you're a newbie here. Some of us kiwis have been harrassed about this for along time before you came on the scene, right back to the early 2000s when quite a number of posters here were on the (now defunct) IRB Forums!



Get your facts straight before flinging unfounded allegations about. I have NEVER said to you or anyone else that England should not select Hartley or Tuilagi. I am fully aware (and was well before you were) that Hartley moved to England when he was 14. My son was in his class at Rotorua Boys High School in the 3rd form (Year 9) before he left for England. My lad reckons he was a right arrogant little sh¡thouse then too!! Nothing much changes does it?

BTW, the England selectors are quite welcome to pick that particular walking liability of they like.

fair enough i stand corrected, no offence meant.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

An England born XV could look like this:

1) Marler, 2) Youngs, 3) Cole
4) launchbury, 5) Lawes
6) Lydiate, 7) Robshaw, 8) Morgan
9) Youngs, 10) Ford
12) Davies, 13) Joesph
11) Nowell, 14) North, 15) Brown

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

These threads are as cyclical as global economic crises- and it's no surprise they tend to happen when we're all desperate for more rugby...

 

[RedruthRFC]

It was aimed anyone who used to whinge on about how NZ were poachers and have fallen silent about it now that England and France are the master poachers. You forget, you're a newbie here. Some of us kiwis have been harrassed about this for along time before you came on the scene, right back to the early 2000s when quite a number of posters here were on the (now defunct) IRB Forums!

What are you calling poaching? To me it implies actively seeking out players rather than selecting players who qualify via residence. I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any of England's rapidly growing list of non-English born players being sought out as prospects for England and brought to the country, be it via school scholarships, academy places, university bursaries or playing contracts. The closest England have come in this regard is the RFU's involvement in bringing league players across to union.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Hopefully you'll research (google), are you aware that in the last RWC, 90% of the Samoan team were actually born in NZ (Aotearoa).

Look up stats bro.

Are you saying that Pacific Islanders born in NZ aren't New Zealanders?

You got me there

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Imo it's best if we all just forget the whole "nations" idea and start calling them by their nicknames, thus eliminating accusations of poaching from other countries and ill feeling thereafter. So, from now on now NZ, SA, Australia, England, Wales, France or Scotland, it's the All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies, Roses (god, our one's crap), Dragons, Bleus and Thistles.

Seriously though, poaching confuses me on a pretty basic level for a number of reasons. I'd blame the players, but if you're capable of a standard of rugby that will earn you hundreds of thousands instead of a pittance, why shouldn't you? Patriotism don't mean ****. I'd blame unions and selectors, but it's their job to put out the best team they can and why shouldn't they select qualified players? Okay, active poaching where players are lured abroad I object to...

The only solution I can think of is a more rigorous, universal selection policy, e.g. one parent rather than one grandparent, longer periods to qualify for the national team (five years, six? Enough to dissuade people who move for selection), maybe even a requirement to have lived in the country from an early age- 16 perhaps?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

@Orange makes a very valid point - realistically, sport is a profession just like any other and you try to reach the top of the game. Playing for a country should mean that you are the best in that country - it's not a competition of who loves their country the most.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What are you calling poaching? To me it implies actively seeking out players rather than selecting players who qualify via residence. I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any of England's rapidly growing list of non-English born players being sought out as prospects for England and brought to the country, be it via school scholarships, academy places, university bursaries or playing contracts. The closest England have come in this regard is the RFU's involvement in bringing league players across to union.

But isn't that part of the process?? There are only 2 ways of becoming eligible to play for a national team if you aren't a born citizen of that country:
1. Through Residency
2. Through family lineage

So a guy from South Africa, who doesn't have a grandmother or whatever other form of lineage, gets a very lucrative contract to play for an English Club, for him to stay in England (depending on the length of his contract) has to either get a work visa, or apply for residency. So in effect, he automatically becomes "poached" as he then gets the chance to play for his adopted country if they so chooses, and if he so chooses...

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

Imo it's best if we all just forget the whole "nations" idea and start calling them by their nicknames, thus eliminating accusations of poaching from other countries and ill feeling thereafter. So, from now on now NZ, SA, Australia, England, Wales, France or Scotland, it's the All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies, Roses (god, our one's crap), Dragons, Bleus and Thistles.

Seriously though, poaching confuses me on a pretty basic level for a number of reasons. I'd blame the players, but if you're capable of a standard of rugby that will earn you hundreds of thousands instead of a pittance, why shouldn't you? Patriotism don't mean ****. I'd blame unions and selectors, but it's they're job to put out the best team they can and why shouldn't they select qualified players? Okay, active poaching where players are lured abroad I object to...

The only solution I can think of is a more rigorous, universal selection policy, e.g. one parent rather than one grandparent, longer periods to qualify for the national team (five years, six? Enough to dissuade people who move for selection), maybe even a requirement to have lived in the country from an early age- 16 perhaps?

I agree 100%, why don't we refuse players that play for another team under contract ie France, England etc etc

The fact remains that NZ aren't playing by your ideas.....and that's a fact

 

[nickdnz]

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)?
.

Ironic coming from someone who accuses everyone else of being a troll. I think a thread on players who have missed out on player selection - being answered with 'they should stop whinging' because you felt like saying it - is pretty much the definition of trolling.

Again you have made the Armitage case an exception based on it potentially harming England.

In terms of 'who am I to decide a nationality' - then who are you? What if Armitage genuinely feels more French than English? Who are you to decide that he has to stay with his initial decision? Or maybe the fact that Hardy had not been to Scotland before becoming eligible to play for Scotland shouldn't be viewed cynically.

To clarify - I have no problem with English or French clubs buying players for their competitions. That isn't poaching. It is a professional game. What I do object to is Unions incentivizing players with international rugby. And it happens. I can't think of an occasion where a French or English team has necessary done it: as a general rule France and England have a large enough player base - and clubs operate on a large enough autonomy - that they just don't need to. But In the case of Ireland, Scotland and Wales the player pools are thinner, the national unions have more control over the clubs, and there has been many examples of poaching.

The attitude of 'if you don't like it, tough' to an issue which clearly isn't just, is exactly the kind of bully attitude which the Home Unions will continue to utilize. They're the fat kids taking other kids lunches and saying 'what are you going to do about it'.

 

[goodNumber10]

But isn't that part of the process?? There are only 2 ways of becoming eligible to play for a national team if you aren't a born citizen of that country:
1. Through Residency
2. Through family lineage

So a guy from South Africa, who doesn't have a grandmother or whatever other form of lineage, gets a very lucrative contract to play for an English Club, for him to stay in England (depending on the length of his contract) has to either get a work visa, or apply for residency. So in effect, he automatically becomes "poached" as he then gets the chance to play for his adopted country if they so chooses, and if he so chooses...

no, because the RFU has no active involvement in the procuring of that player.

They become eligible via their legal status in the country which is controlled by the Home Office not the RFU and then residency.

Now here is where it gets interesting and the lines blur, and please anyone feel free to correct me on this, but under Home Office rules you either have to be an established interntional within the last XXXX years or you must be in a position to become eligible for England, as far as i'm aware hat's the only point the RFU would have a say on if someone should be granted a work permit.

- - - Updated - - -

Ironic coming from someone who accuses everyone else of being a troll. I think a thread on players who have missed out on player selection - being answered with 'they should stop whinging' because you felt like saying it - is pretty much the definition of trolling.

Again you have made the Armitage case an exception based on it potentially harming England.

In terms of 'who am I to decide a nationality' - then who are you? What if Armitage genuinely feels more French than English? Who are you to decide that he has to stay with his initial decision? Or maybe the fact that Hardy had not been to Scotland before becoming eligible to play for Scotland shouldn't be viewed cynically.

To clarify - I have no problem with English or French clubs buying players for their competitions. That isn't poaching. It is a professional game. What I do object to is Unions incentivizing players with international rugby. And it happens. I can't think of an occasion where a French or English team has necessary done it: as a general rule France and England have a large enough player base - and clubs operate on a large enough autonomy - that they just don't need to. But In the case of Ireland, Scotland and Wales the player pools are thinner, the national unions have more control over the clubs, and there has been many examples of poaching.

The attitude of 'if you don't like it, tough' to an issue which clearly isn't just, is exactly the kind of bully attitude which the Home Unions will continue to utilize. They're the fat kids taking other kids lunches and saying 'what are you going to do about it'.

you really are a tool.

 

[nickdnz]

you really are a massive tool.

Pure quality GN10. Didn't address a single point.

First one to cry about making 'personal attacks' as well.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Please don't feel the need to respond. Or post anything.

Ever.

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

no, because the RFU has no active involvement in the procuring of that player.

They become eligible via their legal status in the country which is controlled by the Home Office not the RFU and then residency.

Now here is where it gets interesting and the lines blur, and please anyone feel free to correct me on this, but under Home Office rules you either have to be an established interntional within the last XXXX years or you must be in a position to become eligible for England, as far as i'm aware hat's the only point the RFU would have a say on if someone should be granted a work permit.

- - - Updated - - -



you really are a tool.

"Home office"? someones had too much to drink.

I can see an AB v Eng final?

 

[TRF_heineken]

no, because the RFU has no active involvement in the procuring of that player.

They become eligible via their legal status in the country which is controlled by the Home Office not the RFU and then residency.

Now here is where it gets interesting and the lines blur, and please anyone feel free to correct me on this, but under Home Office rules you either have to be an established interntional within the last XXXX years or you must be in a position to become eligible for England, as far as i'm aware hat's the only point the RFU would have a say on if someone should be granted a work permit.

- - - Updated - - -



you really are a tool.

But, if you get only a work permit, you have to return to your home country for a certain period of time when that permit expires, and then re-apply. And isn't a work permit limited to a period of 6 months or less?? Surely that will have an impact on the season for clubs when a bunch of their players have to return to the SH for a certain period of time and prevent them from being in England.

 

[RedruthRFC]

So a guy from South Africa, who doesn't have a grandmother or whatever other form of lineage, gets a very lucrative contract to play for an English Club, for him to stay in England (depending on the length of his contract) has to either get a work visa, or apply for residency. So in effect, he automatically becomes "poached" as he then gets the chance to play for his adopted country if they so chooses, and if he so chooses...

As the balance of financial power continues to shift in favour of England and France, there will start to be more credence in what you say, but in the case of England's players so far, I disagree. The players so far who have gone on to play for England have been as a result of a happy coincidence and have been brought to the country by clubs acting of their own volition with no RFU involvement - they were not sought out as potential future England players. When Mouritz Botha came to play for Bedford Athletic (level 5) and Hendre Fourie came to play for Rotherham (level 2), I don't imagine that anyone involved thought that they had a chance of playing for England, they developed as players in positions where England were thin on the ground and the rest is history. I know that these two are extreme examples, but all of the non-English born players I can think of came to the country along similar lines.

If you go on to someone else's land and take a pheasant, you have poached it. If that same pheasant strays onto your land, it's yours for the taking.

 

[goodNumber10]

Pure quality GN10. Didn't address a single point.

First one to cry about making 'personal attacks' as well.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Please don't feel the need to respond. Or post anything.

Ever.

what's to address that hasn't already been in previous posts? You haven't answered my points about about who else can they play union for if there is a choice of union, you've deliberately misconstrued what i said about Armitage on he basis of it benefits England (not sure how you fathom that) to get a rise and your initial post to me was clearly stroppy.

I'm happy to break this down and take it into more detail but you've not taken on board a single thing i've said so far, called me a troll when the post is clearly relevant and has provoked a pretty interesting reasonably good natured discussion** about eligibility and clearly more than a "simple stop whinging".

**apart from your contribution, so well done on that.