New Zealand as World Champions need to change themselves

[Melhor Time]

(1) They have tried through the IRB to have former players be allowed to play for the Tier 2 nations. NZ Coaches are EVERYWHERE. Ex-NZ Players are EVERYWHERE.
(2) (3) This is in the hands of the owners of the PI players contracts (Usually NH teams - no offence NH), and using the Pacific Nations Cup as an example - The Island based teams still do not have their best teams available for even this.
(4) Professional Contracts are available - however the money paid to foreigners outweighs the NZ dollar
(5) This is nonsensical, it would destroy the S15 for NZ and create havoc for the All Blacks. Only 1 player from overseas would have made a difference for the AB's (Nick Evans)
(6) Against who? Take away the revenue gained for either team, how would it benefit other lower tier 2 or 3 teams if they were getting destroyed by the AB's? Perhaps have a NZ Barbarians team or the Idea I'm most keen about is send the NZ Maori's on tour around the WORLD.
(7) Agreed - although, all they really did is indicate that NZ may not afford to have a team in the next world cup.

NZ rugby union operated at a loss of Millions in 09 and 2010. This world cup has also put NZ and NZRU at a loss of millions. And this is the (now) Top team in the world. What you're asking for is not impossible, but highly unlikely.

As for the s15 teams - that's debatable.

I've had my fill of partying, i'm going to have a nap there's a street parade to wake up for.

Nice post.

1. The coaches is a good thing. Kieran Crowley being such an example. His work with Canada is impressive. But its his job. he gets paid. Coaching from the top sides will always being abroad. USA, Georgia, Japan, Canada, Italy, Russia. All were coached by foreigners at the World Cup. What I am asking for is to see the union involved in assisting the teams at the elite level.

3. It is notat the hands of the clubs. The 2008 match was never going to work and was put into the calendar with this all too clear. Clubs were never going to release for the one off match. The game could have been played earlier, in June when Samoa could have fielded a much better team. The Pacific Nations Cup is viewed as secondary to the November internationals. Coaches from Samoa, Tonga and Fiji have commonly used the tournament to test players. Canada and the USA have done the same with the Churchill Cup and then toured Europe or Japan in November and fielded stronger sides.

4. I think this whole debate has gone way off course. I´d like more players from more countries to play rugby at the top level. This is how we´ll have better World Cups. 2003 was the worst World Cup in history with the orgainzers screwing up the draw badly and teams lacking large number of professional players being well beaten. Even Argentina were badly defeated. Their match vs Australia was not what it would have been in 2007 and 2011 and the exposure to top flight rugby is what made Los Pumas into a world class side. The issue of money and the kiwi dollar is largely not important here. It matters not where they play - they just need regular game time against equal or better players. Hence in tier one countries.

5. It would not destroy NZ and there is no evidence from other sports to say it would. Brazilian Soccer continues to be strong. Clubs here still win global tournaments yet the top players are all in Europe. Wales got to the semi´s yet have many more imports and fewer teams than New Zealand does in Super Rugby.

6. New Zealand last played in Argentina in 2006 and nearly lost. Tonga defeated France yet New Zealand has never played a test there. New Zealand plays Australia in Japan but not against Japan itself. Tier one sides almost only face tier two and three sides at the World Cup. What I´d like NZ to do is stand up and show fellow tier one sides the way. Organize matches vs the Islanders then encourage France to play in Georgia and Ireland to play in Russia. This is being a global leader.

7. According to some NZ´s financial state is due to mismanagement. There are calls to sell the Super Rugby teams to private owners. Its not rocket science. You must spend less than what you earn. The ITM Cup is a financial disaster. Super Rugby continues to be a major profit maker as does international matches. Crowds have been poor for too long and little done to fix this. Now the country has bigger and newer stadiums but a terrible national competition. One great fault is the quality of players. All Blacks need to play and not be reserved for Four Nations and November international duties. Get imported players. The Pacific Islands and even Australia can provide a lot. Clermont flyhalf, Brock James was at Taranaki for a season.

Whether changes happen or not they need to. Operating on a loss is not sustainable. Decisions need to be made. New Zealand needs more friends not less. Start with the Pacific Islands. Get the USA and Canada to play mid week tests at venues like Napier, New Plymouth and Whangarei in 2013. Its more revenue and could signal the All Blacks playing in Denver, for instance, and drawing a big crowd. Curiously, Argentina vs Fiji is being looked at seriously to be played at Dubai.

 

[LittleGuy]

John Kirwan has come out in support of the AB's doing a tour of the Pacific Tier Two countries here is the link to the scrum article.

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/152892.html

 

[William18]

They do have the money and, actually, need the players. Unless, the teams are happy with losing mroe than they won. Two of the five NZ Super Rugby teams lost more than they won in 2011.



I dispute that. Not all of NZ´s Super Rugby sides are top level teams. Some a re better than others as is the case of Australia and South Africa. The fact is none of the3 three have enough high quality players to fill the five teams. This is where imported players are needed. Looking at the NZ teams from 2011 the Chiefs, Highlanders and Hurricanes all needed better players. The Highlanders record was 8 wins and 8 loses. The Hurricanes won 5 and lost 9 and the Chiefs won 6 and lost 9.

BTW go celebrate the RWC win! Get off the computer![/QUOTE]

Not at all. Players will play wherever they can. They´ll take the best offer on the table almost always. If the Ospreys can have two leading Samoan internationals then so can the Hurricanes.

I am saying that, in my opinion, as World Champions New Zealand needs to be a global leader and this means:

- Be proud but set an example. Step up efforts to encourage the increased improvement of tier two sides.
- Send the All Blacks to Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.
- Look to host each of them at a time when they can field their best players (unlike the 2008 test)
- Professional contracts to the best avaliable players the team can get.
- Allow foreign based players to play for the All Blacks.
- More international matches against different teams in general.
- No threats of boycoting a World Cup

If France can have over 35 Argentine players in the Top 14 then New Zealand should be able to have top players from abroad too. I said the same things about South Africa four years ago. I asked for greater progress for black players, work to be done for the African continent and so on.

The thing is with the conference system some New Zealand teams are going to have poor records. It would be unrealistic for all five New Zealand teams to be in the top half of the table when the competition is weighted so that there is a geographical spread of teams in the playoffs. There was talk in Wellington of Mark Hammett trying to sign Tusi Pisi. Personally, I think that would be a good signing for the Hurricanes as we do not have good depth at number ten. However, it would keep Beauden Barrett, one of a number of promising first fives, out of the team. Too many imports are not a good thing the English Premier Legaue is one example of that. One more thing is that I doubt any imports from the pacific islands would have actually made a difference to the Hurricanes this year. I can't think of one play that would really strengthen my team.

I'm not in favour of boycotting the world cup and I do think that we could play more teams form around the world. I don't think that it is fair to single us out for this. When was the last time anyone played in the pacific islands? I completely disagree with you about foreign players being allowed to play for the All Blacks. Firstly, It is completely our decision, if we don't want to pick foreign players we should not have to. Secondly, I think that we would have trouble getting our players released. If Brazilian soccer fans are content with the current set up than that is up to them. However, I would hate to be like Brazil. I want to go out be able to watch the best All Backs week in and week out. The great thing about the All Blacks is that they are one with the community. The All Blacks do all sorts of things like gumboot throwing in Taihape and playing bridge at retirement homes in Waimate. That is what makes the All Blacks so special and we would lose that if they were all overseas.

And another thing, Wales 2013 tour will be, I believe, without their Lions players. If the Lions select a squad of 35 then there would be at least 10 Welsh in there. Add injuries to that and the Welsh team to play Japan will be very second string and almost unquestionably of a lower quality that NZ Maori.

 

[Melhor Time]

Nice response William 18.

Interesting read.

Yes, Wales touring in 2013 (Japan) and 2017 (Pacific Islands) will be without their Lions players. England are to tour Argentina both these years too which is interesting. I like the idea of Wales missing a few as it is going to help them test more players. They should, in theory, win the three matches. Its also interesting, to me, because its what I´ve been calling for the All Blacks to do for years. i.e. send teams to play tests in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga to use as a step between Super Rugby and Tri Nations or Six Nations quality. Get 25 players who are good enough to be considered for the All Blacks but are, in most cases, behind the leading players in their positions. Almost all Argentine players debut against either Chile or Uruguay....

My issue with the NZ Maori team is simply that it is not international rugby. Not an offiail test match, like the Barbarians (unless you are Welsh). No IRB World Rankings are on the line. The Maori´s team doesn´t, and never will, play at World Cup´s and thus is surplus to the calendar.

 

[nickdnz]

I agree with ranger whole heartedly. I'm afraid I disagree with everyhting you've said Melhor.

The fact is that we'd love to sign overseas players for our Super Rugby teams but the cold hard fact is that there are 150 spots open for players in the Super 15. That means that there are 150 players who can be picked for the All Blacks. If we binned Super Rugby and made the NPC/ITM Cup our tier 1 tornement, then it is possible, what with having 14 teams instead of five, but we can't afford that, so it won't happen. If we decided to employ 50 players non-eligable for New Zealand in Super Rugby, that's a third less players the All Blacks will pick from. Regardless our Super Rugby teams are usually the most competitive all-round teams, and they certainly serve their purpose. As for the ITM Cup having "poor quality players" that's just rubbish. It's certainly higher than the Pro D2 or Championship. That's the reason why they get paid lots to play overseas.

As mentioned by someone else, the point of the NZ franchises losing more than they won is silly. In the conference system, half of each conference will lose more than they win. The New Zealand conference was actually the most competitive by far, which is shown by how many wins the teams got from outside their conference.

In terms of supply PI players, New Zealand is second to none. Yes the Top 14, Magners League and the Guiness Premiership employ players with expensive contracts, but that's because they are privately owned and they can afford to. They have private owners who care about the success of the clubs over the success of the country, so they will pay who ever they want a lot of money to play for their team. New Zealand doesn't have that privledge. All clubs are owned by the NZRU and are used to develop players to the best standard they can for the All Blacks. Regardless, as I've mentioned countless times before, most players in the Samoan team were born in New Zealand, who learned rugby here, went through the school systems, and club systems and age grade levels and eventually representational level in New Zealand.

Take for example Seilala Mapusua. Raised most of his life in Wellington, went to Wesley College, played for New Zealand U19's, played for Otago, played for Highlanders and then played for Samoa and then gets picked up by London Irish in his prime. Nicky Little, born in Tokaroa, played for Canterbury, played for Waikato, Played for North Harbour gets picked up by Sale Sharks. There are so many examples. At least half of the Samoan squad learned rugby in New Zealand.

As for tours to the Pacific Islands, it would be great but it is unlikely. The Apia Park National Stadium holds a whopping 10,000 seats. At Eden Park you have 60,000 seats. There are also more Pacific Islanders in Auckland than in Apia. The SRU would make less money from the AB's playing in Samoa than in NZ. It'd be great if we could get more games with Samoa, but as you said, we'd have to wait untill they can have their best players or it would be a thrashing. That timetable is up to the IRB and European clubs, because you know that Samoan players based in New Zealand will be free for the game (weird considering).

Why should we recuite players from overseas? The only incentive to stay here is an All Blacks jersey (it's sure not the money). Yes the Brazillian game is doing fine but I'm sure an educated person like yourself wouldn't draw comparrisons betweem a countries domestic competition which still pays its players millions and with a population of 192 million and over 10,000 professionally paid players around the world, and New Zealand with a population of 4 million and just over 200 fully professional players. That can't be your basis of comparison. Imagine if we did select players from overseas for the All Blacks. How quickly would players jump to the Top 14 with privately owned clubs who'd pay million dollar deals for a Owen Franks or a Cory Jane. How quickly would players from the ITM Cup and Super rugby, leave to play in Europe? Not to mention that the reason we keep winning, is simply because our players are better. Our competitions produce our players, why would we want to change that?

The no threats of boycotting the RWC seems very silly. The threat was a reasonable warning, that we cannot afford to keep going to the RWC under the current model. We can't. There's no point in ruining our game for a tornement every four years. We rely on sponsorship for the All Blacks to get money, and we rely on the All Blacks getting money for the NZRU to keep our Super Rugby teams and ITM Cup teams in existance so we can pay players. If our sponsors are shafted every four years, we take huge losses. It's not a situation like "give us what we want or we'll take our ball home" it's a situation like "if you don't give us what we want, we can't afford to play with you anymore".

The one point I do agree with you on is to visit a wider range of teams each year. I'd like to play USA, Russia, Portugal, Japan, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Uraguay, Romania, Georgia, Namibia etc once or twice a year. It would have to happen at the end of the year, but I think it should be done. The problem you have is, if we send a "B" team to some of those countries and whoop them, it probably won't do too much for the sport in those countries. Regardless, the current pool of competitive teams is too small to continue to play each other over and over again. It's silly that in over 100 years NZ have only played 17 different teams and of those teams, we've only played 10 of them more than five times. Regardless, this isn't just a New Zealand issue.

 

[ranger]

Alright, lets try and put this to sleep in one fell swoop.

If your argument is correct then that means Ma´a Nonu the same as Paul Williams. The difference of playing for another country matters not. People from the Hurricanes from grass roots to the professional team itself put in years and years inton making him who he is. Auckland did nothing but he is to play for them.

Sort of.. The thing is, the people that nurtured Nonu's rise to professional in Wellington were funded and subsidised by the same people he is now playing for. The Super rugby sides are not individual entities, they are merely different arms of the NZRU. NZRU funded initiatives created Nonu in Wellignton and now he has transferred his skills to a different branch of the NZRU. The resources they have pumped into him have not been lost. Regardless, i can't see how this is too relevant.. The point i was making was that the Samoan players are created in New Zealand systems. That is the single most important leg up that anyone has given Samoa.

If you want to get down to what produces players its the volunteers. They don´t get paid. The highschool coaches, the club coaches. I am one. Ive doen more for rugby than you have and honestly am quite insulted to read a guy calling someone else ignorant. This is what I am talking about when I say New Zealanders as World Champions need to change themselves.

-Sure, volunteers play a huge part in rugby, as i will touch on in a moment. One thing i will say though is that in New Zealand, the cost to play is a pittance for what we get in return; the field upkeep, hiring of referees, the various specialised training camps held for younger players, the funding to clubs for jerseys, the people making and administering draws etc, all of that is ridiculously subsidised by the NZRU. I paid $50NZ to play this year. That included a polo shirt, shorts, socks, strapping tape etc and a bit of beer for the court session, every thing above that $50 was paid for by the union. Volunteers play a huge role, but the role of the union is just as massive.
-The 'ive done more than you' comment is un-necessary, but good on you. I'm only young yet and would rather be playing while i still can than volunteering. Although i'd have you know i coached a pretty wicked year 9 rugby team in my final year at highschool.
-I am not saying you are ignorant in general, and apologies if you thought that. I merely meant that you are ignorant (lacking in knowledge, information or awareness) of this particular topic. The workings of grass roots rugby in Argentina? i would wager you are an expert in that area; Judging from your comments thus far however, i gleaned that you aren't as up with the play in regards to the NZ situation.

-Next point, when i brought up the point about Helleur being discouraged from playing for his nation by his club, your reaction was "it happens". Then you say that the 2008 test was flawed because the clubs "were never going to release players (for that one off test". You act like this is not only acceptable but inevitable, this doesn't have to be the case! why do you insist on changing a to a system where the clubs dictate when players are available or not.. In New Zealand, international players are available to any national team whenever they feel like it. Graham Henry wanted the All Blacks to sit out the 2007 Super 14, the clubs nodded and did as they were told. This is how rugby should be, Internationals over club rugby. The downside to this system is that the franchises are unable to be opened up to private entities, which means they have much lower bidding power than NH sides, which in turn means less top overseas players unless they want a pay cut. Its worth it in the end though.

That match was pretty well attended. Better than Namibia vs Wales at the same venue. I was there. You cannot blame clubs for not releasing players. It was a match that could have been organized in June but it wasn´t. Both the NZRU and Samoa knew that Samoa would miss loads of players but went ahead with the match. A lot of parties can be blamed. The simple facts are that New Zealand has never played an officail international match in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga ever. Wales are to play in each of them in 2017. It is confirmed. So, when will the All Blacks go there?

I said that the match was well attended.. It was a failure in the sense that the All Blacks slaughtered them and we didnt pay good money to watch a barely opposed training run. Also, yes you can blame the clubs as i have said, and the All Blacks will go there when the island nations decide that they would rather take a massive loss in gate takings by playing in Apia than in New Zealand...

Get 25 players who are good enough to be considered for the All Blacks but are, in most cases, behind the leading players in their positions

The heartland XV regularly visits the island teams, as did the JABs (25 players who are good enough to be considered for the All Blacks but are behind leading players in their positions) before they were forced to disband due to budget cuts. The island teams struggled to win any games (the JABs were undefeated in pac nations) so why then send the All Blacks?

According to some NZ´s financial state is due to mismanagement. There are calls to sell the Super Rugby teams to private owners. Its not rocket science. You must spend less than what you earn. The ITM Cup is a financial disaster. Super Rugby continues to be a major profit maker as does international matches. Crowds have been poor for too long and little done to fix this. Now the country has bigger and newer stadiums but a terrible national competition. One great fault is the quality of players. All Blacks need to play and not be reserved for Four Nations and November international duties. Get imported players. The Pacific Islands and even Australia can provide a lot. Clermont flyhalf, Brock James was at Taranaki for a season.

According to the misinformed you mean.. The major thing you seem unable to grasp is this:

Strength of a national rugby team on the playing field =/= financial strength of a country

New Zealand is an isolated island of 4 million people. The NZRU can't fund itself on its own population like England can.. and they can't rely on a strong economy by virtue of access to the european market like Ireland can.

If you look at how the NZRU are spending their money, they have things right and i don't think they should change a single damn thing:
-They subsidise the **** out of entry level club rugby, making it the most accessible game in the country
-They spend a far higher percentage of their budget on youth development and coaching than any other country in the world (the continued dominance at under 20 level isn't just down to good genes)
-They completely fund and administer all competitions at all levels in the country (under 5s up to the ITM cup and Super rugby sides)
-They maintain ownership of all teams in the country to keep it a game for the people and not about private interest money making.

Another thing, yes, the ITM cup is a financial disaster, but it is a money drain that is more than made up for..
The ITM cup brings rugby to the provinces, this is where the real strength of NZ rugby is. They don't have the population to sustain teams in a financial sense, but without the support of these rural areas and the volunteers they produce, NZ rugby would be a shadow of its current self. The Taranaki rugby team may not be a huge money spinner, but the history of their ITM side makes for a small but fiercely loyal group. If the NZRU were to think purely in black and white and cut the ITM when it started losing money, then they would have to rely on the 5 big centres for players and volunteers as they would alienate everyone else. No Conrad Smith, Carl Hayman, Paul ***o, Beauden Barrett, Jimmy Gopperth etc coming out of coastal Taranaki, no Keiran Crowley, Neil Barnes etc cutting their coaching teeth at ITM level before bringing their knowledge to the world at large..

Also, you are seriously out of touch on the player quality point. The ITM cup is the heart of NZ rugby, the people DO NOT want 'quality', they want to see 'our boys'. The Bay of Plenty supporters want to see the kids they raised though Tauranga and Rotorua boys high running out to represent their home town. If you asked any Manawatu supporter whether they would trade Cruden for O'Driscoll and Ashton, i can guarantee you 9 out of 10 would stick with Cruden. Better players? yes, but what good is a bunch of strangers you have no attachment to?

You point to Brock James, he and Hilgendorf came over to play amateur club rugby in Taranaki of their own accord and earned their way into the Taranaki squad through solid performances at that level. For that reason they were accepted by the Taranaki public. When Kennedy became the Taranaki coach, he brought in Spratt and Ryder from the NH. They were alright players, but the fact that they were mercenaries taking the place of (arguebly worse) homegrown talent was not well received at all (mass public dissaproval, Kennedy lost his job after the first year and the imports went home).

The moral of the story is that the ITM cup has low attendance because there just isnt the population to support the huge depth of talented rugby teams in the country. The quality of players is not a pervasive problem. There is nothing the NZRU can do about this besides grinning and bearing it.

-Why on earth should foreign based players be allowed in the All Blacks

To sum up, NZ has created a situation where in a country of 4 million people, they have the most successful national teams (win ratio) at all levels in history, and develop more international standard players than any other nation. Surely that is an indication that the NZRU is doing things right.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I dispute that. Not all of NZ´s Super Rugby sides are top level teams. Some a re better than others as is the case of Australia and South Africa. The fact is none of the3 three have enough high quality players to fill the five teams. This is where imported players are needed. Looking at the NZ teams from 2011 the Chiefs, Highlanders and Hurricanes all needed better players. The Highlanders record was 8 wins and 8 loses. The Hurricanes won 5 and lost 9 and the Chiefs won 6 and lost 9.

BTW go celebrate the RWC win! Get off the computer!

You're looking purely at placings and wins? Obviously not every team can come first. If you pit five fantastic players from Europe in each of the teams, the rankings would stay the same, as obviously it would even out.

You really have to look at squads, and looking at the squads there are no areas we are short of depth. One of the reasons NZ is such a strong side is because we continue to develop this depth, rather than jumping to bring in a slightly better player to plug a hole (generally in the reserves) who offers no long term benefit to the team nor country. This is one of the reasons why some European squads have a lack of depth at first five etc., because a number of their club sides' first choice fly halves are foreign and ineligible.

 

[Melhor Time]

Well done on the big posts.

I am not saying New Zealand rugby needs an overhaul. What needs to happen is to have better World Cup´s. This is the objective of everybody. Thats why I spend time chatting rugby.

I used examples to point out some problems. It cannot be denied that never having played a test match in Fiji, Samoa or Tonga is a huge flaw in New Zealand rugby and that it cannot continue. As pointed out by NickdNZ, the small capacity of the likes of Apia Park mean its more lucrative to play such matches in New Zealand. Sure it is. But here is where NZ can be a leader. NZ can say no, lets play in your country this year and in New Zealand the following. When playing in New Zealand the NZRU can offer a percentage of the gate takings to help make up the difference.

Its been made clear, and thank you for the lenghtly answering offering what is definetly the norm of opinion in New Zealand, that the way things are has popular support. I agree and opened this discusion largely for this reason. The issue of a lack of professional contracts for players from abroad is always going to exist. As is foreign based players. Stephen Donald is under contract with Bath. Will not play in New Zealand again this year. Its a loop hole and worked out conveniently. If he can play then so should others, if they are good enough. Nonu is to play in Japan not New Zealand after the World Cup.

Players are workers doing their job. Nobody owns them. As some of the best professionals in the world at what they do they have the right to work at the place of their chosing. I have worked in three countries. I certainly would not want to be forced to return to my country of birth to work as I simply don´t want to live there. Playing for ones country should be based on having the best players avaliable. Should a player play abroad then this matters not. If a player is the best going around then he should be in the team. There is an issue over guaranteeing a player ia always avaliable and it is, in the case of Argentina, being resolved so that the Europeans are all avaliable for the Four Nations.

Returning to the point of not playing in the Islands. There is something fundamentally wrong given that New Zealand vs Tonga started the World Cup, is there not? How can this happen when the All Blacks have never played there? Another look at Brazil is interesting. I recall Brazil playing Haiti in soccer in around 2004. Brazil would have made millions from it being in Brazil but instead went to the impoverished Caribbean country - the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. It was a way of giving something back to the country after its been through so much turmoil of a military coup. Brazil also did so as World Cup Champions which made it all that more significant to Haitians. To understand my point of view a bit better, go check out the FIFA World Rankings to see where Brazil and Haiti are ranked. Its a lot different to that of rugby which has Tonga at 9, Samoa at 11th and Fiji at 16th.

My question is as Rugby World Cup Champions, what should New Zealand do to be leaders?

 

[nickdnz]

Well done on the big posts.

I am not saying New Zealand rugby needs an overhaul. What needs to happen is to have better World Cup´s. This is the objective of everybody. Thats why I spend time chatting rugby.

I used examples to point out some problems. It cannot be denied that never having played a test match in Fiji, Samoa or Tonga is a huge flaw in New Zealand rugby and that it cannot continue. As pointed out by NickdNZ, the small capacity of the likes of Apia Park mean its more lucrative to play such matches in New Zealand. Sure it is. But here is where NZ can be a leader. NZ can say no, lets play in your country this year and in New Zealand the following. When playing in New Zealand the NZRU can offer a percentage of the gate takings to help make up the difference.

Its been made clear, and thank you for the lenghtly answering offering what is definetly the norm of opinion in New Zealand, that the way things are has popular support. I agree and opened this discusion largely for this reason. The issue of a lack of professional contracts for players from abroad is always going to exist. As is foreign based players. Stephen Donald is under contract with Bath. Will not play in New Zealand again this year. Its a loop hole and worked out conveniently. If he can play then so should others, if they are good enough. Nonu is to play in Japan not New Zealand after the World Cup.

Players are workers doing their job. Nobody owns them. As some of the best professionals in the world at what they do they have the right to work at the place of their chosing. I have worked in three countries. I certainly would not want to be forced to return to my country of birth to work as I simply don´t want to live there. Playing for ones country should be based on having the best players avaliable. Should a player play abroad then this matters not. If a player is the best going around then he should be in the team. There is an issue over guaranteeing a player ia always avaliable and it is, in the case of Argentina, being resolved so that the Europeans are all avaliable for the Four Nations.

Returning to the point of not playing in the Islands. There is something fundamentally wrong given that New Zealand vs Tonga started the World Cup, is there not? How can this happen when the All Blacks have never played there? Another look at Brazil is interesting. I recall Brazil playing Haiti in soccer in around 2004. Brazil would have made millions from it being in Brazil but instead went to the impoverished Caribbean country - the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. It was a way of giving something back to the country after its been through so much turmoil of a military coup. Brazil also did so as World Cup Champions which made it all that more significant to Haitians. To understand my point of view a bit better, go check out the FIFA World Rankings to see where Brazil and Haiti are ranked. Its a lot different to that of rugby which has Tonga at 9, Samoa at 11th and Fiji at 16th.

My question is as Rugby World Cup Champions, what should New Zealand do to be leaders?

I think you are still missing the point a little bit.

On players based overseas, in an ideal world I'm sure people would like forign players to be selected. It certainly would help with the likes of Collins, Hayman, Kelleher, Howlett, Evans, McAlister etc (providing their clubs want to release them). But what we've stressed is that it would be bad for New Zealand rugby. Selections have to be based not just on how good a player is, but how committed they are to New Zealand and New Zealand rugby. That's the only way we can survive. You start selecting overseas players and our provinsial game would be destroyed with the talent all going overseas to earn more money. You can say "The players are professionals and the best should be picked" and "the domestic game will survive", but what you have failed to answer at all is how our domestic game will survive. We've got the best team in the world, and we have been there or there abouts for 100 years. It seems we can do very well with out the players in Europe. It also seems that our way is catching on, with England now wanting to select only English based players. Overall it benefits us as a rugby nation for the system we have in place, and professional rugby players can either choose to earn a decent living here and play for the All Blacks, or go overseas and make lots of money. Either way, there is no reason why we would change our system and ruin our game, because it doesn't fit with the professional model elsewhere.

As for your second point, what you again fail to realise is that Samoa wants us to hoast them. Last time we played them, they got all the revenue. More money than they'd earn in Samoa if the same match was played. It benefits Samoa more playing in NZ than in Samoa. I'm not saying we should never play a game there, I'm saying they don't want us to play a game there.

I think New Zealand are leaders in the sport, as they have been whether they are World Champions or not. Bledisloe Cup Matches in Hong Kong and Tokyo, getting Niue, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea and Tonga in the Wellington 7's, paying contracted players while they play for their national teams, providing top quality players for other teams. What may interest you Melhor, if the potential for United States and Japan to have a Super Rugby team after the expansion of the Southern Kings get the go ahead. Of course it looks like a long term goal, but it's an effort none the less.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Well done on the big posts.

I am not saying New Zealand rugby needs an overhaul. What needs to happen is to have better World Cup´s. This is the objective of everybody. Thats why I spend time chatting rugby.

I used examples to point out some problems. It cannot be denied that never having played a test match in Fiji, Samoa or Tonga is a huge flaw in New Zealand rugby and that it cannot continue. As pointed out by NickdNZ, the small capacity of the likes of Apia Park mean its more lucrative to play such matches in New Zealand. Sure it is. But here is where NZ can be a leader. NZ can say no, lets play in your country this year and in New Zealand the following. When playing in New Zealand the NZRU can offer a percentage of the gate takings to help make up the difference.

Its been made clear, and thank you for the lenghtly answering offering what is definetly the norm of opinion in New Zealand, that the way things are has popular support. I agree and opened this discusion largely for this reason. The issue of a lack of professional contracts for players from abroad is always going to exist. As is foreign based players. Stephen Donald is under contract with Bath. Will not play in New Zealand again this year. Its a loop hole and worked out conveniently. If he can play then so should others, if they are good enough. Nonu is to play in Japan not New Zealand after the World Cup.

Players are workers doing their job. Nobody owns them. As some of the best professionals in the world at what they do they have the right to work at the place of their chosing. I have worked in three countries. I certainly would not want to be forced to return to my country of birth to work as I simply don´t want to live there. Playing for ones country should be based on having the best players avaliable. Should a player play abroad then this matters not. If a player is the best going around then he should be in the team. There is an issue over guaranteeing a player ia always avaliable and it is, in the case of Argentina, being resolved so that the Europeans are all avaliable for the Four Nations.

Returning to the point of not playing in the Islands. There is something fundamentally wrong given that New Zealand vs Tonga started the World Cup, is there not? How can this happen when the All Blacks have never played there? Another look at Brazil is interesting. I recall Brazil playing Haiti in soccer in around 2004. Brazil would have made millions from it being in Brazil but instead went to the impoverished Caribbean country - the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. It was a way of giving something back to the country after its been through so much turmoil of a military coup. Brazil also did so as World Cup Champions which made it all that more significant to Haitians. To understand my point of view a bit better, go check out the FIFA World Rankings to see where Brazil and Haiti are ranked. Its a lot different to that of rugby which has Tonga at 9, Samoa at 11th and Fiji at 16th.

My question is as Rugby World Cup Champions, what should New Zealand do to be leaders?

they do get a share of the gate take...thats why they want to play in NZ rather than at home...how hard is that to understand?

We do have and have had lots of PI's players on contract, my team the Highlanders were nicnamed the Ighlanders for a while because we brought so many guys in from outside our catchment area (which included several guys from the islands)

The truth is the islands fight well above their weight given they're small populations and it is only because of the work that the NZRU and all the other clubs and unions do that keeps them their.

If they need more help we need to grow rugby in new areas so there are even more teams/countries to tour and host them not just get the existing teams/countries to work harder...maybe we should start playing big games in asia etc...oh wait!

your catch phrase and you argurment dont agree

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Answer this simple question Melhor - what are the benefits of NZ playing in Samoa etc.? Why should it take place?

I doubt it's to grow the game in the Island nations - they're well aware of its existence.
It can't be to give the Island nations more funding - as they already get this from playing the big matches in NZ.

I'm still unsure as what your reasoning is...

 

[Zapphod]

Not at all. Players will play wherever they can. They´ll take the best offer on the table almost always. If the Ospreys can have two leading Samoan internationals then so can the Hurricanes.

I am saying that, in my opinion, as World Champions New Zealand needs to be a global leader and this means:

- Be proud but set an example. Step up efforts to encourage the increased improvement of tier two sides.
- Send the All Blacks to Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.
- Look to host each of them at a time when they can field their best players (unlike the 2008 test)
- Professional contracts to the best avaliable players the team can get.
- Allow foreign based players to play for the All Blacks.
- More international matches against different teams in general.
- No threats of boycoting a World Cup

If France can have over 35 Argentine players in the Top 14 then New Zealand should be able to have top players from abroad too. I said the same things about South Africa four years ago. I asked for greater progress for black players, work to be done for the African continent and so on.

Umm wouldn't it be easier to just add 3 teams to the Super 15, one from the Pacific to the New Zealand pool, 1 from North America to the Australian pool and one from Africa to the South African pool?

I really can not see Fiji, Namibia or USA getting much benefit from being hammered by New Zealand, South Africa or Australia on a regular basis but including developing nations into the Super 15 would give them more games at a level they can compete at and as such they will get a chance to improve rather than demoralised by consistent hidings.

I don't however see any reason Samoa couldn't join the 4N competition at this point though.

Probably the only draw back in all this is the increasing length of the playing season.

 

[Dizzy]

Would've really been good if the Samoans were included in the 4N

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Would've really been good if the Samoans were included in the 4N

In conjunction with Tonga, Fiji, Japan and Argentina, of course?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

In conjunction with Tonga, Fiji, Japan and Argentina, of course?

Argentina are apart of the 4N ...

 

[Zapphod]

In conjunction with Tonga, Fiji, Japan and Argentina, of course?

Why would you add Tonga Japan or Fiji to the 4N they would be hammered on a constant basis and they lack consistency in their performances (Tonga would be closest to joining after Samoa) what these teams need are more games at a level they can compete at rather than being dropped into a range they have no chance at as some sort of charity match.

Start them out at Super 15 level (which I think in many cases would still be a tough ask for them) with a view to them gaining entrance to the 4N competition once they can compete in it.

There also needs to be some thought about the financial viability of playing in Tonga or Fiji, like it or not rugby is a money making enterprise these days so no one wants to throw millions away if they don't have to.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Argentina are apart of the 4N ...

I took it as meaning instead of Argentina, otherwise it would be the 5N

Why would you add Tonga Japan or Fiji to the 4N they would be hammered on a constant basis and they lack consistency in their performances (Tonga would be closest to joining after Samoa) what these teams need are more games at a level they can compete at rather than being dropped into a range they have no chance at as some sort of charity match.

Start them out at Super 15 level (which I think in many cases would still be a tough ask for them) with a view to them gaining entrance to the 4N competition once they can compete in it.

There also needs to be some thought about the financial viability of playing in Tonga or Fiji, like it or not rugby is a money making enterprise these days so no one wants to throw millions away if they don't have to.

Samoa etc. wouldn't be too bad if they had their top teams playing at all times, instead of having half their players off in Europe.

What we need is a Southern Super Series (including teams from SANZARA, the PI and Japan) where any players in the teams are eligible for their national teams, who play in a 8 team series (which included Samoa etc.), or something of the sort. So Cory Jane could play for an Australian team and still be eligible for the All Blacks.

 

[Zapphod]

What we need is a Southern Super Series (including teams from SANZARA, the PI and Japan) where any players in the teams are eligible for their national teams, who play in a 8 team series (which included Samoa etc.), or something of the sort. So Cory Jane could play for an Australian team and still be eligible for the All Blacks.

That is similar ro what I am suggesting (I think) but I was looking at it being done within an already existing competition (Super 15), initially I thought 3 composite teams (Pacific Islands= Fiji, Tonga, Pacific Rim = Japan, USA and Canada, Africa= Namibia and who ever else plays rugby on the continent) but I am beginning to think that perhaps these teams could play a regional seies to determine who qualifies rather than making composite teams.

 

[nickdnz]

Samoa should not join the four nations. They can't host four games a year, they can't continually get their top players (as mentioned, their professional players were hardly getting paid to be in a Word Cup) and they would get destroyed. They are a very good team at their best, but they can't financial sustain it.

 

[Zapphod]

Samoa should not join the four nations. They can't host four games a year, they can't continually get their top players (as mentioned, their professional players were hardly getting paid to be in a Word Cup) and they would get destroyed. They are a very good team at their best, but they can't financial sustain it.

The biggest problem I have with the Pacific Islands getting involved at this level is their lack of infrastructure to the level required to turn a profit (whether we like it or not it is a professional era so money is a concern) could Samoa play its games away from home at "nominated" home grounds such as Australia and New Zealand do with the exhibition matches for the Bledisloe Cup and the Crusaders did with the match in England last season?