having our pacific players back would be awesome

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I can't think of a worse idea ever. Why not just scrap international rugby. Pick and country and stick to it.

The problem is the financial void in the PI, if you sort that out then you won't have to deal with 1 cap players. I'd never want to see Manu line up for another team as it would make a joke of every time he has sang the national anthem. Same goes for every country.

I really can't believe anyone would want this, the PI need financial stability or tier 1 cast offs, this will only create more of them.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Who's scared?

I've said all along my thoughts on international rugby are based on what I feel the game should be - I want to see the best products of a countries rugby union vs the best products of another countries rugby union. Is that not what international competition is supposed to be? The best of one country vs the best of another?
It's why I have no issue with Tuilagi, a full product of the RFU systems from club academy to age grade to full international, playing for England but have never wanted Brad Shields, a full product of the NZ system, in a red rose.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm the one saying try something new, your the one paranoid about the world ending if they try something new...weird

you obviously think the All Blacks would poach a while swathe of new PI players

You are confused, let me help you. The fact i don't like something does not mean i believe the world is about to end.

And i have no idea, whatsoever, what would the All Black would do. I haven't developed the ability to see the future, yet.
I know what they have done in the past, tho.

At the moment there aren't that many pacific players willing to sacrifice the money in order to play for their country. Having to choose between money and representing your country is a first world problem. Pacific people tend to prefer getting the money to help out their families, especially if the money is short lived as you can't play rugby forever.

point is, the concept of preventing people from playing for two countries so they decide against taking the money is not one that works for lower income nations.

I understand and agree with pretty much every word. I don't like it thou.

I was thinking about the difference in incomes from one decision vs the other in order to argue a case, but i have no figures at hand and anything i'd say would be nothing short of guessing, so i'd rather not.

For me, this issue has 2 legs. 1) What do i want to achieve 2) What can i achieve.
I don't like how things stand right now one bit (point 1)), but i can't think of a tangible, down to earth and practical way to adress the issue.
This specific proposed idea feels a lot like a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Why?

This is the main issue. I'll give you my answer. Because i would like to see a competition where the available roosters are there for something other than just money.
I know the implementation is far from perfect, but i like the ideal.
Why? Because there is a big chance i will lose interest in national sides playing against each other.

I liked your previous post, the one talking about partisanship. Not because i agree with it, but because it made me think. I think you have some good points, but then i see Tier 1 nations and the two poorest nations (RSA and Arg both by quite some distance) are the ones pushing for harsher eligibility rules. Not sure about RSA, but we are a huge net exporter of players, not only in rugby.
I don't want to fall back to the "it's a cultural thing" but we don't like people who we don't think are Argentines to represent us. We simply don't. The best example i can give you is Messi. People, not a majority but definitely a LOT of people, still question him playing for Argentina. I think most people would jump blindfolded into the possibility of having the (arguably) best player in the history of the sport playing for your team, regardless of how you achieve that. A lot of us see it differently. I know it sounds like an old and worn-out cliche, but i think we like the idea of things that money cant buy.
Again, we question whether the greatest player in the sort should wear our national jersey. Let that sink in.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

This is the main issue. I'll give you my answer. Because i would like to see a competition where the available roosters are there for something other than just money.
I know the implementation is far from perfect, but i like the ideal.
Why? Because there is a big chance i will lose interest in national sides playing against each other.

That's fair, but I don't think this rule, if implemented correctly, puts the game in a worse place than it already is. If you have a 4 year stand down period to stop any chance of players playing for two teams in a world cup cycle, require a player to be eligible for the country before the stand down period ends* and restrict it to movements from a higher tier to a lower tier I think you're ok and that the original decision on who to play for won't be any more financially motivated than they are now.

Unfortunately I don't think we can get to the point where money won't be a decisive factor on deciding who to play for in rugby without club rugby becoming the absolute pinnacle of the sport like club soccer. Even if match fees and requirements to play for a club in X country to play for the national team were abolished, Adidas are still going to pay the England or NZ international a lot more money than the Tongan.

*So players aren't qualifying for a second nation through residency, or at least devoting 9 years. (five year residence + 4 year stand down)

I liked your previous post, the one talking about partisanship. Not because i agree with it, but because it made me think. I think you have some good points, but then i see Tier 1 nations and the two poorest nations (RSA and Arg both by quite some distance) are the ones pushing for harsher eligibility rules. Not sure about RSA, but we are a huge net exporter of players, not only in rugby.
I don't want to fall back to the "it's a cultural thing" but we don't like people who we don't think are Argentines to represent us. We simply don't. The best example i can give you is Messi. People, not a majority but definitely a LOT of people, still question him playing for Argentina. I think most people would jump blindfolded into the possibility of having the (arguably) best player in the history of the sport playing for your team, regardless of how you achieve that. A lot of us see it differently. I know it sounds like an old and worn-out cliche, but i think we like the idea of things that money cant buy.
Again, we question whether the greatest player in the sort should wear our national jersey. Let that sink in.

I think that's very fair. What I would say is that it seems to be very personal to Argentina (just comparing Olyy's post above shows the difference) and its definitely something that you would have to pride yourselves on rather than expecting it from everyone in my opinion.

I did leave Argentina and RSA out of my original post on purpose because it does get complicated with them and I couldn't tell you what either countries' statistics are regarding immigration v emigration. My argument is not as simple as poor v rich though. Population and the populations of surrounding countries play a part.
With the Pacific Islands and Ireland, as well as I would presume Wales and Scotland (it gets murkier there because moving from Cardiff to London isn't emigrating) you have countries that have either constantly experienced mass emigration or have had periods of it over their last two/three generations (my generation is the first in Ireland that hasn't experience a huge amount of permanent emigration) and the effects of which will continue to be seen for at least another 15-20 years on terms of eligibility for a rugby team.
That argument is exclusive to keeping the unpopular "granny rule" though.

Eligibility for me is more of a personal thing, I like the product that top class players produce and they deserve a certain amount of remuneration and protection for it in my opinion, if they were making even a fraction of what soccer or basketball players can with a club I'd be all for stricter rules, rugby just isn't there yet though.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

It's easy to say I don't like it.

Just like it's easy to say just make the PI financially stable.
Just get more money duh.....

You are living in a dream land if you think that the PI could ever compete money wise to make them on a level playing field.
Fiji - 883,483 pop, GDP $5.5 billion,
Samoa - 196,130 pop, $820.5 million
Tonga - 103,197 pop, $450.4 million
England - 55.98 million pop, $2.820 trillion

In what world could the PI compete, let alone when you consider Rugby isn't really floating in cash that other unions could afford to raise others.

and even when you consider that the PI do need money how do you get the money?
In a ideal world they would become a better team, play higher level opposition and get bigger cut in the international $ pie.
But top International teams don't really play them that often why? because it's not worth it in their current state, they don't really bring in spectators because not many want to see games where they lose 54-0 or 74-24

Say for Tonga what would be more attractive for international teams to play?
Their RWC squad
or
with the likes of Pulu, Fekitoa, Piutua, Moala, etc.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

You are confused, let me help you. The fact i don't like something does not mean i believe the world is about to end.

And i have no idea, whatsoever, what would the All Black would do. I haven't developed the ability to see the future, yet.
I know what they have done in the past, tho.


I understand and agree with pretty much every word. I don't like it thou.

I was thinking about the difference in incomes from one decision vs the other in order to argue a case, but i have no figures at hand and anything i'd say would be nothing short of guessing, so i'd rather not.

For me, this issue has 2 legs. 1) What do i want to achieve 2) What can i achieve.
I don't like how things stand right now one bit (point 1)), but i can't think of a tangible, down to earth and practical way to adress the issue.
This specific proposed idea feels a lot like a step in the wrong direction.

who have the all blacks poached? Who hasn't come through the nz domestic comp/development program, of the 1200 odd all blacks, how many represented a nother nation at age group level for example? It must be a large % for people to so so worried about it getting any worse

There's very little point to this if people are going to take the approach of "they should just make more money the they wouldt need help",
Doesn't matter if those unions fail, my team is ok and these man made principles are still in tact

I think for me I enjoy variety, playing Aussie and rsa 2 or 3 times a year is a bit repetitive...I want to see the abs playing more teams and the games to be competitive, if someone can come up with other ideas to achieve this then great...but generally the only reason has been "I don't like it"

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You are living in a dream land if you think that the PI could ever compete money wise to make them on a level playing field.

I dont necessarily disagree but i'll play devils advocate.

How do you reconcile that with what happens in football? Why cant the PIs become something like what Uruguay is/has been to football?
Not rich, very small, virtually non-existent domestic league, yet they are able to compete with the very best at a national level. Different sports, course, but i fail to see why the experiences couldn't be transferable.

Don't jump at my throat, again, devil's advocate. I have a few thoughts but want to hear others'.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I dont necessarily disagree but i'll play devils advocate.

How do you reconcile that with what happens in football? Why cant the PIs become something like what Uruguay is/has been to football?
Not rich, very small, virtually non-existent domestic league, yet they are able to compete with the very best at a national level. Different sports, course, but i fail to see why the experiences couldn't be transferable.

Don't jump at my throat, again, devil's advocate. I have a few thoughts but want to hear others'.

I'm not sure we need a devils advocate, you just seem to enjoy it, I think those of us in favour would prefer ideas rather than just pointing out problems

you know Uruguay have won the World Cup a few times aye, they've had decades of history to build on

also, the club game in football of several times bigger than the international game, these players might play 40 odd games for their club and so have the luxury of choosing to play for their smaller home county

in rugby some of these guys only play five or ten more club games than international, they need both forms of income,

it's not comparable

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

You have to get PI teams into the southern hen club game and their rugby championship or whatever it's called.

I don't want to see a player who played for one country then appear for another, I don't like the idea because it goes against what international rugby is. I can't stand the amount of 'imports' already in the 6 nations (England included) and I get a little less interested in international games every time I see another south African or kiwi pretend to sing one of the national anthems.

I think if you give players another shot it will encourage more 1 cap wonders who sit in international exile.

 

[mania]

I can't think of a worse idea ever. Why not just scrap international rugby. Pick and country and stick to it.

because its a farce. players are playing for countries they have no relation too solely because that union has enough money to lure them away

 

[mania]

https://www.thecoconet.tv/coco-tala...-xXdp_wH5B6JeehSJj0RFI92ySGuSJzRjRk4hjZSompwQ
islanders should just go to gridiron. no international season and more money. islanders are way more suited to girdiron ayways

 

[unrated]

This is the main issue. I'll give you my answer. Because i would like to see a competition where the available roosters are there for something other than just money.
I know the implementation is far from perfect, but i like the ideal.
Why? Because there is a big chance i will lose interest in national sides playing against each other.

I liked your previous post, the one talking about partisanship. Not because i agree with it, but because it made me think. I think you have some good points, but then i see Tier 1 nations and the two poorest nations (RSA and Arg both by quite some distance) are the ones pushing for harsher eligibility rules. Not sure about RSA, but we are a huge net exporter of players, not only in rugby.
I don't want to fall back to the "it's a cultural thing" but we don't like people who we don't think are Argentines to represent us. We simply don't. The best example i can give you is Messi. People, not a majority but definitely a LOT of people, still question him playing for Argentina. I think most people would jump blindfolded into the possibility of having the (arguably) best player in the history of the sport playing for your team, regardless of how you achieve that. A lot of us see it differently. I know it sounds like an old and worn-out cliche, but i think we like the idea of things that money cant buy.
Again, we question whether the greatest player in the sort should wear our national jersey. Let that sink in.

How can you say such a thing about Messi? Your disrespect towards the him is distastefull, he loves his country and especially shocking coming from an Argentinian. He could have chosen to play for Spain, with Iniesta and Xavi and they would have won three straight world cups by now. He chose loyalty to his homeland, the one he was born in, he has respect for his hometown and wants to go back one day to Rosario.

You are now trancending towards culture instead of nation that you were born in. The latter should IMO be the golden rule. Not born here? Then you dont get to play for the country. No exceptions. Most white South Africans come from Europe. They did not just appear there one day. So if we look at cultural heritage like you propose as a factor (and alluding to with Messi) then most white South Africans must rather go play for The Netherlands, Germany, England, France and Scotland. Thats why its better to just say whatever country you are born in.

 

[unrated]

I want to see the best products of a countries rugby union vs the best products of another countries rugby union. Is that not what international competition is supposed to be? The best of one country vs the best of another?

This is exactly how I feel, its what separates the idea of club/franchise from International. Nations and the idea of rugby union is a man-made concept. Our fantasies want to see how the collective of all [you're (countries?)] people fare in a rugby match against another country. And then advance, and try to outgrow your rival, over hundreds of years. Slowly investing in grassroots. Its the ultimate game and it's beautiful. If a country starts cheating the idea and importing players just because they can lure their parents for economic reason then we are already attacking the essence of what International rugby should be. The moment Money becomes a bigger concern than the above concept, thats when rugby has lost its soul.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

How can you say such a thing about Messi? Your disrespect towards the him is distastefull, he loves his country and especially shocking coming from an Argentinian. He could have chosen to play for Spain, with Iniesta and Xavi and they would have won three straight world cups by now. He chose loyalty to his homeland, the one he was born in, he has respect for his hometown and wants to go back one day to Rosario.

I think you misunderstood my post. I thought i was careful enough by using "we" instead of "I", as i was talking about (a lot of) Argentines, not necessarily myself.
And about your phase "he could have played for Spain". We do not consider someone picking our team over other potential ones a favour. Quite the contrary.

You are now trancending towards culture instead of nation that you were born in. The latter should IMO be the golden rule. Not born here? Then you dont get to play for the country. No exceptions. Most white South Africans come from Europe. They did not just appear there one day. So if we look at cultural heritage like you propose as a factor (and alluding to with Messi) then most white South Africans must rather go play for The Netherlands, Germany, England, France and Scotland. Thats why its better to just say whatever country you are born in.

If that is what you got from my post either i am terrible at expressing myself or your reading comprehension is just as bad. Or both. Anyway, that is not what i meant.

The point is, if "we" question the likes of Messi, who is Argentine by every and any definition of the word, imagine how we would question someone who was truly poached. I know odds are this might change and i will probably have to eat my words sooner of later, but as things stand right now, we'd rather lose with our guns than win by borrowing others'. I for one am rather fond of that.

 

[unrated]

I think you misunderstood my post. I thought i was careful enough by using "we" instead of "I", as i was talking about (a lot of) Argentines, not necessarily myself.
And about your phase "he could have played for Spain". We do not consider someone picking our team over other potential ones a favour. Quite the contrary.



If that is what you got from my post either i am terrible at expressing myself or your reading comprehension is just as bad. Or both. Anyway, that is not what i meant.

The point is, if "we" question the likes of Messi, who is Argentine by every and any definition of the word, imagine how we would question someone who was truly poached. I know odds are this might change and i will probably have to eat my words sooner of later, but as things stand right now, we'd rather lose with our guns than win by borrowing others'. I for one am rather fond of that.

I think we are closer to an understanding then than you might think. But let me explain my thought process when analyzing a post such as yours.

You see, in the absence of you explaining a statement I have to resort to making assumptions.

The first such statement you made, You don't want to fall on the "Its a cultural thing" but you (or we instead, I get that) does not like people that you do not think are Argentines, represent Argentina. You use Messi as an example for this statement. So you say that many people question him playing for Argentina.

The conclusion I draw from this is that, 1. Messi was born in Argentina therefore 2. You must be referring to the cultural thing that you don't like to fall back on and then 3. I must assume because of a lack of explanation on your side that you believe the Messi family is not truly Argentinean (I heard similar rumours too) so 4. therefore I make the assumption that a cultural connection trumps the mere fact that someone was born in said country. If I am still wrong then you are right I must probably have bad reading comprehension.
I hope you get how I come to this reasoning. Moving on.

One last thing on Messi, im sure he does not feel he did Argentina a favour by playing for them. Those were my words.

And you say referring to Messi again "we'd rather lose with our guns than win by borrowing others'. I for one am rather fond of that"
Please elaborate on what about Messi, you (or many Argentineans) feel makes him not Argentinean enough to represent the country. Am I wrong to assume that you were indeed referring to cultural links? If not how am I supposed to deduct your actual reasoning?

But yes I get it, Argentinians are very selective about who represents them, that's ok with me. From a personal point of view, most of us in the new world are descended from European migrants. Therefore, I deem the country you were born in much more sensible towards International selection.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Not born here? Then you dont get to play for the country. No exceptions.

You can't seriously want that?

 

[mania]

imho if pichot had been clever he would've made the same qualification as the Olympics apply. then at least the brothers plying their trade would get citizenship out of where they are. that would have more integrity and value to a bro and his family. if your willing to move there and become a tax paying voting member of that country then sweet as.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Not born here? Then you dont get to play for the country. No exceptions.

Might be trivial, but i am not 100% sure i understand what you mean here. Just so i grasp your pov correctly: you are against, say, Beast playing for the Springboks then?

 

[unrated]

You can't seriously want that?

Why would I not want this? What are the pitfalls in your opinion?


I can elaborate on why I want this... If we leave clubs and franchises as the sector for the professional side of rugby to mix and match players as they please, and hiring foreigners in coaching and playing roles then great I have no problem with this.



When the European teams buy the players from my team, its sad but that's life and we move on with the youngsters.



Regarding Internationals:

If the International rules become too lax then we risk the International game becoming a glorified International club competition. The wealthiest nations will be luring foreigners to their International teams based on their superior economic packages that they can offer as well as the lure of life in a first world country which is comparatively safe by International standards with a high quality of life. The migration is inevitable. If the rules allow these emigrants to somehow play for their adopted nation then the landscape of International rugby changes.



I would find much more satisfaction in International games if it remains or becomes even stricter towards only allowing those born in your country regardless of the grandparent rule.



This would result in:

• Countries would be truly measured based on what they produce within that country (from genetics, to style of life leading to personality, to the education system and then finally to the end product. International rugby players making up the identity of a national team based on the multiple factors leading to their existence as a professional rugby player
• Countries then are forced to invest in their grassroots programs
• they are forced (if they want to be successful that is) to introduce the sport to all the schools around the country to foster those all-important player numbers
• Smaller but richer countries like Ireland, might not have the population to compete with 59 million South Africans but they can afford way better facilities and theoretically be leading the cutting edge in sports science. In this way they like NZ negate their small population.
• A country such as South Africa got the playing numbers but we often lack facilities to nurture these players
• England should straight up be dominating this sport, they got the population and the money, same with France
• NZ has a small but very active rugby population and got some money to back that up
• How popular the sport is in that country will translate into tv money, and this funnels through to the union.

By making the rules on international selection very very strict (Only if you were born here do you get to play for the team representing the nation) it gives IMO International rugby its soul. Don't you think that its exciting when the result of all these cumulative factors that happened over hundreds of years reflects in a national team?



NZ is trying to be super liberal and saying they want to help the Pacific Island nations grow, but they want to amend the rules so that they can have the first choice on all these players (Most PI players would jump at the opportunity to play in NZ) and then when they don't want to use them anymore they are allowed to play for their original island again. Theoretically, it can make the PI nations stronger but they are still going to lure their players in their peak to play for NZ rather and that's not ideal. It seems to me that NZ is throwing them a bone.



If rugby was to ever grow in Africa, and nations such as Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique starts producing good players then I can tell you now we are the best setup to poach these players and make them play for our National team because we are the most developed nation from a rugby perspective by a long shot when looking at Africa. Anyone remotely good in the school scene or club scene will get snapped up by our schools- clubs- Universities and Franchises. We would have much more players with a similar story to Tendai Mtawarira from Zimbabwe. This would not be helpful towards the growth of Rugby Union. It would make South Africa stronger, but that's not the point.