New Zealand as World Champions need to change themselves

[Melhor Time]

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....

Actually, Samoa´s decision to move Samoa vs Scotland to Wellington in 2004 was deemed a massive failure. Samoa wished the game had not been moved. the idea, in the first place, of moving the game suggests it is for exhibition purposes which it clearly is not. It was a money making venture. This, in itself, is highly flawed. Samoa should not need to move matches to New Zealand to make money. The games should all be in Samoa with the team able to break even. The IRB, the teams sponsors and tv deals should be providing the required money to pay for the day-to-day running of the union. If games are being moved this is a signal that there is a clear lack of money and this is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to any rugby fan, Samoan or not. The team has to recieve reputable home matches.

The USA hosted Canada a month before the World Cup and sold out Glendale. It is only a 4,000 seat venue but the occassion was a massive success for USA Rugby. A week earlier Toronto got the highest ever crowd for a Canada vs USA match. Both are small potatoes compared to New Zealand hosting an international match as the crowds are lower, gate taking lower, tv deals lower. In November 2010 both played in Georgia and got over 20,000 to both games. Huge success. Portugal hosted the USA with several thousand in attendance the same month. Samoa is similar in this regard. Portugal´s stadium is inferior to Apia Park and the attendance is lower too. The USA appearing in Georgia was massive news for rugby in the country. It was the headline news.

The benefits are clear. Samoa get top flight home matches. The stadium has the infrastructure for television. So, really, the question is why not. Playing in Auckland, for instance, is okay as an occassion thing. But it has to be occassional.

I'm still unsure as what your reasoning is

The current system is hegemonic with the top tier greatly advantaged and needing to be accountable to the global game. As superior sides on the field and off it it is their responsibility to see that the sport thrives, i.e. the first tier club needs more members as does the second. The Kiwi´s who have shot down my suggestions are clearly hegemonic and not wanting anything to change. If they won´t better World Cup´s then they should take a look at what they wrote as it is not going to make rugby better. Hence New Zealanders need to take a look at themselves as World Champions.

Jabby

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?

I know this is the case and do not approve of it and said in an earlier post that rather than accept the move the likes of the NZRU should say no, lets play in your country and next year when you play in ours we´ll give you a percentage of the takings to help.

There is no long term goal for Pacific Island Rugby. This is alarmingly worrying. The solution of making a Pacific Islanders team was, like Samoa playing in Wellington, a failure. Zapphod has touched on this in suggesting Super Rugby teams in the Islands. Do I think it should happen. No, I think it is not sustainable in an economic sense. Georgia presently has many players at the top level in France but the country could not have a Top 14 or Heineken Cup team today and not for well over a decade. Samoa, plus Fiji and Tonga, can have players in the Super Rugby teams though. Quite a few players in a number of teams like the Rebels, Brumbies, Force, Hurricanes and Chiefs from 2011 were simply not good enough and never will be. New Zealand as World Cup winners could set an example by, rather than contracting substandard players, have places for players from the Islands in every Super Rugby squad. Why not have a quota of three Islanders per Suepr Rugby team - one from each of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Scotland has two pro teams but both have former Pumas players amongst other imports.

Returning to the long term goal. What is it? Better World Cup´s mean sacrifices. There must be an Oceania Cup created at some point to take plus every four years. A six team tournament with a final - Australia, Fiji, Japan, New Zealand, Samoa and Tonga. Japan are there as they have no other place. My suggestion is do it during the Lions tours. Start by having Japan host it in 2013.

 

[ranger]

Samoa should not need to move matches to New Zealand to make money. The games should all be in Samoa with the team able to break even. The IRB, the teams sponsors and tv deals should be providing the required money to pay for the day-to-day running of the union.

And all pubs should give out beer for free on saturdays and i should not need to pay rent if i dont feel like it..
What you have just described is a perfect world scenario, not reality. Samoa should not need to play in bigger venues, it sucks that they have to, but the plan fact of the matter is that they do.
The IRB, team sponsors and tv deals should be enough, in a perfect world. They also should have enough money to fund a world cup campaign without having to beg the entire countries inhabitants, take gold coin donations from primary school children and be forced to pay their players a mere $4000 for attending.

If games are being moved this is a signal that there is a clear lack of money and this is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to any rugby fan, Samoan or not. The team has to recieve reputable home matches.

...You seem to be on the right wave length but then you jump back to the whole reputable home match thing. There are only 2 simple facts you need to know here. 1)Samoa is poor, they need money, 2)Home matches do not raise money. Thats the long and short of the matter.

I know this is the case and do not approve of it and said in an earlier post that rather than accept the move the likes of the NZRU should say no, lets play in your country and next year when you play in ours we´ll give you a percentage of the takings to help.

You know, this has already been considered. A while ago, the Samoan Union had two proposals:

1)Mehlors 'Play one game in Apia for little monitary gain and then the next game in NZ where we get a percentage of the takings to to help' plan

or

2) The 'Play both games in NZ for large monitary gain, and get a percentage of the takings from both games' plan

The Samoans put their best accountants, budget analysts and economic strategists on the decision making task force to decide between these two approaches. After months of debate they agreed that option "2" was probably their best bet.

Honestly, there is just no reason to play in Samoa. It doesn't raise as much money for their union as a game in NZ would and its not like they need top class teams visiting the country to raise the profile of the sport as is the arguement for tours to other teir 2 and 3 nations. The only things they need are more money and more matches against teir 1 sides. That can be accomplished without playing in Samoa.

Quite a few players in a number of teams like the Rebels, Brumbies, Force, Hurricanes and Chiefs from 2011 were simply not good enough and never will be. New Zealand as World Cup winners could set an example by, rather than contracting substandard players, have places for players from the Islands in every Super Rugby squad. Why not have a quota of three Islanders per Suepr Rugby team - one from each of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Scotland has two pro teams but both have former Pumas players amongst other imports.

The New Zealand teams do not contract "substandard players", they sign the very best possible players they can find that are willing to play for the meagre pittance of a salary they can offer(in comparison to the France, Japan etc).
It is ridiculous to hold the decisions of individual players against New Zealand. Yes, the Hurricanes could have done with Tusi Pisi, thats why they tried their best to sign him for next season. The only problem was Suntory were offering triple the salary and the whole package that included a car, place to live etc etc, NZ dont have the money to compete for contracts at that level. The only bargaining chip they have is the fact that you have to play in NZ to be an All Black, in the cases of island players, that isn't an option, so it is really just large contract vs small contract. Who can blame the islanders or NZRU for that decision?
Then, once they have canvassed and been rejected by all the island guys who are able to find much larger contracts, they go after these "substandard players".

The current system is hegemonic with the top tier greatly advantaged and needing to be accountable to the global game. As superior sides on the field and off it it is their responsibility to see that the sport thrives, i.e. the first tier club needs more members as does the second. The Kiwi´s who have shot down my suggestions are clearly hegemonic and not wanting anything to change. If they won´t better World Cup´s then they should take a look at what they wrote as it is not going to make rugby better. Hence New Zealanders need to take a look at themselves as World Champions.

1)Superior side on the field, not superior off it. The NZRU is a weak union financially, i really have no idea where you got any idea otherwise
2)Unless you are mistakenly using 'hegemonic' as a synonym for 'not freaking retarded', then you are off the mark with your statement there. I didn't shoot down your suggestions because i am 'clearly hegemonic', i did it because you are living in a fantasy land. I want things to change, I want the islanders to become consistent tier 1 sides, so we are in agreement there.
The thing is, i am willing to look at this rationally and you aren't apparently.
3)Instead of riding around on your high horse, clapping your hands over your ears and yelling hegemony when people don't agree. Actually make an honest attempt to look at all the factors that are at play in this situation. Actually read what i have told you, there are legitimate reasons why your suggestions are unrealistic/flawed.

 

[UilamOsa]

The changes and suggestions are nice but the reality is that alot of it will never happen. In order for the islands to demand their inclusion into higher competitions/greater salaries better contractual obligations - they will first need to perform. Both on and off the field.

It's appropriate that Samoa is being used as the example but in order for some of your suggestions to come to fruition the SRU need to get their act together, and the players need to show that as a team they deserve the right to all of these things. That won't happen until the corruption and politics end in Samoan Rugby Union.

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.

NZRFU couldn't even get the NZ Maori's sorted and probably the bigger offense for me was the fact that we only just had reinstated the Womens domestic comp. (Which our ladies won the WC without the assistance of)

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.

By it's nature - the Pacific Nations is 2ndary. It's Tier 2 nations playing against each other. Perhaps a suggestion for that is have one or both have the PI nations tour with the 3nations sides that tour in November. NZ/Samoa & AUS/Tonga & ZA/Fiji

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.

That's what we all want - as well as world peace.
So then your point is that not only NZ needs to contribute but the rest of the tier 1 nations? Good luck with getting other nations to jump in.

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.

Test Players that return from overseas environments have returned lesser than when they left NZ S15 franchises. For the Springboks, as an outside observer I'd have to say, some of their players based overseas did not play at the same level they previously did. I can't comment on Wales but perhaps someone could comment on whether or not the player pool for test spots is lessened by the increase of imports? It'd be interesting to know.

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.

I'd love that too - I really would. But I think best thing for the betterment of the game is have the NZ Maori's(or a Resident's XV) tour the Tier 2 nations, they are a side that would have former test players/current test players but a side that Tier 2 nation could possibly beat and gain some confidence.

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.

Agree partially - to your comment about the mismanagement. ITM a terrible national competition? I'd disagree. It's disappointing that the AB's can't play but the reality is that the majority of them play far too many high level games. And as for imports - you could also toss in Julian Huxley, Christian Lealiifano, Ben Gollings as well as many others who would be happy to tell you what a tough competition it is.

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.

NZ needs friends with money first. And that's where their going. In an ideal world alot of the things that you've mentioned would be nice but the reality of it is highly unlikely.

 

[Melhor Time]

Ranger

You slam me down without addressing facts and rather than actually defend things properly go off with statements such as

blind and uninformed ignorance.

twisted and straight up wrong.

riding around on your high horse, clapping your hands over your ears

And all pubs should give out beer for free on saturdays and i should not need to pay rent if i dont feel like it..
What you have just described is a perfect world scenario, not reality.

When were you intending to address the points made of Georgia and Portugal?

You keep saying New Zealand is a small country yet still ignore Wales which is smaller and has more imported players. Wales, as I said in my initial post, has arranged to play vs Fiji, Samoa and Tonga in away matches to be held in these countries in 2017. I repeat, New Zealand is yet to play a test match in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga. Now, New Zealand is not the only one. Neighbours, Australia also are yet to play there.

Samoa should not need to play in bigger venues, it sucks that they have to, but the plan fact of the matter is that they do.

Not vs Japan, not vs Fiji and not vs Tonga. Also, in 2017, not vs Wales.

You are happy to regularly poiont out that the NZRU does not have a large budget. The All Blacks may be World Champions but the union and country are not rich. Nobody, myself included, disputes this. England and France are the richest. But this is, infact, a side argument and not key to this. let me rewind to make sure its clear - all tier one unions have a responability to be global leaders for rugby. They are the ones who make the big decisions. It is also in their interested to have more tier one opposition so that there are more teams for home and away fixtures.

You say it sucks that they have to. What makes you sure that they have to? They are able to host Pacific Nations Cup matches and, even, the entire tournament. It is on tv and, might I add, live. If Japan can play in Apia then so can others. I am still waiting for a strong arguement against this.

The 80,000 Stade de France was unavaliable at the time so where did France host South Africa in 2009?

Was it Lyon at 42,000 or the 60,000 Marseilles? - No they went for Toulouse´s 36,000 seater.

If your arguement is correct then the FFR are not rational. Nor are Scotland who own a 67,000 stadium yet moved their matches vs Canada in 2008 and Samoa in 2010 to Aberdeen which seats 22,000. No rugby nation on the planet has more debt than Scotland.

The IRB, team sponsors and tv deals should be enough, in a perfect world. They also should have enough money to fund a world cup campaign without having to beg the entire countries inhabitants, take gold coin donations from primary school children and be forced to pay their players a mere $4000 for attending.

All host sides have to pay to host the event. Thats no secret. Brazil is paying billions to host the 2014 FIFA World Cup. England in 2015 is paying very little as their is not much construction, if any, required. Brazil has to build all but two stadiums. New Zealand upgraded all but Wellington. Had it not the costs would have been really low for the country.

The Islanders need more money, again no secret in this. All tier two sides, except for Japan, need more money. I´ve already pointed this out in regards to the second tier sides from Europe.

...You seem to be on the right wave length but then you jump back to the whole reputable home match thing. There are only 2 simple facts you need to know here. 1)Samoa is poor, they need money, 2)Home matches do not raise money. Thats the long and short of the matter.

Is Georgia not poor?

Did Portugal vs USA raise money?

Does Russia vs Spain raise money?

This one I´ll answer for you - absolutely not. Played far from where rugby is popular due to Russia´s winter. Simply if Spain and Russia can play home and away annually then so can others.

Japan is located far further from Samoa than New Zealand is. There are no direct flights from Japan to Samoa. Yet, Japan played in Apia in 2010 and before that in 2008. Ireland is even further away yet played in Samoa in 2003.

Ireland could have hosted Samoa and taken the match to Thomond Park or even Belfast. France played in Samoa in 1999 and Italy in 2000. Wales did in 1994.

Try to answer to next part.

Who has a larger budget New Zealand rugby or Canada?

What about New Zealand or the USA?

Did you know that Canada played in Samoa in 2000 and the USA did in 1999?

Is Samoa a reputable team?

If your answer is yes then you really have got to improve your argumentation as thus far you have failed to defend the situation.

You know, this has already been considered. A while ago, the Samoan Union had two proposals:

1)Mehlors 'Play one game in Apia for little monitary gain and then the next game in NZ where we get a percentage of the takings to to help' plan

or

2) The 'Play both games in NZ for large monitary gain, and get a percentage of the takings from both games' plan

The Samoans put their best accountants, budget analysts and economic strategists on the decision making task force to decide between these two approaches. After months of debate they agreed that option "2" was probably their best bet.

Sure it is. I´ve agreed from the start that thats the case. Are we happy with this? Is this the way it should be? Is this the way it has to be, or not? No. It is not, not at all. i.e. Samoa vs France, Apia, 1999. Samoa vs Japan, 2008 and 2010 in Apia. Samoa vs Wales in Apia in 2017.

Honestly, there is just no reason to play in Samoa. It doesn't raise as much money for their union as a game in NZ would and its not like they need top class teams visiting the country to raise the profile of the sport as is the arguement for tours to other teir 2 and 3 nations. The only things they need are more money and more matches against teir 1 sides. That can be accomplished without playing in Samoa.

Really? You actually believe this?

No reason? So, there is no reason for New Zealand to host the World Cup then as:

- It doesn´t raise any money for the union.
- A game in Tokyo raises more than a game in Auckland
- Its not like New Zealand needs top class teams visitign the country to raise the profile of the sport.

Do you still think your argument makes sense?

How many matches, per year do Samoa receive vs tier one sides?

Between RWC 2007 and 2011 the answer was eight matches. One in 2008, three in 2009, three in 2010 and one in 2011. All away matches. Is this satisfactory?

The New Zealand teams do not contract "substandard players", they sign the very best possible players they can find that are willing to play for the meagre pittance of a salary they can offer(in comparison to the France, Japan etc).

Sure they do. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Or were Tony Brown are Tana Umaga at ages 36 and 37 really the best players on the market for the Highlanders and Chiefs last season?

Neither offers anything to the All Blacks any longer due to age and thus signing both in the name of reserving places for players elligible for the All Blacks, so to not harm the national side are simply unfounded. A player like James So´oialo, Kurt Morath or Waisea Luveniyali or could have played instead. All went to the World Cup despite being amateurs. There are lots of players on the market. A guy like 22 year old Conor Trainor who scored good tries for Canada at the World Cup. Had a lot to do with Tonga´s downfall too. He is certainly better than a lot of contracted Super Rugby players yet is ana amateur playing for the BC Bears based in Vancouver.

Correct me, if I am wrong, but Taniela Moa played for the Chiefs in 2011, did he not? He´s not there in 2012 but Aaron Cruden is the only listed flyhalf and there are only two for scrumhalf. Am I missing something or has Moa been released?

It is ridiculous to hold the decisions of individual players against New Zealand.

I´m not saying New Zealand are to blame, nothing of the sort. NZ is accountable to the future of rugby as are all unions. Tier one more so than others.

Who can blame the islanders or NZRU for that decision?
Then, once they have canvassed and been rejected by all the island guys who are able to find much larger contracts, they go after these "substandard players".

All tier one sides have a responsibility to the developed of the sport. New Zealand simply have to be singled out now as the All Blacks are World Champions. It is more important now, than ever before, that the NZRU be a global leader. Wales have stepped forward and put a tour to the Islands in their calender. Time for New Zealand to do the same just like all tier one sides should. Here´s the thing - some do, some don´t. Argentina are to play all of Chile, Uruguay and Brazil in away matches in 2012. Thats a union with a low budget. The difference is there is a system set up to help their lower tier. South America has three tiers all with compeitions that count for, amongst other things, IRB World Rankings.

1)Superior side on the field, not superior off it. The NZRU is a weak union financially, i really have no idea where you got any idea otherwise

You keep missing the points. I never said they were wealthy. Argentina are not wealthy either, nor are Wales. Nor are Canada or the USA. Nor are Portugal or Georgia.

2)Unless you are mistakenly using 'hegemonic' as a synonym for 'not freaking retarded', then you are off the mark with your statement there. I didn't shoot down your suggestions because i am 'clearly hegemonic', i did it because you are living in a fantasy land. I want things to change, I want the islanders to become consistent tier 1 sides, so we are in agreement there.

You cannot deny that:

- NZ has the resources to play in Samoa
- Samoa has the resources to host New Zealand

You are hegemonic but suggest you are not. You want said it yourself. You want want the islanders to become consistent tier 1 sides butyou are living in a fantasy land

The thing is, i am willing to look at this rationally and you aren't apparently.
3)Instead of riding around on your high horse, clapping your hands over your ears and yelling hegemony when people don't agree. Actually make an honest attempt to look at all the factors that are at play in this situation. Actually read what i have told you, there are legitimate reasons why your suggestions are unrealistic/flawed.

Again, you are yet to respond to the points that smaller unions play in Samoa. That Samoa hosts teams like Japan. That Apia Park has a capacity on par with Palmerston North which hosted two World Cup matches. That it is larger than venues such as those used in Spain and Portugal to host the likes of Canada, USA, Namibia, Tonga, Fiji, Romania and Russia - all World Cup sides.

How is it rational for New Zealand not to play there if Japan or Wales can? The answer is not about money.


UiamOsa

The changes and suggestions are nice but the reality is that alot of it will never happen. In order for the islands to demand their inclusion into higher competitions/greater salaries better contractual obligations - they will first need to perform. Both on and off the field.

It's appropriate that Samoa is being used as the example but in order for some of your suggestions to come to fruition the SRU need to get their act together, and the players need to show that as a team they deserve the right to all of these things. That won't happen until the corruption and politics end in Samoan Rugby Union.

I think this is a wonderful reply. I agree a lot will never happen and there are two major reasons for this - the lack of interested from he first tier and the SRU itself.

You have nailed other points two. In regards to getting other tier one sides to do similar things I can provide examples of it happening.

In terms of exposure to higher level rugby France and England are packed with imported players. Scotland, Italy, Wales and Ireland also have their share.

The issue of test rugby sees Wales with a tour to Japan and to the Islands confirmed. Italy are to play in the USA and Canada in 2012.

Some players develop abroad others don´t.Consider two Australians - Brock James did. Sam Norton-Knight didn´t. Failed to get game time at Cardiff and now in Japan. Still, he´s better than some of the Super Rugby flyhalves going around.

Some return as inferior players some as better. Some go and struggle altogehter. It works both ways.

I think many underestimate the possibilities of rugby. The financial arguement seems to many to be logical but it does not address why others play abroad in comparable places. Italy are going to tour the Islands, looking like being in 2014. That´ll be a great success. On tv in Italy and worldwide live.

Its an example of one union doing what it feels is a good tour (Italy) and another (New Zealand) thinking its surplus and not important. Its not about money. its about choices. Money is not the argument in this. It is a distraction. The truth is Samoa has a stadium and can host tests there. Some want to play there, some don´t. Thats all there is to it.

 

[Seaton]

Of course it's not about the money.

 

[masterdfunk]

You keep saying New Zealand is a small country yet still ignore Wales which is smaller and has more imported players. Wales, as I said in my initial post, has arranged to play vs Fiji, Samoa and Tonga in away matches to be held in these countries in 2017. I repeat, New Zealand is yet to play a test match in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga. Now, New Zealand is not the only one. Neighbours, Australia also are yet to play there.

You keep raising this point about Wales, but honestly it seems invalid. Perhaps the club sides in Wales have more imports than NZ Super Rugby sides because they need them more? Also, it is great that Wales are touring in 2013 and 2017, but lets be honest. Most of their best players will be in Aus or NZ in those years with the Lions. A second string Wales will probably still be too good for most of the teams they face on those tours, but it should at least be competitive and entertaining. All Blacks, even second string ABs, vs the likes of the USA, Japan, Tonga would probably be neither of those things.

You also mention that sending the NZ Maori is not good enough as world rankings won't be at stake, and that a lower tier of All Blacks should be sent. In regards to the first point I think the notion of world rankings here is irrelevant. I don't know the exact way the IRB calculates such things but I doubt that getting stuffed by the All Blacks is going to help Georgia, Canada etc world rankings. There have been some close calls but NZ has never lost to relative heavyweights like Ireland, Scotland or Italy and frankly most of the time never even come close to losing, how much hope do you think Russia would have. Sending a B team doesn't seem the answer either, we'd probably still have a hiding on our hands and it cheapens the jersey. When I see NZ play, I want it to be NZ, not NZ B and I think most Kiwis feel the same.

Honestly Melhor, as others have said you seem to have great ideas for the way things should be, but a weaker grasp of the way they actually are. I would love for the NZRU to be super dooper billionaires and field 20 Super Rugby teams comprised of the worlds best players but that is fantasy. The reality is that they have enough money (most of the time) to pay NZ's top players and keep them in a black jersey, whilst also doing a great job supporting the grass roots and age level competitions across the country. This is their primary function and they do it well, but they sure don't do it with money to spare.

 

[ranger]

Melhor;

When were you intending to address the points made of Georgia and Portugal?

Which points were these?

You keep saying New Zealand is a small country yet still ignore Wales which is smaller and has more imported players. Wales

,

I have not ignored the fact that Wales is smaller and has more imported players at all. I will address it again if you wish; the NZRU places more emphasis on the development of rugby at junior levels, on subsidising fees to enable maximum market penetration for the sport and on co-ordination of competitions.
They have similar populations, but they spend their money in different ways; NZ has the premier grass roots programme on the planet, that is not cheap (and includes the money draining ITM cup). With the way NZ budgets their money, they can't afford marquee players that don't opt for a pay cut. With the way Wales have budgeted theirs, they have the money there to pay high end contracts.

as I said in my initial post, has arranged to play vs Fiji, Samoa and Tonga in away matches to be held in these countries in 2017. I repeat, New Zealand is yet to play a test match in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga. Now, New Zealand is not the only one. Neighbours, Australia also are yet to play there.

All well and good, the question you have yet to answer is WHY. Why do teams need to tour the pacific islands. What benefit is gained by playing in Apia over playing in Eden park?

You say it sucks that they have to. What makes you sure that they have to? They are able to host Pacific Nations Cup matches and, even, the entire tournament. It is on tv and, might I add, live. If Japan can play in Apia then so can others. I am still waiting for a strong arguement against this.

Simple mathematics is what.

Eden Park capacity- 50,000
Apia Park capacity- 15,000.

Can the All Blacks play in Samoa, yes. Its is possible, and no one has contested that. The question you have yet to answer is WHY.

To increase popularity or the sport in Samoa by bringing test matches?- No, our Samoan brothers are rugby mad and All Blacks match or no All Blacks match popularity of the sport will remain the same.

To raise money for Samoa?-No, the Samoan union gains much more revenue from games in NZ. (The fact that this is money injected into the Samoan economy from outside the country and not just re-allocation of the countries existing funds is also a massive point)

To expose the Samoan team to top quality opposition?-No, they don't need to play in Samoa to accomplish this and are better off playing in NZ where they get exposure and money

If not these reasons, then why should they play their Melhor?

All host sides have to pay to host the event. Thats no secret. Brazil is paying billions to host the 2014 FIFA World Cup. England in 2015 is paying very little as their is not much construction, if any, required. Brazil has to build all but two stadiums. New Zealand upgraded all but Wellington. Had it not the costs would have been really low for the country.

I was talking about the Samoans here..

Is Georgia not poor?

Did Portugal vs USA raise money?

Does Russia vs Spain raise money?

This one I´ll answer for you - absolutely not. Played far from where rugby is popular due to Russia´s winter. Simply if Spain and Russia can play home and away annually then so can others.

Again, you point out that they can. Not Why.

No reason? So, there is no reason for New Zealand to host the World Cup then as:

- It doesn´t raise any money for the union.
- A game in Tokyo raises more than a game in Auckland
- Its not like New Zealand needs top class teams visitign the country to raise the profile of the sport.

Do you still think your argument makes sense?

Well, It did raise a whole lot of money for the country, a game in Tokyo is not guaranteed to sell well at all (Bledisloe tests in Asia have struggled, imagine Romania v Georgia), There is a major demand for top class teams to visit the country (not neccessarily the case for Samoa)

How many matches, per year do Samoa receive vs tier one sides?

Between RWC 2007 and 2011 the answer was eight matches. One in 2008, three in 2009, three in 2010 and one in 2011. All away matches. Is this satisfactory?

No that is not satisfactory. I think the first major issue would be to de-power the clubs so that the Samoan team can take presedence over club duties and they can guarantee a competitive side to prospective teams looking to play them.

Sure they do. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Or were Tony Brown are Tana Umaga at ages 36 and 37 really the best players on the market for the Highlanders and Chiefs last season?

Neither offers anything to the All Blacks any longer due to age and thus signing both in the name of reserving places for players elligible for the All Blacks, so to not harm the national side are simply unfounded. A player like James So´oialo, Kurt Morath or Waisea Luveniyali or could have played instead. All went to the World Cup despite being amateurs. There are lots of players on the market. A guy like 22 year old Conor Trainor who scored good tries for Canada at the World Cup. Had a lot to do with Tonga´s downfall too. He is certainly better than a lot of contracted Super Rugby players yet is ana amateur playing for the BC Bears based in Vancouver.

You are kidding yourself if you think you can sit in South America and proclaim superior knowledge of the workings of Rugby in another country on the other side of the world.

Were Tony Brown and Tana Umaga the best players on the market for those sides? YES!. Tana Umaga provided the distribution and defence the Cheifs needed at 12 (their best games were when he played), and Tony Brown was the best guy they could find at short notice as an injury replacement (No other man on the planet could slot in and command an Otago team straight away). Both brought invaluable knowledge to the younger players in the side and i don' think anyone from those franchises would contest their signings.

You say yourself; "neither offers anything to the All Blacks any longer due to age and thus signing both in the name of reserving places for players elligible for the All Blacks, so to not harm the national side are simply unfounded."

How about this, perhaps the reason they were signed wasnt to reserve places for players eligible for the All Blacks!. I have already told you this, they sign the best players they can with the budget they have available. If they were choosing players based on the fact that they had to be in All Blacks contention, they wouldnt have brought Brown in. The reason there are few international players has very little to do with reserving players for the All Blacks.

There are also an additional few hurdles to get over before getting an international player in;

-There are a lot of costs involved in scouting and flying over a player from Canada, this is a major hurdle.

-It is a slap in the face to all the rugby players in New Zealand if a player is able to jump straight into Superrugby without proving themselves at the lower levels. The chances of a guy like Trainor going straight into the Crusaders is nil and im glad about that. The kind of international players that get a look either base themselves in NZ so scouts can view them (Schwalger), players that have played a huge bulk of NZ rugby before so the franchises know what to expect (Pisi) or well established internationals that have been consistant on the world stage (Haskell, Califano)

-Are the other alternatives really better? Overlooking existing talent is a major gamble considering the costs: You go on about Trainor, but is he really better than Anscombe, Sopoaga, Barrett, Bleyendaal, Hobbs etc etc? Kleeburger looked great at the world cup, but he really didnt earn a super contract based on performance when he was at Auckland. Morath played ITM too and didnt show enough to get selected (this was before he declared for Tonga)

Look at it this way, the overseas players for this year in the NZ squads are:

Kane Thompson, Mahonri Schwalger, Sona Taumalolo, James Haskell, Siale Piutau, and Tusi Pisi(The Hurricanes managed to wrangle a deal with his japanese club that allows him to play in their off season).

Bar Pisi who was NZ raised and Haskell who is a seasoned international, everyone else are NZ based products. If the likes of Trainor want to make Superrugby, they will need to either earn a worldclass reputation like Haskell (and then take a massive pay cut), or move to NZ and earn a spot. That really is the way it should be.

Correct me, if I am wrong, but Taniela Moa played for the Chiefs in 2011, did he not? He´s not there in 2012 but Aaron Cruden is the only listed flyhalf and there are only two for scrumhalf. Am I missing something or has Moa been released?

Moa has left to take up a contract with Pau in France. The Hurricanes put up a good fight for him though.

You cannot deny that:

- NZ has the resources to play in Samoa
- Samoa has the resources to host New Zealand

No, i cannot deny that. nor have i ever tried to. It is possible to play in Samoa. Is it a good idea? thats another question

You are hegemonic but suggest you are not. You want said it yourself. You want want the islanders to become consistent tier 1 sides butyou are living in a fantasy land

No. If i disagreed with the premise of the Island nations joining the top echelons of international rugby, that would make me hegemonic. If i disagree with your ideas, that simply means that the ideas you have raised are retarded (in my opinion).

I do not disagree with the overall premise = not hegemonic
I do disagree with your means to achieive this end and your identification of the problems at hand = because your argument is retarded

How is it rational for New Zealand not to play there if Japan or Wales can? The answer is not about money.

Yes it is

New Zealand have been the ones pushing the right for a stand down period to be introduced and then island players be allowed to play for their teams of heritage. This is the quickest and easiest way to improve Samoan rugby.

The arguments to the contrary are simple:

1)People think it will tarnish the legitimacy of international rugby (as if Thomas (I didnt even know i had an english granny) Waldrom and the parade of Maori in the English team aren't doing that already)
2)People think it may weaken the side in that players who are deciding between the All Blacks or Samoa will opt for the All Blacks instead knowing there is a fall back (If a player is in All Black contention, they will take it, fall back or no)
3)People think its unfair (the fact that its impossible for them to compete financially is also unfair)
4)The old boys from the home nations are scared of the sleeping samoan giant (conspiricy theory)

If Samoa was able to field Laulala, Tialata, So'oialo, Masoe, Collins, Filipo, Masaga etc then they would be a legitimate cup threat. As the Crusaders have shown, success breeds success. Even if the rules were only changed for a small window of time it would allow the Samoan team to form a strong competitive core, consistant top results would bring consistant fixtures, advertising revenue and attract wavering players back to Samoan rugby. Thats the direction rugby needs to take

Edit; one further point that has been bugging me a bit, you mention 'substandard players' and players who are 'simply not good enough and never will be'. Do you mind listing them?

 

[Melhor Time]

You keep raising this point about Wales, but honestly it seems invalid. Perhaps the club sides in Wales have more imports than NZ Super Rugby sides because they need them more? Also, it is great that Wales are touring in 2013 and 2017, but lets be honest. Most of their best players will be in Aus or NZ in those years with the Lions. A second string Wales will probably still be too good for most of the teams they face on those tours, but it should at least be competitive and entertaining. All Blacks, even second string ABs, vs the likes of the USA, Japan, Tonga would probably be neither of those things.

You also mention that sending the NZ Maori is not good enough as world rankings won't be at stake, and that a lower tier of All Blacks should be sent. In regards to the first point I think the notion of world rankings here is irrelevant. I don't know the exact way the IRB calculates such things but I doubt that getting stuffed by the All Blacks is going to help Georgia, Canada etc world rankings. There have been some close calls but NZ has never lost to relative heavyweights like Ireland, Scotland or Italy and frankly most of the time never even come close to losing, how much hope do you think Russia would have. Sending a B team doesn't seem the answer either, we'd probably still have a hiding on our hands and it cheapens the jersey. When I see NZ play, I want it to be NZ, not NZ B and I think most Kiwis feel the same.

Honestly Melhor, as others have said you seem to have great ideas for the way things should be, but a weaker grasp of the way they actually are. I would love for the NZRU to be super dooper billionaires and field 20 Super Rugby teams comprised of the worlds best players but that is fantasy. The reality is that they have enough money (most of the time) to pay NZ's top players and keep them in a black jersey, whilst also doing a great job supporting the grass roots and age level competitions across the country. This is their primary function and they do it well, but they sure don't do it with money to spare.

Welcome to the forum and well done on a good, well argued post. I am going to address what I have marked in bold.
1. Perhaps thats true with Wales and it probably is. I think New Zealand has more depth than Wales but that the best Welsh side is capable of beating the best All Black side. Wales have four sides, New Zealand have five. There is room for another Welsh side yet many argue that there should not be. I don´t think New Zealand has the depth for 5 Super Rugby sides. I am convinced it does for three and for four but not for five.

2. Sure, the Lions tour is a very valid argument. They´ll be missing top players. Maybe as many as 12, who knows. Lets remember how Wales did vs Samoa and Fiji at home in 2009 and 2010 when they fielded weakend sides as they opted to rest most of the first XV to face Four Nations teams the following weekend. As the videos show, Wales had it tough and will, in 2017, field a similar side or a weaker one.




3. I agree the secondstring All Blacks are likely to be too good for the tier two sides. But, there is only one way to find out....

4. World Rankings now count for World Cup rankings for the top 12 who automatically qualify for the next World Cup. Since New Zealand, France, Tonga, England, Argentina, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Italy, South Africa, Wales and Samoa have already qualified their matches between now and the draw for 2015 (probably in november 2012) are all of extreme importance. It is not fair for Italy to host the Six Nations and Four Nations teams and lose rankings points but for, say Samoa, to host the Maori and lose but have no ranking change. Also, should Samoa defeat the Maori they would not change in the rankings as the Maori are not a part of it. If, however, Italy defeat France again then they will get a massive boost.

5. The cheapens the jersey argument no longer exists. Fact: New Zealand are happy to field weakened sides. In 2005 New Zealand played Wales and then changed the entire XV the following week to play Ireland. Then in 2009, less than two years before hosting the World Cup, New Zealand fielded a team with only four players who made the World Cup squad.

15 Cory Jane, 14 Ben Smith, 13 Tamati Ellison, 12 Luke McAlister, 11 Sitiveni Sivivatu, 10 Mike Delany, 9 Andy Ellis, 8 Rodney So´oiallo, 7 Tanerau Latimer, 6 Liam Messam, 5 Anthony Boric, 4 Tom Donnelly, 3 Neemia Tialata, 2 Corey Flynn, 1 Wyatt Crockett.



Clearly, the jersey was cheapened for this match. For me, thats ok. I have no issue with it. It is, in fact, what I have been asking for. Send a similar team to Suva in 2012 to play Fiji and to Apia in 2013 to play Samoa.

6. The problem of money for lpayers in this regard is highly complicated by the policy of not allowing All Blacks to play abroad. In a few years you will see New Zealand lose to Argentina and the Pumas side will consist of players in Argentina as well as England, France and elsewhere. The loss of South Africans to European rugby has not weakened the Springboks. Bowe at the Ospreys is fine for Ireland too. These real world examples go far to sugeest that should New Zealand change its stand point then it would (a) have more money to use rather than pay a handful much more than the others, (b) be able to contribute better to the Islands, have more for age grade teams, clubs and so on. The focus on player retention is highly expensive. If Carter can get more to play for Bayonne then thats where he should play. He doesn´t play for Canterbury anyhow. Few All Blacks play in the ITM Cup. He simply needs to have a contract enabling him to be released for international duty in June, November and for the Four Nations. Pumas players are to be released for the Four Nations this year and thus miss club duty in August and September.

7. Grass roots is a great point and I am happy that the teams get help.

Ranger

1. Georgia and Portugal hosting USA and Canada. Thus, going by logic, Samoa can host Australia and New Zealand.

2. Asking why do teams need to tour is really a way of avoiding answering the question of why the Islanders can host Japan but can´t host their Oceanian neighbours. Why should Eden Park not host the games? Firstly, for Fiji to play at Eden Park makes little sense. Samoa and Tonga it could be argued that it is just but as an occassional thing. NZ are happy to play in Italy, ranked below Tonga and Samoa. Travel time from London to Rome is not all that different to Auckland - Apia.

3. Samoa hosting a test is fundamental. All sides need to host and play abroad. No big explanation is needed, nor shuold it be.

4. As World Champions there is a need to be a global leader. Set the tone. A match in Apia is not going to break the bank. It´s actually going to be cheap.

5. Blaming the clubs for Samoa not playing more matches is missing the point altogether. Its a convenient to blame clubs for not releasing players when unions intentionally plan matches at times in which clubs don´t have to release their players. I´ve offered a solution which will be beneficial to all parties. Have Samoa host Australia in June 2012 and New Zealand in June 2013 as midweek tests following the third test that both sides will have (Australia vs Wales and New Zealand vs France). Without question, both the ARU and NZRU will have made plenty of revenue from three tests vs these sides and can certainly afford a 3 hour flight to Samoa, Fiji or Tonga.

6. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that either Brown or Umaga were the best players on the market. They were well known players who could fit in easily but neither was the best player avaliable. Some better options - Nicolás Sánchez and Paul Emerick. Both are cheap, both played at the RWC. Emerick being the best 13 of his teams pool.

7.

It is a slap in the face to all the rugby players in New Zealand if a player is able to jump straight into Superrugby without proving themselves at the lower levels. The chances of a guy like Trainor going straight into the Crusaders is nil and im glad about that.

-Are the other alternatives really better? Overlooking existing talent is a major gamble considering the costs: You go on about Trainor, but is he really better than Anscombe, Sopoaga, Barrett, Bleyendaal, Hobbs etc etc? Kleeburger looked great at the world cup, but he really didnt earn a super contract based on performance when he was at Auckland. Morath played ITM too and didnt show enough to get selected (this was before he declared for Tonga)

Bar Pisi who was NZ raised and Haskell who is a seasoned international, everyone else are NZ based products. If the likes of Trainor want to make Superrugby, they will need to either earn a worldclass reputation like Haskell (and then take a massive pay cut), or move to NZ and earn a spot. That really is the way it should be

This is the way it should be, this is where you really get yourself into trouble. Besides being insulting to global rugby and highly arrogant it assumes New Zealand can do just fine without others and doesn´t not need them. Funny, then, that the sponsor on the front of the NZ Super Rugby teams is an Australian, not New Zealand owned company. BNZ is owned by the National Australia Bank Limited. Then there is another Bank sponsor for the tournament - Investec Bank which is based in London and Johanesburg not Auckland or Wellington. The All Blacks uniforms and the Super Rugby uniforms, are made by Adidas, a German company based in Herzogenaurach. Other All Blacks sponsors include Italian company Industrial Vehicle Corporation (IVECO), Rexona is Dutch and British owned, Ford is not from New Zealand. There are also a host of U.S. sponsors like Coca-Cola and Mastercard.

The money doesn´t come from New Zealand. Some does, not all and not most. So, please, find a real argument. Without the global economy there would be no pro rugby in New Zealand. This is a globalized world. Sport, like the economy, goes beyond borders. Simply put if NZ is to justify shutting off others to benefit itself then it needs to get all its income from within NZ. If you are right and that NZ rugby is for NZ only then you seriously should go complain that you want Kiwi sponsors as your asking for the rugby to remain kiwi. Contact the NZRU asking them to refuse to accept any more of the foreign money they get and ask them to go after Kiwi Bank to be the new sponsors. No more IVECO, no more adidas, no more ford, etc. This is underling how you are hegemonic. You are thinking only of New Zealand rugby and are happy that New Zealand gets the money from abroad and then you slam down any suggestions of playing in Samoa or having more Islanders in Super Rugby as it is expensive to have them. Happy to take btu not to give. This makes you selfish and, indeed, hegemonic.

You call be retarded.. ok. All that does is makes the rest of your post look inferior. Are you a 13 year old? You seem like the drunk several rows in front of me at Dunedin Stadium for Italy vs Ireland who insulted Irish fans for not doing the Mexican wave. He did New Zealand rugby a bad service and was rightly taken out of the stadium. Was it you... seems possible. Lets focus on the task at hand and not go calling people retarded.

8. Juan Imhoff walked straight into Racing Metro last week. First match as a pro and started and did well. Leo Senatore will be playing 8 for Toulon in quick time. DTH van der Merwe walked into Glasgow. Todd Clever took no time to get regular game time at the Lions.

8. Laulala, Tialata, So'oialo, Masoe, Collins, Filipo, Masaga etc cannot and should never be able to play for Samoa as they have played elsewhere already. We all know this. What is interesting is that many kiwis think its the way to go forward yet don´t want to play in Samoa, don´t want to give Super rugby contracts to Samoans who won´t be All Blacks and want to condemn English, French and other clubs for not releasing players for matches scheduled at the wrong times.

9. Substandard players. Ok, sure, Daniel Braid and Brad Mika from the Blues for starters. Braid is not good enough to be an All Black. Has had opportunities and proven he is not up to it. Even left to play for the Reds. Mika couldn´t make Brive´s starting XV in France. Then there are Auckland, Northland and Harbour (Blues region) produced players like Piri Weepu, Ma´a Nonu. Great players but not from any of the three teams in the Blues region. Israel Dagg is not from the Crusaders zone nor is Richie McCaw and the list goes on. Are these players also a slap in the face to all the rugby players in New Zealand as they are taking the places of local players? Thats what pro rugby is my friend. Time to face facts. One of the most locally produced teams in the world is Perpignan. A team with a Puma, Tongan, Samoan, Welsh player, a Cameroon... I could go on.
BTW I may well live in South America but there is a lot about me that you don´t know. I never prclaimed to have superior knowledge. I am here, as it is a forum, to share ideas.

 

[Seaton]

This is the way it should be, this is where you really get yourself into trouble. Besides being insulting to global rugby and highly arrogant it assumes New Zealand can do just fine without others and doesn´t not need them. Funny, then, that the sponsor on the front of the NZ Super Rugby teams is an Australian, not New Zealand owned company. BNZ is owned by the National Australia Bank Limited. Then there is another Bank sponsor for the tournament - Investec Bank which is based in London and Johanesburg not Auckland or Wellington. The All Blacks uniforms and the Super Rugby uniforms, are made by Adidas, a German company based in Herzogenaurach. Other All Blacks sponsors include Italian company Industrial Vehicle Corporation (IVECO), Rexona is Dutch and British owned, Ford is not from New Zealand. There are also a host of U.S. sponsors like Coca-Cola and Mastercard.

The money doesn´t come from New Zealand. Some does, not all and not most. So, please, find a real argument. Without the global economy there would be no pro rugby in New Zealand. This is a globalized world. Sport, like the economy, goes beyond borders. Simply put if NZ is to justify shutting off others to benefit itself then it needs to get all its income from within NZ. If you are right and that NZ rugby is for NZ only then you seriously should go complain that you want Kiwi sponsors as your asking for the rugby to remain kiwi. Contact the NZRU asking them to refuse to accept any more of the foreign money they get and ask them to go after Kiwi Bank to be the new sponsors. No more IVECO, no more adidas, no more ford, etc. This is underling how you are hegemonic. You are thinking only of New Zealand rugby and are happy that New Zealand gets the money from abroad and then you slam down any suggestions of playing in Samoa or having more Islanders in Super Rugby as it is expensive to have them. Happy to take btu not to give. This makes you selfish and, indeed, hegemonic.

ROFL :lol:

 

[ranger]

Ranger

1. So Georgia and Romainia prove that it is possible for Samoa to host NZ? Well done on reaffirming that point. It is locked in as undeniable fact; It is possible for NZ to play in Samoa.

2. Asking why they need to go to Samoa when every positive outcome can be acheived in NZ is not avoiding the question. What you're doing is avoiding the question. NZ are happy to play in Italy because it raises money.

3.

Samoa hosting a test is fundamental. All sides need to host and play abroad. No big explanation is needed, nor shuold it be.

It is needed. Why do they need to host tests?

4.

As World Champions there is a need to be a global leader. Set the tone. A match in Apia is not going to break the bank. It´s actually going to be cheap.

You say a match in Apia wont break the bank.. But a match in NZ will be money in the hand for Samoa! This is such a simple point.

5.

Blaming the clubs for Samoa not playing more matches is missing the point altogether. Its a convenient to blame clubs for not releasing players when unions intentionally plan matches at times in which clubs don´t have to release their players. I´ve offered a solution which will be beneficial to all parties. Have Samoa host Australia in June 2012 and New Zealand in June 2013 as midweek tests following the third test that both sides will have (Australia vs Wales and New Zealand vs France). Without question, both the ARU and NZRU will have made plenty of revenue from three tests vs these sides and can certainly afford a 3 hour flight to Samoa, Fiji or Tonga.

There is no reason to lose money to travel over to the islands when both parties can gain money in NZ..

6. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that either Brown or Umaga were the best players on the market. They were well known players who could fit in easily but neither was the best player avaliable. Some better options - Nicolás Sánchez and Paul Emerick. Both are cheap, both played at the RWC. Emerick being the best 13 of his teams pool.

Yes, they were. That is undeniable fact. Not just from a playing sense, but holistically. Umaga was the best 12 the Chiefs had available, he was their best distributor, one of the best defenders in the country and the backline worked when he was on the field and looked stagnant once he was injured. Beyond the performance on the field however, Umaga brought a wealth of experience that is absolutely invaluable for young players like Richard Kahui, and an air of leadership that Donald really needs at 12. To suggest that Paul freaking Emerick would be a better option is utterly ridiculous.

Similarly, when Slade went down and the Highlanders needed another 10, only Tony Brown had the mana to slip into that position seemlessly. He, like Umaga bring the added values of experience and leadership, like having another coach on the field. To think that you could just throw Sanchez in the mix and hope for the best makes me doubt your sanity.

Did you even see these guys play during the season or are you just assuming they weren't up to it?

7.

This is the way it should be, this is where you really get yourself into trouble. Besides being insulting to global rugby and highly arrogant it assumes New Zealand can do just fine without others and doesn´t not need them. Funny, then, that the sponsor on the front of the NZ Super Rugby teams is an Australian, not New Zealand owned company. BNZ is owned by the National Australia Bank Limited. Then there is another Bank sponsor for the tournament - Investec Bank which is based in London and Johanesburg not Auckland or Wellington. The All Blacks uniforms and the Super Rugby uniforms, are made by Adidas, a German company based in Herzogenaurach. Other All Blacks sponsors include Italian company Industrial Vehicle Corporation (IVECO), Rexona is Dutch and British owned, Ford is not from New Zealand. There are also a host of U.S. sponsors like Coca-Cola and Mastercard.

The money doesn´t come from New Zealand. Some does, not all and not most. So, please, find a real argument. Without the global economy there would be no pro rugby in New Zealand. This is a globalized world. Sport, like the economy, goes beyond borders. Simply put if NZ is to justify shutting off others to benefit itself then it needs to get all its income from within NZ. If you are right and that NZ rugby is for NZ only then you seriously should go complain that you want Kiwi sponsors as your asking for the rugby to remain kiwi. Contact the NZRU asking them to refuse to accept any more of the foreign money they get and ask them to go after Kiwi Bank to be the new sponsors. No more IVECO, no more adidas, no more ford, etc. This is underling how you are hegemonic. You are thinking only of New Zealand rugby and are happy that New Zealand gets the money from abroad and then you slam down any suggestions of playing in Samoa or having more Islanders in Super Rugby as it is expensive to have them. Happy to take btu not to give. This makes you selfish and, indeed, hegemonic.

WTF? I have no idea how you spun this to this direction? You tell me to find a real argument, but what what the hell is this? I would refute any legitimate claims you make, but really this just looks like an exert from a disorganised schizophrenia patient.

You call be retarded.. ok. All that does is makes the rest of your post look inferior. Are you a 13 year old? You seem like the drunk several rows in front of me at Dunedin Stadium for Italy vs Ireland who insulted Irish fans for not doing the Mexican wave. He did New Zealand rugby a bad service and was rightly taken out of the stadium. Was it you... seems possible. Lets focus on the task at hand and not go calling people retarded.

No, 21 thankyou very much, but i could ask you the same. You have an 'I'm right everyone else is wrong' mentality on issues that you clearly do not understand. You have a warped sense of the reality of New Zealand rugby. That is not an insult, that is the truth. P.S,not a fan of mexican waves, and i was at the Celtic Dragon during that game putting the moves on Welsh chicks. Probably just as drunk to be fair.

8. Laulala, Tialata, So'oialo, Masoe, Collins, Filipo, Masaga etc cannot and should never be able to play for Samoa as they have played elsewhere already. We all know this. What is interesting is that many kiwis think its the way to go forward yet don´t want to play in Samoa, don´t want to give Super rugby contracts to Samoans who won´t be All Blacks and want to condemn English, French and other clubs for not releasing players for matches scheduled at the wrong times.

If you weren't so darn hegemonic you may be open to looking at changing the rules to allow these players to play for Samoa.
P.S, NZ does give super rugby contracts to Samoans who won't be All Blacks and why not condemn these clubs for withholding players. Brenton Helleur was told not to go to the world cup by his club, that isn't right.

9. Substandard players. Ok, sure, Daniel Braid and Brad Mika from the Blues for starters. Braid is not good enough to be an All Black. Has had opportunities and proven he is not up to it. Even left to play for the Reds. Mika couldn´t make Brive´s starting XV in France. Then there are Auckland, Northland and Harbour (Blues region) produced players like Piri Weepu, Ma´a Nonu. Great players but not from any of the three teams in the Blues region. Israel Dagg is not from the Crusaders zone nor is Richie McCaw and the list goes on. Are these players also a slap in the face to all the rugby players in New Zealand as they are taking the places of local players? Thats what pro rugby is my friend. Time to face facts. One of the most locally produced teams in the world is Perpignan. A team with a Puma, Tongan, Samoan, Welsh player, a Cameroon... I could go on.
BTW I may well live in South America but there is a lot about me that you don´t know. I never prclaimed to have superior knowledge. I am here, as it is a forum, to share ideas.

Daniel Braid! haha what planet are you living on!

Daniel Braid did leave to play for the Reds Melhor, good spotting. While he was there, he proved to be one of the best 7s in the competition, coming into contention for the greatest 7 in Reds history in only 2 seasons. The NZRU then actively pursued him based on his exploits for the Reds. He never really got a chance to compete for a world cup spot though as he was constantly injured. He remains one of the most talented 7s in the game though and to say that he is substandard is just another indication that your views on rugby in this side of the globe should be taken with a grain of salt.

Mika has been brought in by Lam more for his experience and his approach to the game, he has been selected as part of the squad but his main job description will be to mentor the likes of Moli, Luatua, Paulo, Saili, Lowrey etc and to provide a a solid decision maker at number 8. His chances of starting are slim, but with such a young core, a seasoned pro like Mika is needed.

As for Weepu etc, is their selection a 'slap in the face because they are taking the place of local players' NO! They have earned their spots by proving themselves to be better than their counterparts at ITM and Super Rugby level! The franchises are all owned by the NZRU so player movement within franchises isn't seen as stifling talent here. The best players from the ITM cup will find a home somewhere in an NZ Super rugby team. Dagg wasn't wanted by his home union so his ITM cup performaces saw his snapped up by another province, fair dues. If it were somewhere where the clubs were seperate entities like in France then your scenerio may hold weight, but it doesn't. There is also a huge difference between Nonu moving from NZRU Hurricanes to NZRU Auckland, and Connor Trainor bounding up out of nowhere and taking someones place without proving that they are better.

 

[Melhor Time]

Thanks for the reply. At 21 you seem to think you´ve got it all figured out. Good for you. But, seriously, please address questions in the future. Do so without insulting others, actually read comments first then be sure you understand the points validly. Your last reply was really a let down compared to other arguments you´ve made previously. Reads like someone trying to respond quickly to save face, someone about to run off to class. The end was better. Let me address you post. If you can respond well, without the insults, I´ll get back to you. Otherwise I´m done.

- You are yet to say why Portugal hosting a North American country is not important. Same with Georgia and Spain.

- You, at 21, are convinced Samoa don´t need to host NZ. Eden Park is better. Grow up. Go see the world. What a clueless kid you are. Did some economics 101 class tell you its a garbage idea to play rugby in Apia? Really, your comments underline why the ***le to this topic is true for you. You, Ranger, need to change yourself as a Kiwi since yout team is World Champions as you are extremely hegemonic and arrogant.

- Why do Samoa need to host tests? - Well, they have a team. Aren´t teams supposed to have home matches? Or is international rugby something played on videogames?

- Why don´t you ask the players if they want to play in Apia vs the All Blacks? Todd Clever loved the experiences in Portugal and Georgia. I know this for a fact. Georgian players and the country welcomed the USA with open arms. It was something massive.

- How much will Samoa make from playing in New Zealand? Will Eden Park be full? - Going off crowds outside of the World Cup Cup. No, absolutely not. Will Wellington? Highly unlikely. So whats left? - Stadiums around 26,000. New Plymouth and Napier have hosted All Blacks vs Samoa in the professional era. This is not going to be a high money making venture. Samoa, if they wanted maximum revenue vs New Zealand would play in a place like Dubai, Hong Kong or London´s Emirates Stadium not in New Zealand. Better to first try Apia. If its a failure then don´t reéat it. There is only one way to find out.

- Still no answer given to the scheduling issues which were created by the NZRU and SRU not the clubs.

- Brown and Umaga the best on the market... Shocking comment. You should really see more rugby - Top 14, Aviva Premiership. Ever heard of them?

- Your lack of respect for Paul Emerick... very, very sad. Not to mention, you made the comment without even addressing the point at all. No attempt to say another player was better nor to even comment on how he performed. This is getting ridiculous by now Ranger.

- only Tony Brown had the mana to slip into that position seemlessly. Mana? I think I understand the word. But, please, take a look at what French clubs do to fill voids left by injuries. Medical Jokers are often extremely useful. Toulon and Racing Metro got a Puma each. Both were based in Rosario. You´ll find players bought in from far away able to contribute very well regardless of previous experience at the team or, even, the players language. International rugby is not your strongest point Ranger. One of the reasons for this may well be because NZ doesn´t have the same variety of players that can be found in the Six Nations.

- I saw Umaga and Brown play. Saw Umaga at Toulon before that where he was nowhere near good enough to play Super Rugby. Neither player was the player of old.

- Address the question rather than, yet again, going into insults. This time its a schizophrenia patient. Terribly low or you Ranger. You really are outdoing yourself here.

- Saying you clearly do not understand. You have a warped sense of the reality of New Zealand rugby. That is not an insult, that is the truth is really poor. You have never met me. You don´t know my background. You don´t know anything about me. I am not going to get into it but, trust me, I am able to say what I am saying and do so with the experience to do so confidently. Maybe, I know some All Blacks. Maybe I know the coach. Maybe I am from New Zealand. Maybe I lived there for a long time. Maybe I live there now. Maybe my father was an All Black. Maybe my brother or cousin. More than one of these are true.

- Good point regarding Brenton Helleur. I agree it was a total sham. USA secondrower Samu Manoa didn´t play at the RWC either. Northampton had a clause in his contract preventing him from playing. It was a real shame, shameless in fact.

- If players could play for multiple countries then the sport would not be better off. Kiwi´s, yourself included, are quick to say that you don´t want the jersey to lose its value. That you don´t want the place of a local who has bleed for the cause to be taken up by a player from far away. That it sends a negative message. Well, iff Jerry Collins were to play for Samoa then this would be a lot worse than Paul Emerick playing for the Highlanders. One country per player.

- We´ll have to disagree on Braid. He is like Angus MacDonald not Sam Warburton. I am not kidding when I say both the USA and Canada could not fit him into their starting XV´s. Clever and O´Toole are better 7´s than Braid.

- You´ve all but confirmed that Mika is a surplus player.

- Good attempt at addressing the issue of Nonu and Weepu at the Blues but sorry to say I have not been convinced that its actually different to players from outside the region, regardless of where they are from being any different. If you think it is thats your call. I don´t. In pro sport there is no longer ties to teams like previously. Teams get the best players they can. Cruden is not from the Chiefs territories just like Juan Martín Hernández has nothing to do with Paris. Racing Metro got him as he was the best on the market. Perpignan got James Hook for the same reason. I am sure the Highlanders would want more guys like James Haskell. Go ask Parisians if they are cross about Juan Imhoff´s arrival. Do Harlequins supporters want a local in place of Nick Evans? Should a local player be ahead of these, do the fans mind? Felipe Contepomi held Leinster´s 10 shirt for a period of over 5 years. Ireland have only 3 other teams. Yet, he, was not booed. He was cheered. He was highly popular and Ireland did just fine with players from Munster and Ulster. Things are not so simple as you suggest.

 

[UilamOsa]

Welcome to the forum and well done on a good, well argued post. I am going to address what I have marked in bold.
1. Perhaps thats true with Wales and it probably is. I think New Zealand has more depth than Wales but that the best Welsh side is capable of beating the best All Black side. Wales have four sides, New Zealand have five. There is room for another Welsh side yet many argue that there should not be. I don´t think New Zealand has the depth for 5 Super Rugby sides. I am convinced it does for three and for four but not for five.

I'm pretty sure if you historically combine the best players of the five super 15 teams each year you will have The All Blacks, NZ 'A' & The NZ Maoris. No Joke. It also goes back to the point of NZ rugby suffering, if we cannot play our younger but talented players, they do not shine on the world stage. If there were 3 NZ Super 15 sides, then guys like Israel Dagg and co would not have found the room to shine. As Mils, Toeva & Jane would have been up ahead in the tram lines. Possibly no Cruden etc.

3. I agree the secondstring All Blacks are likely to be too good for the tier two sides. But, there is only one way to find out....

The majority of the public (or most of the guys/girl I know ) does not agree with the using of a "Second String" team unless it's playing midweek matches. I still find that if NZ got the NZ Maori's (with the few AB's included) to tour the Tier 2 teams the long term impact would be greater than if they were to play the AB's. What greater impact to show Rugby's global appeal than to show an Native team from the World Cup winners featuring players from that team?

5. The cheapens the jersey argument no longer exists. Fact: New Zealand are happy to field weakened sides. In 2005 New Zealand played Wales and then changed the entire XV the following week to play Ireland. Then in 2009, less than two years before hosting the World Cup, New Zealand fielded a team with only four players who made the World Cup squad.

15 Cory Jane, 14 Ben Smith, 13 Tamati Ellison, 12 Luke McAlister, 11 Sitiveni Sivivatu, 10 Mike Delany, 9 Andy Ellis, 8 Rodney So´oiallo, 7 Tanerau Latimer, 6 Liam Messam, 5 Anthony Boric, 4 Tom Donnelly, 3 Neemia Tialata, 2 Corey Flynn, 1 Wyatt Crockett.



Clearly, the jersey was cheapened for this match. For me, thats ok. I have no issue with it. It is, in fact, what I have been asking for. Send a similar team to Suva in 2012 to play Fiji and to Apia in 2013 to play Samoa.

Cheap Jerseys? It's Addidas - those things are never cheap. Also, that team you've picked out - i'd probably be happy to start a RWC QF. But that's just me. Except for Tialata.

6. The problem of money for lpayers in this regard is highly complicated by the policy of not allowing All Blacks to play abroad. In a few years you will see New Zealand lose to Argentina and the Pumas side will consist of players in Argentina as well as England, France and elsewhere. The loss of South Africans to European rugby has not weakened the Springboks. Bowe at the Ospreys is fine for Ireland too. These real world examples go far to sugeest that should New Zealand change its stand point then it would (a) have more money to use rather than pay a handful much more than the others, (b) be able to contribute better to the Islands, have more for age grade teams, clubs and so on. The focus on player retention is highly expensive. If Carter can get more to play for Bayonne then thats where he should play. He doesn´t play for Canterbury anyhow. Few All Blacks play in the ITM Cup. He simply needs to have a contract enabling him to be released for international duty in June, November and for the Four Nations. Pumas players are to be released for the Four Nations this year and thus miss club duty in August and September.

I think you're wrong. They will be highly competitive. I think it will take a lot longer than a few years. I do hope i'm wrong coz I like Argentina but Travel is a huge factor. It's taken the Boks years to get over the NZ factor. Aussies still can't consistently perform when away from home. The majority of the South Africans still play within the S15. You may be thinking that there will be only a few players that will leave. If players like Masaga & Maposua could get better deals overseas then what could your average All Black get? You may think 3 or 4 players that may depart overseas but when you say open the floodgates - it literally means open the flood gates. There's not 1 current All Black right now that could get close to double their current salaries if they left overseas. The All Blacks will be a team of mercenaries. IMO this is not the way forward for the All Blacks.

2. Asking why do teams need to tour is really a way of avoiding answering the question of why the Islanders can host Japan but can´t host their Oceanian neighbours. Why should Eden Park not host the games? Firstly, for Fiji to play at Eden Park makes little sense. Samoa and Tonga it could be argued that it is just but as an occassional thing. NZ are happy to play in Italy, ranked below Tonga and Samoa. Travel time from London to Rome is not all that different to Auckland - Apia.

Again - it's all about the Benjamins. $$$. Italy has first class facilities, the All Blacks as a "Brand" get to promote their not only themselves as players but also as Addidas/IVECO et al.

I agree with some of your comments about Samoa hosting, but again it comes down to perceiving what is best for the Brand "All Black" and playing in Apia Park isn't a top priority. Also the glorification of Rugby in Samoa isn't needed - it's already the top sport.

9. Substandard players. Ok, sure, Daniel Braid and Brad Mika from the Blues for starters. Braid is not good enough to be an All Black. Has had opportunities and proven he is not up to it. Even left to play for the Reds. Mika couldn´t make Brive´s starting XV in France. Then there are Auckland, Northland and Harbour (Blues region) produced players like Piri Weepu, Ma´a Nonu. Great players but not from any of the three teams in the Blues region. Israel Dagg is not from the Crusaders zone nor is Richie McCaw and the list goes on. Are these players also a slap in the face to all the rugby players in New Zealand as they are taking the places of local players? Thats what pro rugby is my friend. Time to face facts. One of the most locally produced teams in the world is Perpignan. A team with a Puma, Tongan, Samoan, Welsh player, a Cameroon... I could go on.
BTW I may well live in South America but there is a lot about me that you don´t know. I never prclaimed to have superior knowledge. I am here, as it is a forum, to share ideas.

Daniel Braid is definitely not substandard. He and Mika are both ex-All Blacks. Was Aussie's 2nd Best no 7 after Pocock whilst he was with the Reds. That said, I've always been a Todd Clever fan and thought after his stint with Harbour that he would've been a shoo in for the Blues. Also - I agree that he is better than Braid.

If the qualifying mark for players is to be "Standard" is to be test worthy, then we might as well throw all competitions away and have the Rugby World Cup Global Edition.

That said, I'm one of those that actually think that those that have already played for a country internationally should be allowed for another country. A Standdown period would have been okay and my contribution would be a Maximum Test Cap amount (not non test matches). Say about no more than 15 Test Caps. Guys like John Schwalger, Casey Laulala, Sosene Anesi, Ben Atiga, Brad Mika, Kevin Senio, Mose Tuali'i, Rudi Wulf would have made a clear difference for Samoa if they had been part of this world cup.

 

[ranger]

Goodness gracious me,

You are accurate in that my last post had decidedly less effort put in than the previous, and if you look closely the reply before than took considerably less time than its predecessor also; i have become more and more disillusioned with every reply you type. You see Melhor, you have proven yourself to be a blinkered and self affirming idealist; you believe what you want to believe, you absorb the information that confirms these beliefs and you ignore any contrary information to the point that it doesn't even cognitively register. I received private messages from more than one source informing me of this earlier on, but since i plan to make a living by dealing with people such as yourself; in shaking concrete opinions that have been formed on dodgy foundations, i took to enlightening you as a bit of a personal challenge. The more i see what you have to say, the more i realise that this is a more difficult task than i had anticipated. I don't like to admit defeat but by gum you're a stubborn one. I will go over the salient issues one more time and hopefully, now that i have prompted you to really pay close attention, you may learn something.

-I really have to throw out this first point at the beginning, because it literally made me laugh out loud: When you encouraged me to "Actually read comments first then be sure you understand the points validly", that may have been your subconscious digesting the discussion and making an important suggestion, the message must have been misinterpreted somewhere along the line however as you have directed the advice at the wrong person.

-My asserting that you have a warped sense of the reality of rugby in New Zealand was not intended as an insult, it is merely an (accurate) observation gleaned from the comments you have provided. I don't need to know you personally to know that from the bulk of information you have provided in your replies, you don't seem to understand the reality of New Zealand rugby currently.
Also, your claims to fame don't really hold much sway either. For one, this is New Zealand, population 4 million, if you don't know a swathe of All Blacks you live under a rock (My 4th form dean was an All Black, my mentor at my 7th form job was an All Black, one of my coaches this year was an All Black and another is a current All Black) For another, your connections mean very little to me, i evaluated your understanding based on the things you had said, not who your friends are. As i have said, i have a cousin playing top 14 rugby, i do not profess to know the inner workings of French rugby by relation.

Do Harlequins supporters want a local in place of Nick Evans? Should a local player be ahead of these, do the fans mind? Felipe Contepomi held Leinster´s 10 shirt for a period of over 5 years. Ireland have only 3 other teams. Yet, he, was not booed. He was cheered.

Kiwi´s, yourself included, are quick to say that you don´t want the jersey to lose its value. That you don´t want the place of a local who has bleed for the cause to be taken up by a player from far away.

-These are examples of how you have developed a schema of "The Hegemonic New Zealander" and are projecting your assumptions onto my words. The way you have spun this is laughable.
My position has always been and will remain that international players should be able to play for a New Zealand side if they are willing to take the pay cut and they earn their place. Hypothetically, if Connor Trainor wants to play for the Hurricanes, then he shouldn't contact Mark Hammett and ask for a contract, he should turn up in Havelock North, play outstanding club rugby, outplay his rivals in the ITM cup for Hawkes Bay and receive a contract for 2013 on form as one of the top 10s available. If he does that and rightfully keeps out locals, then good on him, and i and everyone else will welcome him with open arms; just as Taranaki embraced Brock James when he earned his way to the Taranaki side with consistant performances for Clifton. The only exception for cue-cutting i see would be for players such as Haskell and Califano who are proven at international level players.
What i dont want to see is guys like Luke Rooney being bought over on reputation, he was simply not as good as the likes of Buckman and Kaka, if he had been made to earn his place in the same fire that they had to to make the side, this would have been exposed earlier and these promising young players wouldnt have been stifled on the bench while watching a substandard player wear their jersey number.
In a nutshell, if there is a better player overseas than NZ has available, then bring it on. The only catch is that they have to prove that they are better than the men they are replacing. Reasonable?. This stance (which i repeat is the same i have maintained this whole time) is a far cry from your "Hegemonic NZers dont want any foreign players in their sides." angle which you have labled me with. That is not the message i have been trying to convey, and you have only interpreted it as such due to the fact that you are reading my perspectives with a mind to affirming your existing beliefs.

-I have given clear reasons as to the value and importance of the likes of Tony Brown, Tana Umaga and Brad Mika and their value over a pick such as Emerick. You are quick to scramble to the high ground of being older than i, and feel yourself free to toss comments such as "..Only exists in video games" down from your lofty age pedestal (Congratulations for ageing by the way, skilfully done), although ironically in this instance, it is you who seems to think the world operates in a video game universe.
In a team of 32, with a larger training squad, not everyone is going to be world class. When they get down to the last squad members, such as the 30th spot Mika occupies, the selectors are not only weighing up playing ability, but also factoring in the importance of creating a successful team environment (like the Crusaders have been so good at). The presence a player brings outside of the 22 is invaluable as they are unlikely to be in it bar injury. This is an opportunity for coaches to bring in a seasoned veteran and leader to glue the side together and to mentor the younger players. On the field, Mika provides a solid and dependable option at 4-5-6 and 8, no he wont set the world on fire, but he will do what is required of him, he will provide leadership on the field if he gets the call up and he has the smarts and experience to handle any situation. Off the field Mika has far more value; The Blues have an inexperienced although ridiculously talented young group of abrasiveness island locks and loose forwards (Moli, Luatua, Saili, Paulo etc), they have since recruited Mika, a former All Black and master of the role of abrasive island lock/loose forward role. This could be a coincidence, but i'm fairly sure there is a connection there.
If this was a video game, then you're on point Melhor!
Brad Mika- rating 67, (Insert hipster 'i discovered him first' player here) - rating 68.
On your bike Mika, in the video game universe, its only about ratings.

In the real universe, there are other dimensions. The value Umaga, Mika, Brown, Thorn, Paku, Tipoki etc have bought to their sides is invaluable, only a fool would exchange Umaga for a so-so handy player like Emerick (regardless of the fact that Umaga was legitimately the right fit for the Chiefs.).
Look at all the good it has done Cardiff to have geriatric Rush and ***o involved. If international players of that calibre and experience were available to take a pay cut in their twilight years to come to NZ, i would be ecstatic. (P.S, the majority of players that just sprung to your mind are not of that calibre or experience)

-For a man as well travelled as yourself, you seem surprisingly foreign to the idea of relative distance. The fact that you see no difference between a leisurely 4 hour drive from palmy to hamilton and a transfer from southern Wales to the eastern coast of France is quite amusing. Players earn their Super 14 spots by outplaying the other players in their position during the ITM cup. Cruden is not from Hamilton, but he beat out all other competitors from that region to earn his spot. Also, the tiny population of New Zealand makes getting players from other provinces less of a gamble; largely because they are forced to play each other over and over again at all levels. I'm from Taranaki for instance, we only have 2 schools in the province that could even think of competing at the top level, Palmerston North is in the position. As i result, i grew up playing the likes of Palmy Boys' Willie Ioane and Ben Funnell over and over twice, maybe three times a year (for various teams). This year Taranaki signed Ione, is this a gamble in the same vain as Munster signing Peter Borlase? no. Because they have seen him and encountered him at national camps and tournaments time and time again for years since he was a child.
Nonu moving from the Hurricanes to the Blues is no more of a professional environment cutthroat gesture than George Nepia moving from East Coast to Hawkes Bay.

-One really puzzling point is that you seem to see faceless-dollars & cents-privately owned clubs as the way forward, but you just shrug when it is pointed out that that very system keeps the Breton Helluers of world rugby from improving their sides. That system creates an environment where players are loyal to club before country. New Zealand operates under a system where private ownership and ruthless player spending is unable to occur, and i see that as a positive. I have already mentioned the gateway i would prefer international players come through.

-Judging player talent is largely an opinion based affair, but O'Toole over Braid really is a joke. I'm just hoping his younger brother slows down in his development so Daniel Braid can put some more international class performances on the field, and hopefully then you will be man enough to admit when you are being ridiculous.

-As for the legendary playing in Apia debate, it seems to have boiled down to your salient points being:
*It would be nice for Samoa to host the All Blacks
*International sides 'should' (according to the rules of the universe) host games.

The fact of the matter is that Samoa need money more than anything, while they are in such financial straights it is irresponsible for New Zealand to deny the Samoan approach for NZ based test matches in favour of Apia. The only reason to do it would be that NZ wants to save face now that Wales is going. I'm sorry but that is not a good enough reason and the loss of money would be detrimental to the Samoan side.
Playing against New Zealand in New Plymouth would raise a far sight more money for the Samoan Union than it would in Apia, and the Samoan government would make money of it. Do you realise that the Samoan national team is Samoa's top export from a purely economic standpoint?
It seems that your argument is based on fuzzy feelings. I'm trying to ground myself in reality here. New Zealand is doing a great job for Samoan rugby in many respects (The bulk of the coaches in Samoa, including previous headcoaches such as Boe have been under NZRU employ for example) there are areas that can be improved as always but touring the islands with the All Blacks just isn't one of them

-Portugal hosting a North American country is very important. They are both emerging countries and countries in which Rugby is a low profile sport, the more exposure to top class matches, especially hosted at home, the more interest is raised for the sport and the union. The megre incomes available are important to those unions and for the quality of rugby to improve in those countries, more of those tours featuring teams of the same ball park calibre should occur.

The situation in Samoa, as i have said, is completely different. Namely the level of market penetration for the sport and the need for money.

-Getting incredibly bored now and sleeping pills are kicking in so i will wrap this up. My comments directed at you personally have everything to do with the words you have written and nothing to do with your nature as a human being, just to be sure. You are no doubt a journeyed and knowledgeable man Melhor but i have to point out, you cant be an expert on everything. From the southern depths of Chile, up around North America and through Europe appears to be where you have focussed your attentions. Although i am only 21, i know the workings of rugby union on this tiny island and the ones surrounding it like the back of my hand. I bring facts and knowledge that i have picked up in a specific area and you are attempting to counter with vauge general knowledge and assumptions of transferability from areas that you understand to a greater extent (Asserting that NZ clubs can/should operate as the French do, that the Portugal/US and NZ/Samoa situations are exact parellels, that movement between NZ teams are the same as movement between NH clubs etc). This is clear from a mile away and i thought i would just let you know that this how you have been operating incase it was inadvertant.
Perhaps i have been arrogant in my responses, definitely in fact. Apologies, Its just the way i work; confidence and arrogance are a fine line etc etc. I hope i have shed some light in a few areas here.

 

[nickdnz]

Thanks for the reply. At 21 you seem to think you´ve got it all figured out. Good for you. But, seriously, please address questions in the future. Do so without insulting others, actually read comments first then be sure you understand the points validly. Your last reply was really a let down compared to other arguments you´ve made previously. Reads like someone trying to respond quickly to save face, someone about to run off to class. The end was better. Let me address you post. If you can respond well, without the insults, I´ll get back to you. Otherwise I´m done.

- You are yet to say why Portugal hosting a North American country is not important. Same with Georgia and Spain.

- You, at 21, are convinced Samoa don´t need to host NZ. Eden Park is better. Grow up. Go see the world. What a clueless kid you are. Did some economics 101 class tell you its a garbage idea to play rugby in Apia? Really, your comments underline why the ***le to this topic is true for you. You, Ranger, need to change yourself as a Kiwi since yout team is World Champions as you are extremely hegemonic and arrogant.

- Why do Samoa need to host tests? - Well, they have a team. Aren´t teams supposed to have home matches? Or is international rugby something played on videogames?

- Why don´t you ask the players if they want to play in Apia vs the All Blacks? Todd Clever loved the experiences in Portugal and Georgia. I know this for a fact. Georgian players and the country welcomed the USA with open arms. It was something massive.

- How much will Samoa make from playing in New Zealand? Will Eden Park be full? - Going off crowds outside of the World Cup Cup. No, absolutely not. Will Wellington? Highly unlikely. So whats left? - Stadiums around 26,000. New Plymouth and Napier have hosted All Blacks vs Samoa in the professional era. This is not going to be a high money making venture. Samoa, if they wanted maximum revenue vs New Zealand would play in a place like Dubai, Hong Kong or London´s Emirates Stadium not in New Zealand. Better to first try Apia. If its a failure then don´t reéat it. There is only one way to find out.

- Still no answer given to the scheduling issues which were created by the NZRU and SRU not the clubs.

- Brown and Umaga the best on the market... Shocking comment. You should really see more rugby - Top 14, Aviva Premiership. Ever heard of them?

- Your lack of respect for Paul Emerick... very, very sad. Not to mention, you made the comment without even addressing the point at all. No attempt to say another player was better nor to even comment on how he performed. This is getting ridiculous by now Ranger.

- only Tony Brown had the mana to slip into that position seemlessly. Mana? I think I understand the word. But, please, take a look at what French clubs do to fill voids left by injuries. Medical Jokers are often extremely useful. Toulon and Racing Metro got a Puma each. Both were based in Rosario. You´ll find players bought in from far away able to contribute very well regardless of previous experience at the team or, even, the players language. International rugby is not your strongest point Ranger. One of the reasons for this may well be because NZ doesn´t have the same variety of players that can be found in the Six Nations.

- I saw Umaga and Brown play. Saw Umaga at Toulon before that where he was nowhere near good enough to play Super Rugby. Neither player was the player of old.

- Address the question rather than, yet again, going into insults. This time its a schizophrenia patient. Terribly low or you Ranger. You really are outdoing yourself here.

- Saying you clearly do not understand. You have a warped sense of the reality of New Zealand rugby. That is not an insult, that is the truth is really poor. You have never met me. You don´t know my background. You don´t know anything about me. I am not going to get into it but, trust me, I am able to say what I am saying and do so with the experience to do so confidently. Maybe, I know some All Blacks. Maybe I know the coach. Maybe I am from New Zealand. Maybe I lived there for a long time. Maybe I live there now. Maybe my father was an All Black. Maybe my brother or cousin. More than one of these are true.

- Good point regarding Brenton Helleur. I agree it was a total sham. USA secondrower Samu Manoa didn´t play at the RWC either. Northampton had a clause in his contract preventing him from playing. It was a real shame, shameless in fact.

- If players could play for multiple countries then the sport would not be better off. Kiwi´s, yourself included, are quick to say that you don´t want the jersey to lose its value. That you don´t want the place of a local who has bleed for the cause to be taken up by a player from far away. That it sends a negative message. Well, iff Jerry Collins were to play for Samoa then this would be a lot worse than Paul Emerick playing for the Highlanders. One country per player.

- We´ll have to disagree on Braid. He is like Angus MacDonald not Sam Warburton. I am not kidding when I say both the USA and Canada could not fit him into their starting XV´s. Clever and O´Toole are better 7´s than Braid.

- You´ve all but confirmed that Mika is a surplus player.

- Good attempt at addressing the issue of Nonu and Weepu at the Blues but sorry to say I have not been convinced that its actually different to players from outside the region, regardless of where they are from being any different. If you think it is thats your call. I don´t. In pro sport there is no longer ties to teams like previously. Teams get the best players they can. Cruden is not from the Chiefs territories just like Juan Martín Hernández has nothing to do with Paris. Racing Metro got him as he was the best on the market. Perpignan got James Hook for the same reason. I am sure the Highlanders would want more guys like James Haskell. Go ask Parisians if they are cross about Juan Imhoff´s arrival. Do Harlequins supporters want a local in place of Nick Evans? Should a local player be ahead of these, do the fans mind? Felipe Contepomi held Leinster´s 10 shirt for a period of over 5 years. Ireland have only 3 other teams. Yet, he, was not booed. He was cheered. He was highly popular and Ireland did just fine with players from Munster and Ulster. Things are not so simple as you suggest.

A lot of things to address here. Meaning no disrespect, I do believe your point of view seems to be based off of watching a lot of Top 14 rugby, and you seem to hold it as the pinnacle of a domestic competition. It's not a view we in New Zealand agree with. It's a good competition, but it's based off a financial model in which clubs have control of the players, to the extent that they compete with their international rugby. They're privately owned by millionaires who are happy to run losses because they can afford to. What you fail to see and address, is that there is no chance that New Zealand can have private backers to support forign players (you use the example of Medial Jokers in the Top 14, but the reality is that most players in the Top 14 earn so much more money). Yes there are players like Caucaunibuca who was brought in as a medical joker for very little money, but he was also contacted by several Super Rugby Franchises. There are players like Nalaga who have obviously taken a pay cut to play for Western Force (and Australian Super Rugby teams can afford to pay players more, because they have no domestic competition and a poor grass roots system). Anyway, because I'm lazy I will try to address your points in bullit points.

1. Not quite sure what your point is about Portugal/USA/Romania/Georgia. Of course teams need to hoast other teams, otherwise matches can't be played. No one is disputing that. The point ranger and I have been making is that Samoa will not choose to hoast the All Blacks over the All Blacks hoasting Samoa in larger stadiums for more money.

2. Not really a point but a string of insults. You can't say that you will only reply if he posts things with out insulting you, and then continually insulting him through out the post. As someone who has done papers specifically on hegemony, I fail to see in what sense ranger is trying to maintain the status quo in favour of the dominant group/ideology. He is point out basic flaws in a plan. There is no reason why Samoa would benefit from playing there in terms of developing the game there, so he's hardly trying to keep Samoa down. He is pointing out the flaws. With all due respect, I think arrogance is creating a topic on why another country needs to change their system, despite it being successful. None of your case examples come with out holes. ranger and mysef, and most Kiwi's here, have played and been products of the New Zealand rugby system, so despite being young, it's pretty relavant to most of us. I wouldn't dream of telling a Brizilian about why their football system is wrong, because he probably knows more about it than me.

3. Yes, they need home tests. However Samoa does not have the luxory of having home tests against the All Blacks, while maintaining a profit. They cannot afford to throw home tests and miss out on the revenue that they would gain from playing away. Is it a fair system? No. However it is the reality of the world. Make no mistake, it's not like the All Blacks are opting not to play in Samoa, it's just that Samoa would rather cash in and play in New Zealand, that way they can afford to be competitive.

4. It's not about the player experince. I'm sure players would want to play in Samoa. That's got little to do with it though. It's about Samoa making money off of playing the All Blacks.

5. Again, New Zealand sold 87% of tickets to 48 games over the space of 5 weeks. Your notion that the crowds for international matches are poor team pretty off. Tonga v All Blacks at Eden Park sold out, as did Samoa v Fiji. If those kind of matches should be thrown, for the purpose of earning money for Samoa, it needs to be thrown at Eden Park. As I've mentioned before, Auckland has more Pacific Islanders in it that Apia and Suva combined, in fact they have more than Tonga. The stadium would certainly sell well over double the amount as playing in Samoa, and when Samoa have a union that can only make it to a World Cup through donations, and only get several test matches a year against tier 1 opposition, every dollar earned is hugely important.

6. Well, every other time other than 2008 (which admittedly is not alot) that we have played Samoa, it has been during June/July intervals. Even then they were unable to field their best teams because of club arrangments. This has only gotten worse over the years with PI players being in huge demand over seas. Regardless of that, the players may choose to get paid over joining a team which cannot pay them, or the players risk losing professional contracts even during the June intervals (ie what happened with Fiji's best players this World Cup).

7. Brown and Umaga were the best on the market. If you watched the Chiefs play, Umaga was fantastic up until injury. Brown also stared the ship well for the Highlanders, despite being a very late call after Lima, Robinson and Slade were all either unavalible or terribly out of form. Brown is 36 years old, only two years older than Ronan O'Gara who is Ireland's starting 1st 5/8th. What both Umaga and Brown have in common? Well other than experience and respect amongst every player, they also came fairly cheaply. That is why they were selected over Top 14 players, because they are willing to play for a quarter of the amount. Umaga was already signed to Counties as a player/coach, so it was a no brainer.

8. I like Paul Emerick. He's a very good player (despite being pretty old). The fact of the matter is, he's not an inside centre option and I'd still pick Tana Umaga over him. Umaga is a legend in New Zealand and has one of the best passes, defense, offload games, ruck work and leadership in the Super 15. He's old now, but he was still the first choice 12 when he was avalible.

9. I love this point. And I love it because of the irony. The two clubs you chose to give an example of Medical Joker, are the two richest clubs in Europe. Yes they both got a Puma, but they can also afford to buy those players. Between Chabal, Fall, Hernández , Wilkinson and Hayman, you have the salary of pretty much haf the players in the Chiefs. I don't know what makes you think ranger doesn't have a good understanding of international rugby, but I can certainly say he has a better understanding of New Zealand's domestic rugby than you do, which is what is relavent here. As for "New Zealand doesn't have the same variety of players that can be sound in the six nations", I'm not sure what this means. If I was more cynical I would presume you were talking about the number of forign players that play in the Six Nations, but I'm sure you have another meaning.

10. If you did see Umaga play in Toulon in 2006, you'd have seen he was easily the best player in Pro D2. In 2008 when he returned to coach, and then got forced out of retirement to play, he did not look as good. Despite being 35 and put on the wing...and was not being signed as a player...other than that though, you have a point. Both Brown and Umaga did well in the Super 15, despite being old. Heck, Ledesma is a couple of weeks older than Tana Umaga and both Roncero and Skelza are both in their mid thirties. Indeed Contepomi is 34 years old. I guess they are no longer up to scratch, no longer fit to play in the Top 14?

11. All insults are getting pretty old. With that beind said, it's frustrating just how little some of your points make sense. No one is saying that the NZRU does not need outside sponsors to survive. What people are saying is that the New Zealand franchises should recruite people who have played in New Zealand. Why? Because it rewards people who play in New Zealand. Sponsors get money because they associate themselves with sporting brands which get television time and ad space. What relevance does that have on selection policy? What invested interest does Adidas have in New Zealand selecting players from the Top 14? The money that Adidas gives to the All Blacks is not a gift because they're big fans, it's an investment in being associated by one of the most recognizable sporting brands in the world. None of that large post actually makes any sense. If BNZ want to donate more money for more expensive players to be imported in, than that's their choice, but I'm sure they're happy with the low cost New Zealand players that play in the Super Rugby.

12. I don't know who you are or where you are from, but I've never got the sense that you have a very detailed understanding of the innerworkings New Zealand rugby. If I have a question on rugby in the Americas, or even regarding Top 14, I'd happily go to you for answers. As I said in the beginning rambling at the intro of my post (I posted much more than this but the forum f*cked up, and the first paragraph was all that was saved), from all your posts you don't seem to have a grasp on just how easily it would be for New Zealand rugby to be ruined. The financial model we use is enough to keep us constantly competitive (in fact on top) at international level, but the Super Rugby and Domestic competitions are essentially just enough to lose money at a stable enough rate to regain it. Below that you have the grassroots level where all the real effort is put into. Now buying overseas talent means that we have to pay our players more, which means our teams go further into the red, which has knock on effects. If we recuite our overseas based talent, it means that New Zealand rugby will lose all their players over seas to richer clubs, which will also mean the development of great players will get halted by a weaker talent pool in domestic/professional rugby, which hurts our national team. Not to mention, despite what you seem to be sure of, we believe our players in the Super Rugby are superior to overseas talent, and we're reassured of that every International test.

13. Something we agree on.

14. I agree with you there as well. It has nothing to do with keeping anyone down, it is just allowing players to play for two nations means the jersey loses integrity, with no real benefit. The players from Samoa aren't starved of quality, they're starved of resources and top level fixtures, and that is something that should change (Regardless of whether or not they play home matches against the All Blacks)

15. Well, Daniel Braid was nominated for Australian Super Rugby Player of the Year and Reds Player of the Year in 2010. He also won 2007 New Zealand player of the Year. He would have been first cab off the rank had he not been injured and had McCaw got injured. Personally I think he's a great player, and easily would fit into the Canadian and USA setup. I'd prefer Brain at 7 any day of the week over Cleaver. Cleaver is a fantastic player, but I prefer him at blindside or #8. In terms of player performance between Clever and Brain in Super Rugby, Braid is far more proven, with Clever not being a regular starter for the Lions untill his last season (in which he started to look much better, with a very good try against the Hurricanes). I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I can't help but feel you have a lack of exposure to Super Rugby or a distorted view of the Top 14/Tier 3 teams. Either way Braid is a very good player.

16. Mika is probably not going to be a starter as ranger said. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a place in the Blues enviroment. Are there better overseas equivelents? Probably. Are there better overseas equivelents that can cheap enough for the Blues to afford them and own houses in Auckland? Doubt it.

17. Don't really get what I'd argue with here. Most players do prefer to see players from their home towns selected, at least when your living in New Zealand. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Personally I'd rather see a New Zealander play for the Hurricanes over a forign player, simply because if they get good enough they can play for the All Blacks. Regardless, I support (follow) Harlequins because my favourite players from here have played there with Mehrtens, Brooke and Evans all loving it there. There is certainly a more professional feel and attitude abroad when it comes to supporting teams, and I kind of like it over there, but here we'd rather see our home team full of home players at club level, as well as national level. Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if Contepomi or Hernandez decided to play for the Hurricanes, it'd be great, providing they came cheap enough and earned it through the New Zealand club system (or as ranger pointed out, they are proven internationals).

 

[Melhor Time]

All good repsonses. Thanks to all three of you.

I will never forget what a Fijian friend said to me on a rugby forum in early 2007. his exact words were if Fiji get to the Quarter Finals it´s because of France. Fiji, a country from Oceania, had, and still does, far fewer players in Australia and New Zealand than it does in France or England. This is where the full circle takes place in this debate. New Zealand has a system which is fantastic for New Zealand. I don´t dispute this and never have. I do, however, argue that it is not beneficial to others.Now, its not supposed to be. there is no denying this and, again, thats not what I´ve ever argued here. 20 years ago Canada were better than Argentina and Italy. 20 years ago Samoa was better than Wales. What has happened is teams have got better, stayed the same or gotten worse depending largely on exposure to professional rugby. Those with pro leagues are first tier sides or almost. Japan are not but have improved incredibly. Russia are pro but only recently - nonetheless nobody can deny they are on their way. Italy are on par with Scotland now. 20 years ago Scotland were fourth in the World Cup. Countries do not need to have their own professional league but need their players to play in one. This is how Fiji did so well in France 2007 and how Argentina have come to be an elite side. Lower down progress with the USA team is similar with the team being better now due to more pro players. Georgia is better than Romania - something that would be impossible without France.

To repeat, New Zealand, from a Kiwi perspective is doing nothing wrong. Its all about the national team staying on top of the pile. But, if staying on top has negative implications, consequences or both for other teams then there is a problem. This is the heart of the matter. If everyone did what the NZRU did then there would be far fewer strong teams out there. Tonga would not have put up a fight, let alone defeated, France. Argentina would still be losing to England by big scores. Italy would not have got into the Six Nations or Pro 12. Similarly Japan would never have won rights to host 2015. Rather South Africa would have and then back to France for 2023. Scotland would almost certainly be a second tier side. Its two sides are strugglers and many play in England and France as well as some in Wales and Ireland.

Whether, or not, France and England intend on developing players matter not. The fact is they do. The clubs are the reason for the World Cup being better now than in 2003 when there were far too many lop-sides matches. A massive influx of imports has been the main reason for improvements. The Top 14 is the biggest contributor to this. It is not perfect and does do some bad things such as having a final at a late date which means some teams can´t get players. People complain about the 2008 test when Samoa lost by 100 points to New Zealand. Well, what if England hosted New Zealand during the Super Rugby season? NZ were forced to field players without Super Rugby contracts. The English would win by a large score. Nobody would accept the fixture. Samoa accepted the 2008 one as there was no other foresseable match vs New Zealand.

The examples of Manoa and Helluer who missed the World Cup due to club contracts are the excpetions not the rule. Both Samoa and the USA missed these players but they also got a lot out of having their English players ho were released and without them they would have been unable to play to the level that they did. If none had pro contracts then Samoa would have been badly beaten by both Wales and South Africa while the USA would certainly have lost by 2 or 3 times as many points as they did vs Ireland. - Just look at how the USA did vs Australia with the bulk of the pro players being rested.

I applaud the European competitions because there is proof that they are making imported players better. Consequently we have better World Cups. New Zealand does not want to be overrun by imports and even the suggestion of Emerick, Trainor or Sánchez has the Kiwi´s on this thread saying not only no but no way - they need to come through the system first, to prove their weight. It is not the intention, I am sure, but it nevertheless is a form of hegemony of keeping the powerful team at the top where it is. It is making it harder for others. If you are happy with the way it is thats totally fine. Your call. If, however, like me you´d prefer to see more teams competiting at a higher level then maybe, just maybe, there is a need to look at how things operate.

Samoa World Cup squad - England and France being the main clubs for the 2011-2012 season.

Top 14

Ole Avei (Bordeaux-Begles)
Tií Paulo (Clermont)
Census Johnson (Toulouse)
Daniel Leo (Bordeaux-Begles)
Joe Tekori (Castres)
Paul Williams (Stade Français)

Second Division
Manaia Salavea (Narbonne)

Super Rugby
Mahonri Schwalger

Aviva Premiership
Anthony Perenise (Bath)
Sakarua Taulafo (London Wasps)
Maurie Fa´asavalu (Harlequins)
Taiasina Tuifu´a (Newcastle)
Junior Polu (Exeter)
Alesana Tuilaga (Leicester Tigers)
Tasesa Lavea (Sale Sharks)
Jonny Leota (Sale Sharks)
Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu (Gloucester)
George Pisi (London Irish)
Sailosi Tagicakibau (London Irish)

Similar story regarding Fiji and Tonga.

Over the years I´ve had plenty of guys like this Fijian I mention tell me they agree that the way it works is to the disadvantage of the Islands and that not only do they not approve but it leaves a sour taste in their mouths. Tongans, Samoans and Fijians have all felt this way. I don´t think everyone does andam not suggesting they should. Super Rugby places for New Zealanders so the All Blacks can continue as they are. If Georgia can be a genuine tier two side then the Islanders can be genuine tier one sides too. But we (rugby) need to contribute. It comes down to a choice - All Blacks or rugby? What matters more?

 

[Dizzy]

You all bow your heads before speaking of the King!..

Lol, on an "non-biased" opinion, Tana Umaga WAS the best option for a young Chiefs side. And anybody that followed the Chiefs this season should KNOW that they played best when he was on the field. He put Masaga into so much space, did you see the try that went the entire length of the field? [Unsure of who it was against] That was pure Umaga genius. He ran at the line, drew the defenders and put Masaga in the clear and he did that alot throughout the season. Age prevented him from doing as much damage as he did in the past but thats excusable as he was STILL the best option for them at the time. He has always been a solid brick wall on defence and you deserve a gold medal if you beat him and he showed that strength in his game as well throughout the season.

Tony Brown, was as influential with the Highlanders as he just played hard!.

 

[Darwin]

I think I'm finally starting to understand Melhor's points:

- New Zealand has a rugby system that works very successfully for them
- This system does not benefit other nations
- New Zealand should change this system to benefit other nations, even though it would highly detrimental to themselves.

Personally I'd rather not risk destroying our rugby system just because it may (or may not) benefit other nations!

I applaud the European competitions because there is proof that they are making imported players better. Consequently we have better World Cups. New Zealand does not want to be overrun by imports and even the suggestion of Emerick, Trainor or Sánchez has the Kiwi´s on this thread saying not only no but no way - they need to come through the system first, to prove their weight. It is not the intention, I am sure, but it nevertheless is a form of hegemony of keeping the powerful team at the top where it is. It is making it harder for others. If you are happy with the way it is thats totally fine. Your call. If, however, like me you´d prefer to see more teams competiting at a higher level then maybe, just maybe, there is a need to look at how things operate.

Samoa World Cup squad - England and France being the main clubs for the 2011-2012 season.

Top 14

Ole Avei (Bordeaux-Begles)
Tií Paulo (Clermont)
Census Johnson (Toulouse)
Daniel Leo (Bordeaux-Begles)
Joe Tekori (Castres)
Paul Williams (Stade Français)

Second Division
Manaia Salavea (Narbonne)

Super Rugby
Mahonri Schwalger

Aviva Premiership
Anthony Perenise (Bath)
Sakarua Taulafo (London Wasps)
Maurie Fa´asavalu (Harlequins)
Taiasina Tuifu´a (Newcastle)
Junior Polu (Exeter)
Alesana Tuilaga (Leicester Tigers)
Tasesa Lavea (Sale Sharks)
Jonny Leota (Sale Sharks)
Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu (Gloucester)
George Pisi (London Irish)
Sailosi Tagicakibau (London Irish)

Similar story regarding Fiji and Tonga.

Over the years I´ve had plenty of guys like this Fijian I mention tell me they agree that the way it works is to the disadvantage of the Islands and that not only do they not approve but it leaves a sour taste in their mouths. Tongans, Samoans and Fijians have all felt this way. I don´t think everyone does andam not suggesting they should. Super Rugby places for New Zealanders so the All Blacks can continue as they are. If Georgia can be a genuine tier two side then the Islanders can be genuine tier one sides too. But we (rugby) need to contribute. It comes down to a choice - All Blacks or rugby? What matters more?

I don't think you really understand why these Pacific Island players are playing in European clubs. It is not necessarily that Super Rugby teams don't want these players (indeed there are Pacific Island players in New Zealand Super Rugby teams!), it is simply that they can't afford these players! You do realize that nearly all the players mentioned had much of their rugby development in New Zealand right up to NPC/Super Rugby level? Once they reached these levels and realized that they weren't wanted by the AB's they decided they would rather get 2-3 times as much money to play in Europe rather than stick around in New Zealand. New Zealand didn't 'kick them out', they choose to leave on their own accord so that they could earn more money! Unless you haven't worked it out yet, New Zealand has a lot of trouble keeping it's top players: there are literally hundreds of ex-Super Rugby players playing in Europe whether they are Samoan, Fijian, Tongan, or New Zealand eligible players.

 

[psychic duck]

You are wrong Darwin 23, the New Zealand franchises always discourage non NZ qualified players playing in their teams, so if a player wants to play for a Pacific nation they very often have to leave NZ, such as Nili Latu had to stop playing for the Hurricanes and leave for Japan as he wanted to represent Tonga

only Mahonri Schwalger, James Haskell, Kane Thompson, Tusi Pisi and Sona Taumalolo are non NZ qualified from the Super Rugby squads, as selecting a non NZ qualified player is so discouraged

the difference between Top 14, Premiership and Super Rugby though is that there are a lot fewer places

for example there aren't enough good French players to fill all 14 teams with all French players, same with England, but in NZ there are only five teams so they can't afford in the same way to have too many non NZ qualified players

although I do think they should have more though, maybe three or four players per squad

 

[Darwin]

You are wrong Darwin 23, the New Zealand franchises always discourage non NZ qualified players playing in their teams, so if a player wants to play for a Pacific nation they very often have to leave NZ, such as Nili Latu had to stop playing for the Hurricanes and leave for Japan as he wanted to represent Tonga

only Mahonri Schwalger, James Haskell, Kane Thompson, Tusi Pisi and Sona Taumalolo are non NZ qualified from the Super Rugby squads, as selecting a non NZ qualified player is so discouraged

the difference between Top 14, Premiership and Super Rugby though is that there are a lot fewer places

for example there aren't enough good French players to fill all 14 teams with all French players, same with England, but in NZ there are only five teams so they can't afford in the same way to have too many non NZ qualified players

although I do think they should have more though, maybe three or four players per squad

I'm not wrong, you just don't understand what I'm saying

If a Pacfic Island eligible player and New Zealand eligible player are of a similar quality the Super Rugby unions are going to select the New Zealand eligible player. I'm not debating that. I'm debating the opinion that all of these players have been 'forced' to leave New Zealand as Super Franchises don't want them. This is clearly not the case - if this was the case Schwalger, Thomson, Pisi, Taumololo wouldn't be playing Super Rugby next year.

You suggest that "Nili Latu had to stop playing for the Hurricanes and leave for Japan as he wanted to represent Tonga". This is not true. Latu had played two largely unsuccessful seasons for the Chiefs (he played only 3 games in two seasons!), then was selected for Tonga in 2006. He was then selected for the Hurricanes in 2007 after he had represented Tonga, and therefore he wasn't eligible for the AB's. He played 3 games for the Hurricanes before he chose to move to Japan. He had played 6 Super Rugby games in 3 seasons (3 starts) - it was not really any surprise that he chose to go to Japan (and get a huge pay rise) rather than risk not getting a Super Rugby contract. This had little to do with his AB's eligibility, but much more to do with his playing ability at the time (do you really think someone who has played 6 Super Rugby matches in 3 years is guaranteed a squad position?).

There are some cases when players haven't been good enough at the time to make Super Rugby teams hence left to get other opportunities (Johnson, Taulafo, Tu'ifua, Tekori, Polu, Avei et. al.) - it was not that they were forced to leave, as indeed many of these players were still New Zealand eligible when they left. In most cases these players have chosen to leave New Zealand so they can get more money. If Kahn Fotuali'i wanted to stay in New Zealand for 1/3 of the money he could earn in Europe I'm sure the Crusaders would love to keep him! You will also find that the majority of New Zealand eligible Super Rugby players have similarly choose to leave New Zealand so they can make more money.

 

[Dizzy]

All this crap talk about NZ discouraging players from playing for our super rugby teams is beyond pathetic..

Have you guys not realised that we have a wealth of depth and maybe the selectors at the time are going to try and build their squads with the up and coming??

It's not just Pacific Islanders, we all KNOW about Christian Cullen being unwanted and hence the reason he went overseas.
Look at Mark Hammett and the Canes, unwanted, top class players, only difference there is other teams lost players to overseas clubs and snapped them up[Weepu, Nonu, Gear, Hore]

So please don't suggest that Pacific Islanders are discouraged from playing here when we've had the likes of Hilgendorf and Todd Clever here.

Edit: I've just been told James Haskell has been picked up for the Highlanders. This further suggests your opinions are crap based on the fact that we've let a possible future All Black in Colin Bourke go and in his place we have a player who already represents England. So, there goes your theories.