Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Maybe this is why I don't get the NH club rugby
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TRF_heineken" data-source="post: 618546" data-attributes="member: 40658"><p>Actually there would still be a national side. There are many other ways to compile a national team, even without the existance of a club. Universities for instance can have teams and those players can be picked for national duty. Another Example could be like in South Africa, nearly every major town has a team compiled by the staff of the Police force. They don't belong to a club, they are employed police officers, and they form part of the local leagues in SA. There are plenty of ways to get players to represent your national team. The thing is just that these players might not be proffessional sports stars, and may get slaughtered against more proffessional opposition. Point is, there can still be a National team without any clubs...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is just one example that I made, and I know about the Bay-a-ritz situation. This is actually case in point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And then you wonder why France sometimes underperforms at international level?? it's the bold part in particular that makes me shrivel. Springbok and All Blacks are the main priority in SA and NZ. even with their different contracting ways, they still make the national team the main priority. that's why players like Dan Carter and Richie Mccaw gets a sabbatical from club/franchise rugby. So that they as the player can prolong their career (always a good investment) and to be able to represent the national team as much as possible. When the national team underperforms, they will always blame the national coach and management, I agree with you there, but remember, the national coach can only work with what he has available. If clubs don't release certain players for national duty, then the national coach doesn't have a choice but to pick someone else, usually not as good as his first choice. With the amount of club games in the year, there are also more and more players getting injuries, which also makes selection difficult for the national coach.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not supposed to be a culture clash. there shouldn't be a divide. There must actually be a closeness between the national team and the clubs. You scratch my back, I scratch yours, kind of situation. By clashing, there will inevitably be a divide, and I can't see that on the long haul that it can be beneficial for either group...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_heineken, post: 618546, member: 40658"] Actually there would still be a national side. There are many other ways to compile a national team, even without the existance of a club. Universities for instance can have teams and those players can be picked for national duty. Another Example could be like in South Africa, nearly every major town has a team compiled by the staff of the Police force. They don't belong to a club, they are employed police officers, and they form part of the local leagues in SA. There are plenty of ways to get players to represent your national team. The thing is just that these players might not be proffessional sports stars, and may get slaughtered against more proffessional opposition. Point is, there can still be a National team without any clubs... This is just one example that I made, and I know about the Bay-a-ritz situation. This is actually case in point. And then you wonder why France sometimes underperforms at international level?? it's the bold part in particular that makes me shrivel. Springbok and All Blacks are the main priority in SA and NZ. even with their different contracting ways, they still make the national team the main priority. that's why players like Dan Carter and Richie Mccaw gets a sabbatical from club/franchise rugby. So that they as the player can prolong their career (always a good investment) and to be able to represent the national team as much as possible. When the national team underperforms, they will always blame the national coach and management, I agree with you there, but remember, the national coach can only work with what he has available. If clubs don't release certain players for national duty, then the national coach doesn't have a choice but to pick someone else, usually not as good as his first choice. With the amount of club games in the year, there are also more and more players getting injuries, which also makes selection difficult for the national coach. It's not supposed to be a culture clash. there shouldn't be a divide. There must actually be a closeness between the national team and the clubs. You scratch my back, I scratch yours, kind of situation. By clashing, there will inevitably be a divide, and I can't see that on the long haul that it can be beneficial for either group... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Maybe this is why I don't get the NH club rugby
Top