Charles Piatau to Ulster

[steblin]

I'm a lot less fond of the guys throwing the money into the game, but that's another discussion. Hate the game not the player as they say.

This.

Main reason why fans of New Zealand club teams are going to see alot of turnover, small country with relatively low team budgets producing world class players ... I think alot of people had got used to players taking their 'retirement' abroad, seeing out the tail end of their careers and quite rightly cashing in. This new trend of All Blacks moving abroad in their prime, or even before their prime in Charlies case, is a tougher pill to swallow.

 

[Shaggy]

Kaino is different, he gave how many years to the Blues first time round, 7-8? I think most people thought he was gone for good into semi retirement.

Don't get me wrong, I hope he comes back to the Blues in the future, as a club fan I'd just like to see loyalty from players, but then I'm biased. To be fair, what have the Blues done recently to make him want to stay ...

Is Kaino different though? ... I know he played several seasons for the Blues, but at the time he left he was hitting his peak. He had a great world cup, and was probably at his most marketable as a global rugby player. It's also hard to compare Forwards (who mature as players later) to backs. I'm sure if and when Piutau returns, he'll return a better player, and the blues would be his first choice of franchise.

I agree. Condemning a player for making a good career move to earn more money in a profession where you can suffer a career ending injury on the pitch at any time is silly. Loyalty is important, and the desire to play for a national team should be a goal for every player, but at the same time it can't stand in the way of doing what's best for a guy who could find himself suddenly unemployed at a young age having devoted so much time and effort to the game. From his point of view he can return to NZ at a young age having earned his money and then devote himself to fulfilling his ambitions.
I'm a lot less fond of the guys throwing the money into the game, but that's another discussion. Hate the game not the player as they say.

Yes, as well as the injury factor, loyalty is a two way street, and there's no guarantee that he'll get the game time, in his favoured position at any time in the future ... the Blues (like any team) could cut him at any time ... unfortunately, loyalty isn't valued like it use to be, in any employer/employee relationship, so make the money/secure your future while you can I say

This.

Main reason why fans of New Zealand club teams are going to see alot of turnover, small country with relatively low team budgets producing world class players ... I think alot of people had got used to players taking their 'retirement' abroad, seeing out the tail end of their careers and quite rightly cashing in. This new trend of All Blacks moving abroad in their prime, or even before their prime in Charlies case, is a tougher pill to swallow.

Yes, the tread has changed, but a lot of those players aren't lost to NZ Rugby permanently, as was the case with the players taking the retirement option ... what we end up with is a good mix of young guys filling the gaps left by the players leaving, and experienced players returning. The big gain is in RWC year, where the number of high quality players, competing for positions, is high

Too me I find all this 'loyalty' thing people talk about as a load of crap. If the Blues didn't want him then they would throw him away without a moments thought, same with any pro sports athlete with any team. What they do is a job in one of the most competitive markets in the world, they can only make money for as long as their career and that can be cut short at any moment. I would genuinely love it if every team was made from 15 guys who all came from the area and stayed there for 10 years plus but we know that wont happen.

Totally agree, I've been watching rugby since the late 1970's, and, from a NZ point of view at least, Rugby players (since i've been watching) have always gone to the team that's best for their careers. Most of good players migrated to the Auckland's, Wellington's, and Canterbury's (the larger unions), if they ever had any ambitions of becoming All Blacks. So, no loyalty there from the players. Poor form = exit from pro teams these days. I'd love if teams were made up as you suggest, but it will never happen

 

[munstermuffin]

Thought I posted this. But it'll effectively be a 20 month deal for 1.5million. That's hard for anyone to turn down. He will be highest paid player ever to be employed in Ireland by a good bit too.

Edit: ignore this my comments reappeared

 

[William18]

I think Nick is being weird. If Piutau is one of the best outside backs in New Zealand (which he is) then he should be selected for the All Blacks. We want to win the World Cup. If Piutau comes back in 2017 and is again good enough then he should obviously be selected. Going away and coming back just doesn't work that often. It worked for Kaino but has failed for Gear and McAlister. That is the risk that Piutau runs.

Nick Evans is probably filthy rich from all the time he has spent playing overseas. Good for him. The problem for him is that no one in New Zealand gives a crap about Nick Evans and maybe he is okay with that. Stephen Donald, on the other hand, is a national hero whose name will always be remembered. There are huge rewards for staying and wearing the black jersey and many players choose to do that.

 

[Shaggy]

I think Nick is being weird. If Piutau is one of the best outside backs in New Zealand (which he is) then he should be selected for the All Blacks. We want to win the World Cup. If Piutau comes back in 2017 and is again good enough then he should obviously be selected. Going away and coming back just doesn't work that often. It worked for Kaino but has failed for Gear and McAlister. That is the risk that Piutau runs.

Nick Evans is probably filthy rich from all the time he has spent playing overseas. Good for him. The problem for him is that no one in New Zealand gives a crap about Nick Evans and maybe he is okay with that. Stephen Donald, on the other hand, is a national hero whose name will always be remembered. There are huge rewards for staying and wearing the black jersey and many players choose to do that.

Undoubtedly Piutau should and will be picked for the ABs this year (if he's good enough). As far as Evans and Donald are concerned, it's funny how perceptions change - the prevailing attitude to Donald was very negative from that test he played against the Wallabies in Hong Kong, until he kicked that goal at the RWC final, and, with Evans, there didn't seem to be a back up for Carter (until Barrett, Cruden, and Slade , matured),and people were keen to get him back, but he wanted to play, not warm the bench.

 

[MotherRucker1]

I don't think most people would denigrate Charlie for making the shift and earning more money. Besides, it's perfect logic. Your professional rugby career won't be that long. Once rugby is over, unless you have a degree, finding work could be difficult. Most people won't be punching the wall about it, haha. It's just a frustration thing around this time of year, right before a world cup, we start getting copious amounts of headlines where they leave in droves and we get a mass exodus, many of which are young up and comers which is a shame. It'd be nice to have the means to compete with, that's all. But that might require a change of ownership and I don't think that'd be great for our rugby. Two years will go reasonably fast. The best the NZRU could probably do is work on getting him back once that window has expired before anyone else snaffles him up. That's if they want to pursue him that badly. We do have other up and comers.

 

[Shaggy]

I don't think most people would denigrate Charlie for making the shift and earning more money. Besides, it's perfect logic. Your professional rugby career won't be that long. Once rugby is over, unless you have a degree, finding work could be difficult. Most people won't be punching the wall about it, haha. It's just a frustration thing around this time of year, right before a world cup, we start getting copious amounts of headlines where they leave in droves and we get a mass exodus, many of which are young up and comers which is a shame. It'd be nice to have the means to compete with, that's all. But that might require a change of ownership and I don't think that'd be great for our rugby. Two years will go reasonably fast. The best the NZRU could probably do is work on getting him back once that window has expired before anyone else snaffles him up. That's if they want to pursue him that badly. We do have other up and comers.

Actually, it's funny because I was just thinking that it's good that we are getting all of these announcements come out before the cup, because at least we know and the selectors can plan for next year accordingly. This is another reason why player should be selected on form and not discounted because they are leaving. If they start not selecting players that are going to leave, we'll get to the stage where they won't let anybody know until after the cup.

 

[nickdnz]

Well, I guess I look at it a little differently - for me it's their career, and they should be free to pursue it overseas if they want to (as long as they don't expect to be picked for the AB's while they are gone)

If Piutau wants to run the risk of never playing for the AB's again, that's his choice. If he wants to return in time for selection for 2019 RWC, and compete for selection, all power to him ... Hosea Gear, who's just returned from doing exactly the same thing you are critising Piutau for (but is ok to be selected in your book), is trying to do exactly that, but probably won't make it, as he can't even get a starting spot for the Chiefs.

Jerome Kaino has had a stint away overseas, and was good enough to take back the All black 6 Jersey, nobody seems to worry about that too much. Luke McAlister was rushed back from overseas and into the All Blacks when they thought they needed him (precedes SBW I believe, so I'm not sure what precedent SBW set). Carl Hayman and Nick Evans were both pursued when it looked like the All Blacks lacked depth in the 10 and 3 jerseys, they both said no, but it seemed that nobody would have been upset if they'd returned at the time.

As you've rightly said, there are plenty of up and coming outside backs, although even the player that you don't rate, but would still pick (James Marshall), has had a stint overseas.

In summary, the ABs should pick the best squad from all of the available 2015 players for the RWC. If you don't pick Piutau (assuming his form is good enough), you also shouldn't pick Carter, McCaw, B.Franks, Mealamu, Nonu, C.Smith, or any other player who is unavailable in 2016 ... which is of course, ridiculous ... we'd be figuratively shooting ourselves in the foot.

1. I'm not saying Piatau shouldn't be allowed to leave. I'm saying as an All Blacks selector I'd be making sure those who are committed to the long term success of New Zealand rugby are given preferential treatment.


2. The difference in my opinion between Hosea Gear, Jerome Kaino etc - is that they had already committed to NZ rugby until they were in their late 20s - and in the case of Hosea Gear stayed in NZ rugby even after (in my opinion) being really mistreated during the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Piatau had everything going for him by the All Blacks - he was young but a reasonably safe option in the 23. There just wasn't a significant show of commitment for my liking. He could have even tried pursuing a sabbatical option and I'd be less critical.

Even accepting this is professional sport - I think it would be bad business for the NZRU to select Piatau now. You don't give a guy a promotion in your company when he hasn't shown he's committed to the long-term future of the company. You reward loyalty - that way you have better employment retention. Why should the NZRU be different?

 

[Shaggy]

1. I'm not saying Piatau shouldn't be allowed to leave. I'm saying as an All Blacks selector I'd be making sure those who are committed to the long term success of New Zealand rugby are given preferential treatment.


2. The difference in my opinion between Hosea Gear, Jerome Kaino etc - is that they had already committed to NZ rugby until they were in their late 20s - and in the case of Hosea Gear stayed in NZ rugby even after (in my opinion) being really mistreated during the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Piatau had everything going for him by the All Blacks - he was young but a reasonably safe option in the 23. There just wasn't a significant show of commitment for my liking. He could have even tried pursuing a sabbatical option and I'd be less critical.

Even accepting this is professional sport - I think it would be bad business for the NZRU to select Piatau now. You don't give a guy a promotion in your company when he hasn't shown he's committed to the long-term future of the company. You reward loyalty - that way you have better employment retention. Why should the NZRU be different?

1/ Agree to disagree I suppose, I think selecting the best available players at the time is the way to go ... it promotes a higher level of competition between all available players, which is better for NZ Rugby as a whole.

2/ If you are going to differentiate on who should or should not be selected, based on perceived commitment, who decides what criteria reflects the commitment. In my opinion, the risk of not getting selected upon his return, if it happens, is a big enough hurdle. At this stage he's away for 20 months, which is effectively a sabbatical without the guarantee of a contract when his 20 months are up (so the risk is all on him). I doubt that he would have got a sabbatical anyway, as it's only the senior players that get those.

As for your business analogy, he's not getting a promotion, at best, he's retaining his existing position, subject to performance - these guys aren't regular employees, they are contractors, contracted for a specific length of time, and, like any other contractor in any other business, they play (work) out their contract, and then move on to another contract either renew their contract, or get a contract with someone else.

 

[nickdnz]

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the consequences of selecting players basically just in time for a World Cup year cycle has resulted in more players leaving for long period of time - which may increase competition one year in every four but reduces it in the remaining three years. The fact we're seeing All Blacks of 23 years of age leaving now, instead of 29-30 year olds, goes to show it's a worrying trend and these young players will spend a lot of time now getting developed outside of the NZ rugby system (which is what keeps our players performing so highly). Yes he has the risk of not being selected on return if his form isn't good enough - that does nothing to elevate the investment the NZRU has already placed in him and effectively lost.

No, in my analogy a promoting is anytime you play for the All Blacks. That position isn't his - he doesn't have any guarantees on AB selection. He does have guarantees on being selected for being the Blues squad. If hypothetically the NZRU invested in guys they see as playing a bigger part of their future and having more commitment, they should absolutely include him over a guy who is only likely to contribute during period we are expected to have increased depth anyway.

Plus, I don't think loyalty is an irrelevant concept in pro sport. The national team is the national team, and there are criteria for who you can play for to be available for selection. The reality is that the All Blacks can achieve more with a guy who will be here for 10 years, than a guy who will only be here two years at a time. If you start messing with that you get a situation like Australia in which players leave outside of World Cup cycles (like 90% of their team which isn't contracted past 2015) and your domestic squads have no depth at all.

 

[Shaggy]

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the consequences of selecting players basically just in time for a World Cup year cycle has resulted in more players leaving for long period of time - which may increase competition one year in every four but reduces it in the remaining three years. The fact we're seeing All Blacks of 23 years of age leaving now, instead of 29-30 year olds, goes to show it's a worrying trend and these young players will spend a lot of time now getting developed outside of the NZ rugby system (which is what keeps our players performing so highly). Yes he has the risk of not being selected on return if his form isn't good enough - that does nothing to elevate the investment the NZRU has already placed in him and effectively lost.

No, in my analogy a promoting is anytime you play for the All Blacks. That position isn't his - he doesn't have any guarantees on AB selection. He does have guarantees on being selected for being the Blues squad. If hypothetically the NZRU invested in guys they see as playing a bigger part of their future and having more commitment, they should absolutely include him over a guy who is only likely to contribute during period we are expected to have increased depth anyway.

Plus, I don't think loyalty is an irrelevant concept in pro sport. The national team is the national team, and there are criteria for who you can play for to be available for selection. The reality is that the All Blacks can achieve more with a guy who will be here for 10 years, than a guy who will only be here two years at a time. If you start messing with that you get a situation like Australia in which players leave outside of World Cup cycles (like 90% of their team which isn't contracted past 2015) and your domestic squads have no depth at all.

Yes, I lament the fact we are in four year world cup cycles, but it's the way it is now (enjoying the discussion, even though we have differing views by the way), I guess a positive is that we often do get those young players back now, so they aren't completely lost to NZ Rugby. I get that a player isn't guaranteed that he'll always have a position in the All Blacks out of right, but if he's an incumbent, then he's technically already holding the position, unless your advocating that all All Blacks are demoted when the All Blacks aren't playing, and while he's guaranteed a place in the Blues squad, there's no obligation on their part to play him, or put him in the match day squad.

It doesn't really matter how long a player has played/how loyal they have been, if they aren't performing, any franchise will look at their options to get rid of the player. I wish that loyalty was more valued in professional sport, and in life in general, but my experience is that loyalty gets over looked in business situations (and Pro Rugby's a business) when things start to go bad for whatever reason. I know that I've paid the price for being too loyal in the past, but I digress.

I get what you say about the guy being in the AB's for ten years, but you can count those players on one hand ... consider the other side to this argument, where you have multiple player coming up through the ranks, that leave to play overseas, go and play for another nation, or worse, just give rugby up, because their path is blocked. If Nick Evans had stuck around after the 2007 RWC, we would probably have two older, experienced fly halves now, but it's doubtful we'd have seen the emergence of Barrett, Cruden, etc. I know your argument is about the loss of young players at the start of their careers, as opposed to older players nearing the end of theirs, but the principle is the same no matter who is the custodian of the Jersey - they always blocking someone else.

Given that Piutau has spent time in the All Black environment, and is in good form, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to exclude him at the moment.

 

[austingtir]

It actually does make sense. Hes realistically got no shot any time soon of being starting 15 unless Dagg and Smith are injured.... on the other hand he "could" of been a starting winger.. maybe.

He cant play for other int teams so I honestly couldnt care less and it brings some other young players up the pecking order.


I wouldnt go as far as to say he's overrated but I dont think he's that great anyway. Not 2million dollars great put it that way.

 

[MotherRucker1]

Can you afford to look at this in isolation to everything else? Surely form is tied to Steve Hansen's decisions in a world cup year. Quick thought, what if this had been Julian Savea? Wikipedia claims he's a year older than Piutau. Much more caps admittedly, but not a gigantic amount more. He's a young pup too when you think about it, though he looks more like a tank. Would we be taking the same stance? He isn't 28 or 29. He's still got a massive future with New Zealand. Would we really be so stubborn with our principles? Because that would be ridiculous. Savea is probably our best player, attack wise. Before anyone says it, I'm not suggesting Piatau is in Savea's league. But I'm just making a point that there are other elements to looks at in this equation. Plus I think one would come to the conclusion that Piatau is playing well enough for a spot on that AB wing from time to time this year. And will be important.

I prefer Jane on the other wing anyway, but that's just me. Bottom line is, if we need him, we need him. We'd look a bit silly taking this high and mighty stance, then if we have an injury plague like we did with the 10's at the last World Cup, and we come grovelling then how pathetic would we look? I could totally see how some guys might be sinking out of form and we just push them into the background. Some players who have left our shores have been in poor form when they're about to leave, and it's not just old fellas. But Piatau is playing good man. I know it's annoying but for me, he's got to be in the mix. Once he leaves, sure, don't select him, give him the middle finger, whatever you want. But in a World Cup year we need whoever is playing well to be on call. As stated above, I'm not saying he's our best, but he's good and if someone goes down I'd probably look to him. Unless we stick Ben Smith on that Wing ..... which means Dagg at fullback.

 

[William18]

I don't think the issue is as big as Nick is making it out to be. Our best players simply aren't heading overseas in droves. I highly doubt that Piutau will set a precedent. The fact is that is simply won't be easy for Piutau in 2017 to waltz back into the team. By that stage someone like Osborne, Li or Lowe would have established themselves. It isn't currently a good move for a player to go overseas for a couple of years and come back and be an All Black. SBW and Kaino have done it but I can't think of too many others who have actually been successful.

I also don't think it will set off a precedent because many of the All Blacks would choose to go anyway. If you told Piutau that if he signs overseas he will not be welcomed back then he would probably just sign an even longer deal. Saying to players that if you go overseas now that you will never be welcomed back just seems like a very good way to alienate them. Ultimately the All Blacks jersey has got to be enough of a lure on its own to keep people in this country. I don't think the use of threats will help.

 

[MotherRucker1]

Yup, true. Which kinda comes back to my whole thing of, the best the Union could do with this situation is to chase him (not obsessively so) to make sure they get him before he signs that longer deal. Whether he's worth chasing, I don't know. He's a really good player, and the Rugby Union would probably need to talk to Hansen about that. Either way, not the end of the world.

 

[nzlizard]

I don't have a problem with any player doing this.

At the end of the day they are after the best deal for them as an employee, each person has different priorities and if his is money then go for.

I know if I left my current job I would go up at least 10k maybe even 15k, however the other things my employer offers hold more weight than the money in the next 12 months.

He is doing the same in terms of taking what is important to him now and the short term, like people say he is no guarantee of being a starting AB and 2 years overseas sets him up for life, he is young enough to come back and still get a spot for a few years.

I actually rate him as a right wing option for the AB's, not as a FB, and before Fekitoa came around I thought of him as Conrads replacement, maybe if he had been focused as a wing we may have seen him secure that spot. The big thing for me is I would take him to the Olympics if he was fit enough for the 7's as he would wreck havoc.

As for picking him this year, hell year, if he is the best option to help us win the world cup then get him, nothing IMO is more important than that world cup, we can rebuild and have enough depth when he is gone to do that, but blooding a new guy in WC year is not the smartest move, and we all know that if he didn't get picked and we lost everyone would be saying "why didn't you take him"

 

[nickdnz]

I think Nick is being weird. If Piutau is one of the best outside backs in New Zealand (which he is) then he should be selected for the All Blacks. We want to win the World Cup. If Piutau comes back in 2017 and is again good enough then he should obviously be selected. Going away and coming back just doesn't work that often. It worked for Kaino but has failed for Gear and McAlister. That is the risk that Piutau runs.

Nick Evans is probably filthy rich from all the time he has spent playing overseas. Good for him. The problem for him is that no one in New Zealand gives a crap about Nick Evans and maybe he is okay with that. Stephen Donald, on the other hand, is a national hero whose name will always be remembered. There are huge rewards for staying and wearing the black jersey and many players choose to do that.

Haha, you make it sound like I just sit on my keyboard picking my nose.

Nick Evans could have been a national hero come the Rugby World Cup - if he followed the current trend of only opting to play for the All Blacks when the opportunity arises in a four year cycle. As crap as Donald was - we went from 2008-2011 pretty much relying on Daniel Carter being fit, and during 2009 when he was out we only had Stephen Donald (and Mike Delaney...). The reality is we need to maintain depth in NZ rugby for more than just once every four years, otherwise we are going to have seasons like 2009.

As I said we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there is just a bigger picture that people miss out on. South Africa have already ruined their selection practicals in my mind to the detriment of their domestic game. Australia is looking like they are going to have to start yet another cycle of developing young players because of the mass exodus from Australian rugby expected after 2015 (when it seems everyone such as Folau, Genia, Cooper, Pocock etc are all off contract and not looking to recommit, probably with an eye to come back in time for the RWC). All New Zealand has to offer is rewarding All Blacks jerseys to those who have shown enough skill and commitment to New Zealand rugby. Without that we're simply going to see the trend of losing players younger and at a faster rate.

And for the record I'm at least consistent. My feelings on Piatau is exactly the same as SBW. It's just a dumb way of keeping our domestic game safe in the long run, particularly for players we don't actually need.

 

[MotherRucker1]

I know the forum have pretty much made their individual arguments about this already but here is Hansen's take:

"I'm extremely disappointed he's going," Hansen said.

"He was a person we were hoping would grow over time after this World Cup in to one of our senior players. We've put a lot of time and effort into him so we're disappointed he's decided to go down that route."

"Does it make him ineligible for the World Cup? No it doesn't," Hansen said, "but it does make it harder for him."

"He's going to have to play really, really well. We've got a duty to pick the best team but at the same time if two guys are vying for one spot then things like commitment and experience come into it.

"Not only are you picking for today but you're also picking for tomorrow. That's what we've done with him for three years."

-Source: Rugby Heaven on Stuff. Not sure if we can post links?

 

[Shaggy]

I know the forum have pretty much made their individual arguments about this already but here is Hansen's take:

"I'm extremely disappointed he's going," Hansen said.

"He was a person we were hoping would grow over time after this World Cup in to one of our senior players. We've put a lot of time and effort into him so we're disappointed he's decided to go down that route."

"Does it make him ineligible for the World Cup? No it doesn't," Hansen said, "but it does make it harder for him."

"He's going to have to play really, really well. We've got a duty to pick the best team but at the same time if two guys are vying for one spot then things like commitment and experience come into it.

"Not only are you picking for today but you're also picking for tomorrow. That's what we've done with him for three years."

-Source: Rugby Heaven on Stuff. Not sure if we can post links?

So my take on the commitment and experience thing is, if a player such as Cory Jane is playing close to, equivalently, or better than Piutau, then Jane will get picked, but if Piutau is playing at the same level as James Lowe, Piutau will get picked.

Haha, you make it sound like I just sit on my keyboard picking my nose.

Nick Evans could have been a national hero come the Rugby World Cup - if he followed the current trend of only opting to play for the All Blacks when the opportunity arises in a four year cycle. As crap as Donald was - we went from 2008-2011 pretty much relying on Daniel Carter being fit, and during 2009 when he was out we only had Stephen Donald (and Mike Delaney...). The reality is we need to maintain depth in NZ rugby for more than just once every four years, otherwise we are going to have seasons like 2009.

As I said we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there is just a bigger picture that people miss out on. South Africa have already ruined their selection practicals in my mind to the detriment of their domestic game. Australia is looking like they are going to have to start yet another cycle of developing young players because of the mass exodus from Australian rugby expected after 2015 (when it seems everyone such as Folau, Genia, Cooper, Pocock etc are all off contract and not looking to recommit, probably with an eye to come back in time for the RWC). All New Zealand has to offer is rewarding All Blacks jerseys to those who have shown enough skill and commitment to New Zealand rugby. Without that we're simply going to see the trend of losing players younger and at a faster rate.

And for the record I'm at least consistent. My feelings on Piatau is exactly the same as SBW. It's just a dumb way of keeping our domestic game safe in the long run, particularly for players we don't actually need.

Totally agree that the only thing that the only thing that NZ Rugby has to offer is the chance of the All Black jersey. It would be a huge mistake for the union to change their policy off only picking players playing in NZ.

Not only does it retain the players, but if you open the gates to selecting overseas players, you saturate the market with NZ young players. The rugby market is subject to the principles of supply and demand, just like any other market, so, the flood of players would drive down the player wages.

I don't think I have my head in the sand other this issue, but Australian and South African rugby seem to have other issues that they need to counter, as well as the ones NZ faces, if they want to retain their players.

South Africa seem to have impacts from the economy, and political interference with racial quotas etc, that probably drive players off shore. Australia has internal competition for players internally from Rugby League, as well as from higher paid overseas clubs. They already seem resigned to the fact that they have to, at the very least, allow players to play off shore for shortened stints, and that their players will leave, come back, and maybe leave again.

I think to a certain extent, Australia is playing the price for having five super rugby franchises. While this increases the number of positions available at the top domestic level, it seems to result in a bidding war for the top players, meaning that these top international players move from franchise to franchise, so there a no/little loyalty, and the union can no longer compete enough to retain some of these players from the overseas clubs.

 

[William18]

Haha, you make it sound like I just sit on my keyboard picking my nose.

Nick Evans could have been a national hero come the Rugby World Cup - if he followed the current trend of only opting to play for the All Blacks when the opportunity arises in a four year cycle. As crap as Donald was - we went from 2008-2011 pretty much relying on Daniel Carter being fit, and during 2009 when he was out we only had Stephen Donald (and Mike Delaney...). The reality is we need to maintain depth in NZ rugby for more than just once every four years, otherwise we are going to have seasons like 2009.

As I said we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there is just a bigger picture that people miss out on. South Africa have already ruined their selection practicals in my mind to the detriment of their domestic game. Australia is looking like they are going to have to start yet another cycle of developing young players because of the mass exodus from Australian rugby expected after 2015 (when it seems everyone such as Folau, Genia, Cooper, Pocock etc are all off contract and not looking to recommit, probably with an eye to come back in time for the RWC). All New Zealand has to offer is rewarding All Blacks jerseys to those who have shown enough skill and commitment to New Zealand rugby. Without that we're simply going to see the trend of losing players younger and at a faster rate.

And for the record I'm at least consistent. My feelings on Piatau is exactly the same as SBW. It's just a dumb way of keeping our domestic game safe in the long run, particularly for players we don't actually need.

By weird I just meant I didn't understand your position.

2009 isn't a fair comparison for me because 2009 did not have any special deals. Our lack of depth in 2009 was caused by us not having enough money to keep players in the country who could not be guaranteed All Blacks starters. I fail to see how simply picking the best players will lead to more 2009 situations. For one there is absolutely no guarantee that Nick Evans would have transitioned successfully back into NZ rugby in 2011.

I think you are also implying (or outright stating) that the All Blacks jersey is not much of a lure outside of World Cups. Aren't you really saying that a lot of players only want to play for the All Blacks at the World Cup and screw the other 3 years? You're sort of saying that players just put up with the other 3 years so they can play at the World Cup. I don't think that is true. I think a lot of players choose to stay in New Zealand and play in the Rugby Championship rather than decide to move offshore for two years. I think a strategy of forcing players to play in NZ for 3 years when they don't want to just to play in a World Cup is more likely to build resentment and it just isn't necessary.

If players want to go, let them; if they come back good enough, pick them. There will always be someone younger who wants to play.