New Zealand as World Champions need to change themselves

TRF_Olyy · Nov 5, 2011

Thought process:

Are they a Kiwi?
Yes?
POACHING CHEATING BAR-STEWARDS

nickdnz · Nov 5, 2011

Haha, it's actually calmed down a lot. It went mental during the RWC and directly after it, but now we've all returned to reason.

big ginger 8 · Nov 5, 2011

I know it's been cleared up but none of thse played for Leinster.

Teh Mite · Nov 5, 2011

smartcooky said:
Huw Bennett - http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/player/14294.html

Ryan Bevington - http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/player/87285.html

Alun Wyn Jones - http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/player/15288.html

Ryan Jones - http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/player/14631.html

Shane Williams - http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/player/13285.html

Bennett and Jones were never at Northampton.

nickdnz · Nov 5, 2011

I think we've established that ESPN.com's player records are wrong...

Teh Mite · Nov 5, 2011

Have we?

Oh good.

Melhor Time · Nov 5, 2011

Smartcooky,

Welcome to the debate! I know youÂ´ve been following but have not wanted to enter. So, let me, honestly say, welcome. Good to see you here. But with all due respect your post has underlined your love for New Zealand rugby, a love that far outweighs interests in the global game. It has not quashed my claims, which you loudly proclaimed as being WRONG. Going about this by mentioning Welsh players playing outside Wales who actually play in Wales was quite a surprise because it makes me question how much European rugby you actually follow. You say we donÂ´t have to defend anything, again underlying your personal interests in the All Blacks as outweighing all others. This is fine. IÂ´ve already pointed this out â€" if you place the importance of New Zealand rugby over global rugby then wanting things to remain as they are is understandable. As I said, a certain Fijian (you should remember him) said if Fiji get to the Quarter Finals itÂ´s because of France. Again, New Zealand, from a Kiwi perspective is doing nothing wrong as the goal is to have the national team staying on top of the pile. However, if this carries negative implications, consequences or both for other teams then there is a problem. To repeat, if everyone did what the NZRU did then there would be far fewer strong teams out there, or in plain English World CupÂ´s world be inferior. Without professional contracts players are a shadow of what they can be. 

Your attempt at defending the way things work is more than understandable. But you go to lengths that paint a picture that the clubs are not only against test rugby but are out to destroy it. This is highly interesting considering you, like me, were dead keen on Argentina entering the Tri Nations. Argentina is a strong side because of the club system, mainly in France and England. Without the clubs they would be a second tier team, like they were 20 years ago when Canada were superior. A road block to progress is not only a highly misleading statement but it is also ignoring the way things work in New Zealand. 

Not wanting foreigners in New Zealand Super Rugby teams asks the question of why not? Thus far the posters here have agreed that players (a) need to come though the local set up to merit selection, (b) there are enough local players of quality to go around, (c) there are already a lot who go on to play for the likes of Samoa despite coming through the New Zealand system â€" something New Zealand is losing out to. Now, breaking this down what is really being said is we donÂ´t want others to benefit. Intentional or not the outcome is unchanged â€" itâ€™s a system producing wonders for one party and one party only.

The question is therefore, firstly, how can World CupÂ´s improve under the current system? 

Secondly, how can one claim to be in the interests of the global game if he or she is to defend such a short number of places for imported players and then condemn clubs who contract far more players as being the bad guys?

Or is it that you are really saying that you want things to change for the better but you donÂ´t want NZ to be a part of it? 

Nobody, myself included, is saying clubs are perfect â€" they arenÂ´t but they are better for international rugby than Super Rugby is merely for the fact that the number of imported players is so much higher. Without them things for be worse, and so worse that rugby would be closer to international rugby league than the current state of rugby union. Oddly enough, New Zealand won the League World Cup thanks to a list dominated from players based abroad. Players in Australia dominating the list. New Zealand based players were there and even a guy playing in England. That sport is one which is not international and is unlikely to ever be. New Zealand would never have won the League World Cup without the NRL just like Argentina would never have come to be so good without France and England. Do you think Australia should limit the number of New Zealanders from playing in the NRL? 

In a perfect world the Islanders would have Super Rugby teams - something that is never going to happen. In a perfect world all countries would be self sufficient. In rugby terms all teams would produce great players and have professional teams for them to play in. Nobody would need to export players. In a perfect world New Zealand would not need IVECO, Adidas, Mastercard and other foreign money invested in the All Blacks. All the money would come from within. But, this is a global world â€" its not perfect. Clubs are the best thing we have â€" again they are not perfect. But, to repeat, whether, or not, France and England intend on developing players matter not. The fact is they do and I , like the Fijian I have mentioned, applaud the European competitions because there is proof that they are making imported players better and as a result we have better World Cups.

Am I correct about you â€" do you want New Zealand to stay on top at all costs? Do you place the All Blacks ahead of the global game? It comes down to a choice - All Blacks or rugby? What matters more? 

Just to clear things up the Welsh World Cup squad had six players who play outside of Wales but four of the six have only been playing outside of Wales since the World Cup. Here is the complete list:

Huw Bennett (Ospreys)
Lloyd Burns (Dragons)
Ken Owens (Scarlets)
Ryan Bevington (Ospreys)
Paul James (Ospreys)
Gethin Jenkins (Cardiff Blues)
Adan Jones (Ospreys)
Craig Mitchell (Exeter, England)
Luke Charteris (Dragons)
Alun Wyn-Jones (Ospreys)
Bradley Davies (Cardiff Blues)
Dan Lydiate (Dragons)
Andy Powell (Sale Sharks, England)
Sam Warburton (Cardiff Blues)
Toby Faletau (Dragons)
Ryan Jones (Ospreys)
Tavis Knoyle (Scarlets)
Mike Phillips (Bayonne, France) *
Lloyd Williams (Cardiff Blues)
James Hook (Perpignan, France) *
Stephen Jones (Scarlets)
Rhys Priestland (Scarlets)
Jamie Roberts (Cardiff Blues)
Jonathan Davies (Scarlets)
Aled Brew (Dragons)
Leigh Halfpenny (Cardiff Blues)
Scott Williams (Scarlets)
George North (Scarlets)
Shane Williams (Ospreys)
Lee Byrne (Clermont, France)*

* Only playing outside of Wales post RWC.

Looking at WalesÂ´ four teams here are the imports they each have:

Ospreys

Hanno Dirksen (USA but may play for Wales)
Chauncey OÂ´Toole (Canada) *
Nikki Walker (Scotland)
Tommy Bowe (Ireland) *
George Stowers (Samoa) *
Aaron Jarvis (England)
Pete Smith (Australia)

Cardiff Blues

Michael Paterson (New Zealand)
Paul ***o (New Zealand)
Maama Molitika (Tonga)
TaufaÂ´ao Filise (Tonga) *
Xavier Rush (New Zealand)
Ben Blair (New Zealand)
Dan Parks (Scotland)
Casey Lauala (New Zealand)
Ryan Tyrell (Australia)

Dragons

Joe Bedford (England)
Tonderai Chavanga (South Africa)
Jamie Smith (Ireland)
Dan Way (England)
Josh Davies (England)
Tom Willis (New Zealand)
Ben Castle (New Zealand)

Scarlets

Deacon Manu (Fiji)
Ben Morgan (England)
Damien Welch (England)
Ruki Tipuna (New Zealand)
Sean Lamont (Scotland) *
Sione Timani (Tonga) *
Viliami Iongi (Tonga) *

* Played at Rugby World Cup 2011

Incidently, all 30 of FranceÂ´s squad are based in France. Of all 20 teams at the World Cup only Australia, New Zealand and Ireland did not have Top 14 players 

New Zealand 2012 Super Rugby Imports

Crusaders

Nil.

Highlanders

James Haskell (England)
James Paterson (USA)
Siale Piutau (Tonga)

Blues

Nil.

Hurricanes

Tusi Pisi (Samoa)

Chiefs

Fritz Lee (Samoa)
Kane Thomson (Samoa)
Mahonri Schwalger (Samoa) 
Nemani Maritino (Fiji)
Sona Taumalolo (Tonga)

Similarly to your view that clubs are negative and out to destroy rugby, your claimÂ´s of the ITM Cup and Samoa are also highly misleading. In terms of the ITM Cup you say only 30 All Blacks were missing and that my suggestion was just utter rubbish. Enlighten me please then as to how Canterbury lost the Ranfurly Shield to Southland? Is it not simply because CanterburyÂ´s top team was nothing like the one last lost this match? Southland won with no player who was in New ZealandpÂ´s World Cup squad. No player in CanterburyÂ´s losing team made the World Cup either. Another side with few to no All Blacks had Pablo Huete, from Chile, getting plenty of game time. He has since gone to France to play for Castres but has not played for them yet and is not looking like breaking into the 22 any time soon. I reaffirm my statement which you called rubbish â€" I donÂ´t see how the ITM Cup can be regarded as being the same product as Super Rugby. 

You claim that the collective Rugby Unions of the Pacific Islands do not want test matches staged in the Pacific Islands. They want them staged in Auckland. Maybe you did not intend it but you are misleading when you make it sound as if Auckland hosts tests involving the All Blacks and Fiji, Samoa and Tonga regularly. When, in fact, New Zealand has only hosted Samoa three ever in Auckland in 1993, 1999 and 2001. The two other matches between New Zealand and Samoa were also both in New Zealand but in Napier and New Plymouth. Vs Tonga, New Zealand have only ever had one match outside of Rugby World CupÂ´s, in 2000. Since that match vs Tonga New Zealand have played Samoa on two occasions. Vs Fiji there have been five tests in history. Two in Auckland, one in Dunedin, one in Christchurch (RWC 1987) and one in Wellington. Of these only the 2002 match in Wellington was officially moved from Fiji to New Zealand in an effort to make money for Fiji. In other words, not only has New Zealand never played a test in any of the three countries it has actually not played much rugby against any of them. So, you can say all you like that the Pacific Island Unions do not want to host the All Blacks but what about the bigger problem that they struggle to secure matches against them? They canÂ´t move matches that they donÂ´t have. I think this qualifies me to suggest that New Zealand, as World Cup Champions, need to change themselves.

Sam Owen · Nov 5, 2011

darwin_23 said:
According to this article Toeava moved to Auckland in 1994, meaning he would have been 8 at the time. Assuming the article is correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), that was some pretty phenomenal talent spotting

Yeah thats about right (I think) but he left our shores in Samoa on a rugby scholarship as a youngster like I said before. He was picked up by NZ scouts but with the support of his family for a better life, just like most talented pacific island rugby players. Hence the reason for their fresh broken english.

Our country Samoa is not big like NZ (suprise, suprise) so when someone starts making noise at a young age, word gets around easy, especially if he is tipped to be the next biggest thing by some kiwi in our island. Even as a youngster he was quite popular around the island but I didnt know of his age nor had I seen him play and no I dont know him or his family but I had heard of him, many of us Samoans had. I remember hearing back then he was a big boy.

I wouldnt say phenomonal talent spotting, if thats your job and thats all you do your bound to get it right. They picked Micheal Jones from virtual nowhere, the warriors missed SBW and somehow the Bulldogs scout come over and got it good. I understand where your coming though from darwin with the scout picking him from a young age but I dont think its that far fetched, you just back a kid with all the promise in the world and hope he spreads his wings, but what do we know, Im no rugby scout and I dont think you are either and we dont claim to be. If anything its a job well done I guess, Im no scout so Im in no position to call it phenomonal or whatever.

See with me, I can inform you and our TRF members on things "Samoan" that you wont know. Remember dont always believe whats on the paper, even though that article may be correct it does not prove me wrong. I read the other day on the papers SBW is leaving, I didnt believe the writer whose name wasnt SBW. I read people totally writing off Stephen Donald saying he was the worst and any one that said otherwise was as bad as Larksea and Invictus, I always knew he wasnt the worse. Im not looking for brownie points, Im just saying dont always believe what you read. There are some things in Samoa that I can clear the air on.

Anyway we getting away from our point, the reason for this whole discussion. THERE ARE NZ SCOUTS IN THE ISLANDS DONT ANYONE HERE TELL YOU OTHERWISE. Trust me you have to at least go to Samoa to know whats going on in Samoa, you cant claim to know whats going on from behind a computer and absolutely no experience of Samoa. (On another note if your looking for somewhere to holiday the islands wont let you down) Bottom line scouts are everywhere for professional sports, here in Sth Auckland we got aussies picking up 3rd formers for League scholarships in Australia, the same sort of thing is happening with the islands, I mean lets face it the All Blacks use a lot of islanders in their team so why the hell would you think that they wouldnt have a scout in the islands???

Peace out

donmcdazzle · Nov 5, 2011

Sam Owen said:
Yeah thats about right (I think) but he left our shores in Samoa on a rugby scholarship as a youngster like I said before. He was picked up by NZ scouts but with the support of his family for a better life, just like most talented pacific island rugby players. Hence the reason for their fresh broken english.

Our country Samoa is not big like NZ (suprise, suprise) so when someone starts making noise at a young age, word gets around easy, especially if he is tipped to be the next biggest thing by some kiwi in our island. Even as a youngster he was quite popular around the island but I didnt know of his age nor had I seen him play and no I dont know him or his family but I had heard of him, many of us Samoans had. I remember hearing back then he was a big boy.

I wouldnt say phenomonal talent spotting, if thats your job and thats all you do your bound to get it right. They picked Micheal Jones from virtual nowhere, the warriors missed SBW and somehow the Bulldogs scout come over and got it good. I understand where your coming though from darwin with the scout picking him from a young age but I dont think its that far fetched, you just back a kid with all the promise in the world and hope he spreads his wings, but what do we know, Im no rugby scout and I dont think you are either and we dont claim to be. If anything its a job well done I guess, Im no scout so Im in no position to call it phenomonal or whatever.

See with me, I can inform you and our TRF members on things "Samoan" that you wont know. Remember dont always believe whats on the paper, even though that article may be correct it does not prove me wrong. I read the other day on the papers SBW is leaving, I didnt believe the writer whose name wasnt SBW. I read people totally writing off Stephen Donald saying he was the worst and any one that said otherwise was as bad as Larksea and Invictus, I always knew he wasnt the worse. Im not looking for brownie points, Im just saying dont always believe what you read. There are some things in Samoa that I can clear the air on.

Anyway we getting away from our point, the reason for this whole discussion. THERE ARE NZ SCOUTS IN THE ISLANDS DONT ANYONE HERE TELL YOU OTHERWISE. Trust me you have to at least go to Samoa to know whats going on in Samoa, you cant claim to know whats going on from behind a computer and absolutely no experience of Samoa. (On another note if your looking for somewhere to holiday the islands wont let you down) Bottom line scouts are everywhere for professional sports, here in Sth Auckland we got aussies picking up 3rd formers for League scholarships in Australia, the same sort of thing is happening with the islands, I mean lets face it the All Blacks use a lot of islanders in their team so why the hell would you think that they wouldnt have a scout in the islands???

Peace out

Hate to rain on the parade but there is zero chance of any 8 year old kid getting a rugby scholarship in NZ (or anywhere for that matter). Who is meant to be giving out these scholarships? NZRU? Primary schools? High schools? Rugby clubs? There is no incentive for clubs to sign up 8 year olds as they go to high school and stop playing for clubs at 13, then if they're any good won't play any club rugby after school at all. High schools wouldn't sign 8 year olds - they're still 5 years away from going to high school. You might have to back up those claims with some details before anyone believes any of it.

The Island teams benefit from NZ far greater than the other way round, given most of Samoa's team is made up of born and raised NZers.

psychic duck · Nov 5, 2011

Melhor Time said:
New Zealand 2012 Super Rugby Imports

Crusaders

Nil.

Highlanders

James Haskell (England)
James Paterson (USA)
Siale Piutau (Tonga)

Blues

Nil.

Hurricanes

Tusi Pisi (Samoa)

Chiefs

Fritz Lee (Samoa)
Kane Thomson (Samoa)
Mahonri Schwalger (Samoa)
Nemani Maritino (Fiji)
Sona Taumalolo (Tonga)

Fritz Lee doesn't count as Samoan as he declares himself ineligible for Samoa, so the list would be smaller if it was simply non NZ qualified players

TRF C A Iversen · Nov 5, 2011

Sam Owen said:
I mean lets face it the All Blacks use a lot of islanders in their team so why the hell would you think that they wouldnt have a scout in the islands???

Peace out

Yeah, I like how they manage to get them into New Zealand prior to birth most of the time and how they managed to spot people like Jerome Kaino when he was three and get his family to move to New Zealand at four years old. Or Mils when he was two. Spotting Joe Rokocoko at 4 and moving his family over to New Zealand at 5 was also brilliant (no doubt the NZRFU have all this money for moving infants and their families to New Zealand and have arranged jobs for those families with other employers on the strength of these marvellous insights).

Only Sivivatu who moved to New Zealand at 17 was a slip up by the NZRFU scouts. How they missed him until that age I don't know. Surely they should've scouted him out by 8? 12 Even 15?

Your post is full of a lot of unproven and unspecific commentary. Your allegations are labelled with "because I'm Samoan and live/have been there, I know Samoa and the NZRFU's talent development strategies better than you, so my opinion is right". I at least provided examples. You didn't need to.

The inferences your post makes, are in general suggesting that the NZRFU are unfair to the islands. I'd suggest to you that New Zealand has provided a HUGE number of New Zealand born and trained players to your team over the years and of course there's no problem taking them. They aren't infants and small children immigrating though, as I said born and trained here.

Thank goodness many Samoans and New Zealanders (sometimes they are by nature both) have an amazing mutual love for New Zealand Rugby and Samoan rugby and realise that the relationship is largely a strong and healthy one.

I'd like to see articles or evidence from somewhere on the net by the Samoan coaches, players, union (y'know the people who would actually have something to complain about) stating their unhappiness with New Zealand's poaching or not playing tests over there.

Funnily enough, there are a grand total of ZERO of those floating around in this thread and by now there should be at least four or five if anything said here was to have any substance.

Sam Owen · Nov 5, 2011

donmcdazzle said:
Hate to rain on the parade but there is zero chance of any 8 year old kid getting a rugby scholarship in NZ (or anywhere for that matter). Who is meant to be giving out these scholarships? NZRU? Primary schools? High schools? Rugby clubs? There is no incentive for clubs to sign up 8 year olds as they go to high school and stop playing for clubs at 13, then if they're any good won't play any club rugby after school at all. High schools wouldn't sign 8 year olds - they're still 5 years away from going to high school. You might have to back up those claims with some details before anyone believes any of it.

The Island teams benefit from NZ far greater than the other way round, given most of Samoa's team is made up of born and raised NZers.

I cant really back it up, its just that most of us in Samoa know he came here on a rugby scholarship. Im not even sure that he came here at 8 years of age despite that article. Are you are rugby scout don?...just a genuine question.

And for your last paragraph, thats pretty much what I said in my post. Actually everything youve mentioned Ive covered in my post, from Ice being 8 to Samoans in support of their athletes opting for a better life here in NZ, you must have missed my point completely.

Now I feel like I have to spend time surfing the net for Samoan newspaper articles to back my story. The thing is theres an old rumour in Samoa that the weather forecast on the Samoan papers was done by a guy who just looked up at the sky the night before and guessed.

Sam Owen · Nov 5, 2011

TRF C A Iversen said:
Yeah, I like how they manage to get them into New Zealand prior to birth most of the time and how they managed to spot people like Jerome Kaino when he was three and get his family to move to New Zealand at four years old. Or Mils when he was two. Spotting Joe Rokocoko at 4 and moving his family over to New Zealand at 5 was also brilliant (no doubt the NZRFU have all this money for moving infants and their families to New Zealand and have arranged jobs for those families with other employers on the strength of these marvellous insights).

Only Sivivatu who moved to New Zealand at 17 was a slip up by the NZRFU scouts. How they missed him until that age I don't know. Surely they should've scouted him out by 8? 12 Even 15?

Your post is full of a lot of unproven and unspecific commentary. Your allegations are labelled with "because I'm Samoan and live/have been there, I know Samoa and the NZRFU's talent development strategies better than you, so my opinion is right". I at least provided examples. You didn't need to.

The inferences your post makes, are in general suggesting that the NZRFU are unfair to the islands. I'd suggest to you that New Zealand has provided a HUGE number of New Zealand born and trained players to your team over the years and of course there's no problem taking them. They aren't infants and small children immigrating though, as I said born and trained here.

Thank goodness many Samoans and New Zealanders (sometimes they are by nature both) have an amazing mutual love for New Zealand Rugby and Samoan rugby and realise that the relationship is largely a strong and healthy one.

I'd like to see articles or evidence from somewhere on the net by the Samoan coaches, players, union (y'know the people who would actually have something to complain about) stating their unhappiness with New Zealand's poaching or not playing tests over there.

Funnily enough, there are a grand total of ZERO of those floating around in this thread and by now there should be at least four or five if anything said here was to have any substance.

Youve missed the point completely. I respect and admire what NZRFU does for our athletes, where in my post have I said I didnt?...you saw my post in your perspective but I cant see how its turned into this poaching thing. Making it out that NZ poaches our athletes and Ive NEVER said that in a complaining kind of way, you just went there by yourself and came to that conclusion.

Read my post carefully its about people coming on here and saying there is NO rugby scouts in Samoa, there is, thats ALL Im saying. Not boohoo NZ is poaching all of our athletes, Im saying nothing of the sort. The All Blacks are one of my favourite teams, the NZRFU help us out bigtime, I have no quarrels there honestly. I dont know why yous have turned this into that. Find me a part in my post where it says "I hate NZ for taking our players", or something like that and will happily correct it, because when I get it wrong I admit it.

Im beginning to see what the posters from other countries find annoying about some of the kiwi posters on here and to make matters strange is, I happily live in NZ and I defend them here on TRF, weird. "My preciousss".....lol

Me 1 · Nov 6, 2011

smartcooky said:
OK, well if ESPNscrum.com have got it wrong, there is not much I can do about that. They are supposed to be a reliable source of information.

Perhaps someone in the know needs to set them straight.

PS: I never rely on wikipedia for ANYTHING.

Yeah, ESPNscrum isn't always right, it lists Ray Ofisa and Ofisa Treviranus as the same person. At least Wikipedia got that right

Muzzy · Nov 6, 2011

TRF C A Iversen said:
Yeah, I like how they manage to get them into New Zealand prior to birth most of the time and how they managed to spot people like Jerome Kaino when he was three and get his family to move to New Zealand at four years old. Or Mils when he was two. Spotting Joe Rokocoko at 4 and moving his family over to New Zealand at 5 was also brilliant (no doubt the NZRFU have all this money for moving infants and their families to New Zealand and have arranged jobs for those families with other employers on the strength of these marvellous insights).

Only Sivivatu who moved to New Zealand at 17 was a slip up by the NZRFU scouts. How they missed him until that age I don't know. Surely they should've scouted him out by 8? 12 Even 15?

Your post is full of a lot of unproven and unspecific commentary. Your allegations are labelled with "because I'm Samoan and live/have been there, I know Samoa and the NZRFU's talent development strategies better than you, so my opinion is right". I at least provided examples. You didn't need to.

The inferences your post makes, are in general suggesting that the NZRFU are unfair to the islands. I'd suggest to you that New Zealand has provided a HUGE number of New Zealand born and trained players to your team over the years and of course there's no problem taking them. They aren't infants and small children immigrating though, as I said born and trained here.

Thank goodness many Samoans and New Zealanders (sometimes they are by nature both) have an amazing mutual love for New Zealand Rugby and Samoan rugby and realise that the relationship is largely a strong and healthy one.

I'd like to see articles or evidence from somewhere on the net by the Samoan coaches, players, union (y'know the people who would actually have something to complain about) stating their unhappiness with New Zealand's poaching or not playing tests over there.

Funnily enough, there are a grand total of ZERO of those floating around in this thread and by now there should be at least four or five if anything said here was to have any substance.

http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=181203

there you go

When I brought this up before the issue got changed into players that played for the all blacks, but its not just about that, coz many of the players that are scouted just end up in other NZ rep teams and Sevens teams, or make themselves unavailable for the island team because they're trying to make the all blacks (perhaps Henry Speight?). Vulivuli was actually selected into the NZ Sevens team, but he didn't play because his mother back in Fiji got sick, if it wasn't for that Vulivuli would have been ineligible for Fiji and probably would have ended up stuck as a sevens specialist for NZ and playing club rugby or in the Waikato B team

Idk if its really a bad thing though, it does give the island players better lives etc, but it does suck when the island teams lose good players, so i'm still a bit unsure

Also about the playing tests in the islands, unless it was a financial burden, I think it would be good to see teams like NZ play in the islands even if it is at small stadiums, wouldn't they also get money from it for the TV rights or something like that? I'm not sure but I think Australia were going to play in Fiji in 2004, but Fiji had to cancel it for the Pacific Islands team, I might be wrong though

UilamOsa · Nov 6, 2011

Melhor Time said:
Smartcooky,

Welcome to the debate! I know youÂ´ve been following but have not wanted to enter. So, let me, honestly say, welcome. Good to see you here. But with all due respect your post has underlined your love for New Zealand rugby, a love that far outweighs interests in the global game. It has not quashed my claims, which you loudly proclaimed as being WRONG. Going about this by mentioning Welsh players playing outside Wales who actually play in Wales was quite a surprise because it makes me question how much European rugby you actually follow. You say we donÂ´t have to defend anything, again underlying your personal interests in the All Blacks as outweighing all others. This is fine. IÂ´ve already pointed this out â€" if you place the importance of New Zealand rugby over global rugby then wanting things to remain as they are is understandable. As I said, a certain Fijian (you should remember him) said if Fiji get to the Quarter Finals itÂ´s because of France. Again, New Zealand, from a Kiwi perspective is doing nothing wrong as the goal is to have the national team staying on top of the pile. However, if this carries negative implications, consequences or both for other teams then there is a problem. To repeat, if everyone did what the NZRU did then there would be far fewer strong teams out there, or in plain English World CupÂ´s world be inferior. Without professional contracts players are a shadow of what they can be.

Your attempt at defending the way things work is more than understandable. But you go to lengths that paint a picture that the clubs are not only against test rugby but are out to destroy it. (1) This is highly interesting considering you, like me, were dead keen on Argentina entering the Tri Nations. Argentina is a strong side because of the club system, mainly in France and England. Without the clubs they would be a second tier team, like they were 20 years ago when Canada were superior. A road block to progress is not only a highly misleading statement but it is also ignoring the way things work in New Zealand.

Not wanting foreigners in New Zealand Super Rugby teams asks the question of why not? Thus far the posters here have agreed that players (a) need to come though the local set up to merit selection, (b) there are enough local players of quality to go around, (c) there are already a lot who go on to play for the likes of Samoa despite coming through the New Zealand system â€" something New Zealand is losing out to. Now, breaking this down what is really being said is we donÂ´t want others to benefit. Intentional or not the outcome is unchanged â€" itâ€™s a system producing wonders for one party and one party only.

The question is therefore, firstly, how can World CupÂ´s improve under the current system?

Secondly, how can one claim to be in the interests of the global game if he or she is to defend such a short number of places for imported players and then condemn clubs who contract far more players as being the bad guys?

Or is it that you are really saying that you want things to change for the better but you donÂ´t want NZ to be a part of it?

Nobody, myself included, is saying clubs are perfect â€" they arenÂ´t but they are better for international rugby than Super Rugby is merely for the fact that the number of imported players is so much higher. Without them things for be worse, and so worse that rugby would be closer to international rugby league than the current state of rugby union. Oddly enough, New Zealand won the League World Cup thanks to a list dominated from players based abroad. Players in Australia dominating the list. New Zealand based players were there and even a guy playing in England. That sport is one which is not international and is unlikely to ever be. New Zealand would never have won the League World Cup without the NRL just like Argentina would never have come to be so good without France and England. Do you think Australia should limit the number of New Zealanders from playing in the NRL? (2)

In a perfect world the Islanders would have Super Rugby teams - something that is never going to happen. In a perfect world all countries would be self sufficient. In rugby terms all teams would produce great players and have professional teams for them to play in. Nobody would need to export players. In a perfect world New Zealand would not need IVECO, Adidas, Mastercard and other foreign money invested in the All Blacks. All the money would come from within. But, this is a global world â€" its not perfect. Clubs are the best thing we have â€" again they are not perfect. But, to repeat, whether, or not, France and England intend on developing players matter not. The fact is they do and I , like the Fijian I have mentioned, applaud the European competitions because there is proof that they are making imported players better and as a result we have better World Cups. (1)

Am I correct about you â€" do you want New Zealand to stay on top at all costs? Do you place the All Blacks ahead of the global game? It comes down to a choice - All Blacks or rugby? What matters more?

Just to clear things up the Welsh World Cup squad had six players who play outside of Wales but four of the six have only been playing outside of Wales since the World Cup. Here is the complete list:

Huw Bennett (Ospreys)
Lloyd Burns (Dragons)
Ken Owens (Scarlets)
Ryan Bevington (Ospreys)
Paul James (Ospreys)
Gethin Jenkins (Cardiff Blues)
Adan Jones (Ospreys)
Craig Mitchell (Exeter, England)
Luke Charteris (Dragons)
Alun Wyn-Jones (Ospreys)
Bradley Davies (Cardiff Blues)
Dan Lydiate (Dragons)
Andy Powell (Sale Sharks, England)
Sam Warburton (Cardiff Blues)
Toby Faletau (Dragons)
Ryan Jones (Ospreys)
Tavis Knoyle (Scarlets)
Mike Phillips (Bayonne, France) *
Lloyd Williams (Cardiff Blues)
James Hook (Perpignan, France) *
Stephen Jones (Scarlets)
Rhys Priestland (Scarlets)
Jamie Roberts (Cardiff Blues)
Jonathan Davies (Scarlets)
Aled Brew (Dragons)
Leigh Halfpenny (Cardiff Blues)
Scott Williams (Scarlets)
George North (Scarlets)
Shane Williams (Ospreys)
Lee Byrne (Clermont, France)*

* Only playing outside of Wales post RWC.

Looking at WalesÂ´ four teams here are the imports they each have:

Ospreys

Hanno Dirksen (USA but may play for Wales)
Chauncey OÂ´Toole (Canada) *
Nikki Walker (Scotland)
Tommy Bowe (Ireland) *
George Stowers (Samoa) *
Aaron Jarvis (England)
Pete Smith (Australia)

Cardiff Blues

Michael Paterson (New Zealand)
Paul ***o (New Zealand)
Maama Molitika (Tonga)
TaufaÂ´ao Filise (Tonga) *
Xavier Rush (New Zealand)
Ben Blair (New Zealand)
Dan Parks (Scotland)
Casey Lauala (New Zealand)
Ryan Tyrell (Australia)

Dragons

Joe Bedford (England)
Tonderai Chavanga (South Africa)
Jamie Smith (Ireland)
Dan Way (England)
Josh Davies (England)
Tom Willis (New Zealand)
Ben Castle (New Zealand)

Scarlets

Deacon Manu (Fiji)
Ben Morgan (England)
Damien Welch (England)
Ruki Tipuna (New Zealand)
Sean Lamont (Scotland) *
Sione Timani (Tonga) *
Viliami Iongi (Tonga) *

* Played at Rugby World Cup 2011

Incidently, all 30 of FranceÂ´s squad are based in France. Of all 20 teams at the World Cup only Australia, New Zealand and Ireland did not have Top 14 players

New Zealand 2012 Super Rugby Imports

Crusaders

Nil.

Highlanders

James Haskell (England)
James Paterson (USA)
Siale Piutau (Tonga)

Blues

Nil.

Hurricanes

Tusi Pisi (Samoa)

Chiefs

Fritz Lee (Samoa)
Kane Thomson (Samoa)
Mahonri Schwalger (Samoa)
Nemani Maritino (Fiji)
Sona Taumalolo (Tonga)

Similarly to your view that clubs are negative and out to destroy rugby, your claimÂ´s of the ITM Cup and Samoa are also highly misleading. In terms of the ITM Cup you say only 30 All Blacks were missing and that my suggestion was just utter rubbish. Enlighten me please then as to how Canterbury lost the Ranfurly Shield to Southland? Is it not simply because CanterburyÂ´s top team was nothing like the one last lost this match? Southland won with no player who was in New ZealandpÂ´s World Cup squad. No player in CanterburyÂ´s losing team made the World Cup either. Another side with few to no All Blacks had Pablo Huete, from Chile, getting plenty of game time. He has since gone to France to play for Castres but has not played for them yet and is not looking like breaking into the 22 any time soon. I reaffirm my statement which you called rubbish â€" I donÂ´t see how the ITM Cup can be regarded as being the same product as Super Rugby.

You claim that the collective Rugby Unions of the Pacific Islands do not want test matches staged in the Pacific Islands. They want them staged in Auckland. Maybe you did not intend it but you are misleading when you make it sound as if Auckland hosts tests involving the All Blacks and Fiji, Samoa and Tonga regularly. When, in fact, New Zealand has only hosted Samoa three ever in Auckland in 1993, 1999 and 2001. The two other matches between New Zealand and Samoa were also both in New Zealand but in Napier and New Plymouth. Vs Tonga, New Zealand have only ever had one match outside of Rugby World CupÂ´s, in 2000. Since that match vs Tonga New Zealand have played Samoa on two occasions. Vs Fiji there have been five tests in history. Two in Auckland, one in Dunedin, one in Christchurch (RWC 1987) and one in Wellington. Of these only the 2002 match in Wellington was officially moved from Fiji to New Zealand in an effort to make money for Fiji. In other words, not only has New Zealand never played a test in any of the three countries it has actually not played much rugby against any of them. So, you can say all you like that the Pacific Island Unions do not want to host the All Blacks but what about the bigger problem that they struggle to secure matches against them? They canÂ´t move matches that they donÂ´t have. I think this qualifies me to suggest that New Zealand, as World Cup Champions, need to change themselves.

(1) Now you're making it a NZ Club situation versus Northern Hemisphere competition. You still haven't responded about the NH clubs restricting PI players from participating at this world cup.
A cousin was sitting with Trevor in a pub in the UK who was openly crying when they were watching Samoa vs South Africa in 2003. There's no contest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...s-threatens-to-spoil-family-get-together.html

(2) RL has massive eligibility issues, the last thing you want to do is use them as an example. The NRL is not a global competition, they do not provide avenues for US players to develop in the NRL then to play for the US. Also, the majority of the NZ players that play in Australia, were previously schooled, trained and developed by the Aussies to perform for them at club level.

As for the poaching issue, there are NZ scouts operating in the PI's. But when I was at school, they use to bring them over from 15-17years old. 3 from Samoa. 2 made Reps, but never as far as NZ Reps. Of the 3 only one of them went on to represent at International Level - he played for Samoa.

Darwin · Nov 6, 2011

Melhor Time said:
Not wanting foreigners in New Zealand Super Rugby teams asks the question of why not? Thus far the posters here have agreed that players (a) need to come though the local set up to merit selection, (b) there are enough local players of quality to go around, (c) there are already a lot who go on to play for the likes of Samoa despite coming through the New Zealand system – something New Zealand is losing out to. Now, breaking this down what is really being said is we donÂ´t want others to benefit. Intentional or not the outcome is unchanged – it's a system producing wonders for one party and one party only.

Am I correct about you – do you want New Zealand to stay on top at all costs? Do you place the All Blacks ahead of the global game? It comes down to a choice - All Blacks or rugby? What matters more?

It is not a case of not wanting others to benefit. It is simply a case of not wanting to do something that would be completely detrimental to our own rugby system. I'm all for altruistically helping others out, but doing so at the (possibly considerable) expense of ourselves makes no sense at all.

Melhor Time said:
Ospreys

Hanno Dirksen (USA but may play for Wales)
Chauncey OÂ´Toole (Canada) *
Nikki Walker (Scotland)
Tommy Bowe (Ireland) *
George Stowers (Samoa) *
Aaron Jarvis (England)
Pete Smith (Australia)

Cardiff Blues

Michael Paterson (New Zealand)
Paul ***o (New Zealand)
Maama Molitika (Tonga)
TaufaÂ´ao Filise (Tonga) *
Xavier Rush (New Zealand)
Ben Blair (New Zealand)
Dan Parks (Scotland)
Casey Lauala (New Zealand)
Ryan Tyrell (Australia)

Dragons

Joe Bedford (England)
Tonderai Chavanga (South Africa)
Jamie Smith (Ireland)
Dan Way (England)
Josh Davies (England)
Tom Willis (New Zealand)
Ben Castle (New Zealand)

Scarlets

Deacon Manu (Fiji)
Ben Morgan (England)
Damien Welch (England)
Ruki Tipuna (New Zealand)
Sean Lamont (Scotland) *
Sione Timani (Tonga) *
Viliami Iongi (Tonga) *

* Played at Rugby World Cup 2011

Incidently, all 30 of FranceÂ´s squad are based in France. Of all 20 teams at the World Cup only Australia, New Zealand and Ireland did not have Top 14 players

New Zealand 2012 Super Rugby Imports

Crusaders

Nil.

Highlanders

James Haskell (England)
James Paterson (USA)
Siale Piutau (Tonga)

Blues

Nil.

Hurricanes

Tusi Pisi (Samoa)

Chiefs

Fritz Lee (Samoa)
Kane Thomson (Samoa)
Mahonri Schwalger (Samoa)
Nemani Maritino (Fiji)
Sona Taumalolo (Tonga)

It is all well and good to point out the Welsh clubs have more imports than New Zealand clubs, but the real question is why they have more imports. It is not necessarily because Super Rugby teams 'aren't allowed imports'. As has been pointed out before there is no limit on the number of Pacific Island eligible players a Super Franchise can sign. The only thing the NZRFU stipulates is that if there is a NZ eligible and a Pacific Island eligible player of the same quality the Super Franchise is encouraged to pick the NZ eligible player. Potentially a Super Rugby franchise could be made up entirely of Pacific Island eligible players.

Super Rugby franchises have few Pacific Island eligible players for a couple of main reasons:
(1) players get paid more in Europe, hence choose to play there rather than in Super Rugby
(2) The competition for places in New Zealand Super Franchise squads is very high - many good players, no matter their national eligibility miss out on selection.

Therefore the best way to get more Pacific Island players in Super Rugby squads is either to:
(1) pay them far more than the average NZ rugby player (despite the fact that dozens of top rugby players are leaving New Zealand ever year to get paid far more overseas)
or (2) select these players even though they don't merit being included in a Super Rugby squad.

Which of these two options do you prefer?

nickdnz · Nov 6, 2011

Melhor Time said:
Smartcooky,

Welcome to the debate! I know youÂ´ve been following but have not wanted to enter. So, let me, honestly say, welcome. Good to see you here. But with all due respect your post has underlined your love for New Zealand rugby, a love that far outweighs interests in the global game. It has not quashed my claims, which you loudly proclaimed as being WRONG. Going about this by mentioning Welsh players playing outside Wales who actually play in Wales was quite a surprise because it makes me question how much European rugby you actually follow. You say we donÂ´t have to defend anything, again underlying your personal interests in the All Blacks as outweighing all others. This is fine. IÂ´ve already pointed this out â€" if you place the importance of New Zealand rugby over global rugby then wanting things to remain as they are is understandable. As I said, a certain Fijian (you should remember him) said if Fiji get to the Quarter Finals itÂ´s because of France. Again, New Zealand, from a Kiwi perspective is doing nothing wrong as the goal is to have the national team staying on top of the pile. However, if this carries negative implications, consequences or both for other teams then there is a problem. To repeat, if everyone did what the NZRU did then there would be far fewer strong teams out there, or in plain English World CupÂ´s world be inferior. Without professional contracts players are a shadow of what they can be. 

Your attempt at defending the way things work is more than understandable. But you go to lengths that paint a picture that the clubs are not only against test rugby but are out to destroy it. This is highly interesting considering you, like me, were dead keen on Argentina entering the Tri Nations. Argentina is a strong side because of the club system, mainly in France and England. Without the clubs they would be a second tier team, like they were 20 years ago when Canada were superior. A road block to progress is not only a highly misleading statement but it is also ignoring the way things work in New Zealand. 

Not wanting foreigners in New Zealand Super Rugby teams asks the question of why not? Thus far the posters here have agreed that players (a) need to come though the local set up to merit selection, (b) there are enough local players of quality to go around, (c) there are already a lot who go on to play for the likes of Samoa despite coming through the New Zealand system â€" something New Zealand is losing out to. Now, breaking this down what is really being said is we donÂ´t want others to benefit. Intentional or not the outcome is unchanged â€" itâ€™s a system producing wonders for one party and one party only.

The question is therefore, firstly, how can World CupÂ´s improve under the current system? 

Secondly, how can one claim to be in the interests of the global game if he or she is to defend such a short number of places for imported players and then condemn clubs who contract far more players as being the bad guys?

Or is it that you are really saying that you want things to change for the better but you donÂ´t want NZ to be a part of it? 

Nobody, myself included, is saying clubs are perfect â€" they arenÂ´t but they are better for international rugby than Super Rugby is merely for the fact that the number of imported players is so much higher. Without them things for be worse, and so worse that rugby would be closer to international rugby league than the current state of rugby union. Oddly enough, New Zealand won the League World Cup thanks to a list dominated from players based abroad. Players in Australia dominating the list. New Zealand based players were there and even a guy playing in England. That sport is one which is not international and is unlikely to ever be. New Zealand would never have won the League World Cup without the NRL just like Argentina would never have come to be so good without France and England. Do you think Australia should limit the number of New Zealanders from playing in the NRL? 

In a perfect world the Islanders would have Super Rugby teams - something that is never going to happen. In a perfect world all countries would be self sufficient. In rugby terms all teams would produce great players and have professional teams for them to play in. Nobody would need to export players. In a perfect world New Zealand would not need IVECO, Adidas, Mastercard and other foreign money invested in the All Blacks. All the money would come from within. But, this is a global world â€" its not perfect. Clubs are the best thing we have â€" again they are not perfect. But, to repeat, whether, or not, France and England intend on developing players matter not. The fact is they do and I , like the Fijian I have mentioned, applaud the European competitions because there is proof that they are making imported players better and as a result we have better World Cups.

Am I correct about you â€" do you want New Zealand to stay on top at all costs? Do you place the All Blacks ahead of the global game? It comes down to a choice - All Blacks or rugby? What matters more? 

Incidently, all 30 of FranceÂ´s squad are based in France. Of all 20 teams at the World Cup only Australia, New Zealand and Ireland did not have Top 14 players 
Similarly to your view that clubs are negative and out to destroy rugby, your claimÂ´s of the ITM Cup and Samoa are also highly misleading. In terms of the ITM Cup you say only 30 All Blacks were missing and that my suggestion was just utter rubbish. Enlighten me please then as to how Canterbury lost the Ranfurly Shield to Southland? Is it not simply because CanterburyÂ´s top team was nothing like the one last lost this match? Southland won with no player who was in New ZealandpÂ´s World Cup squad. No player in CanterburyÂ´s losing team made the World Cup either. Another side with few to no All Blacks had Pablo Huete, from Chile, getting plenty of game time. He has since gone to France to play for Castres but has not played for them yet and is not looking like breaking into the 22 any time soon. I reaffirm my statement which you called rubbish â€" I donÂ´t see how the ITM Cup can be regarded as being the same product as Super Rugby. 

You claim that the collective Rugby Unions of the Pacific Islands do not want test matches staged in the Pacific Islands. They want them staged in Auckland. Maybe you did not intend it but you are misleading when you make it sound as if Auckland hosts tests involving the All Blacks and Fiji, Samoa and Tonga regularly. When, in fact, New Zealand has only hosted Samoa three ever in Auckland in 1993, 1999 and 2001. The two other matches between New Zealand and Samoa were also both in New Zealand but in Napier and New Plymouth. Vs Tonga, New Zealand have only ever had one match outside of Rugby World CupÂ´s, in 2000. Since that match vs Tonga New Zealand have played Samoa on two occasions. Vs Fiji there have been five tests in history. Two in Auckland, one in Dunedin, one in Christchurch (RWC 1987) and one in Wellington. Of these only the 2002 match in Wellington was officially moved from Fiji to New Zealand in an effort to make money for Fiji. In other words, not only has New Zealand never played a test in any of the three countries it has actually not played much rugby against any of them. So, you can say all you like that the Pacific Island Unions do not want to host the All Blacks but what about the bigger problem that they struggle to secure matches against them? They canÂ´t move matches that they donÂ´t have. I think this qualifies me to suggest that New Zealand, as World Cup Champions, need to change themselves.

I feel like we are going around and around in circles, mainly because you selectively read what you want to read, and then disgard any information to the contrary. So I'll ask you a very simple question. Why does the Argentine club system not sign up and offer large amounts of money to players in the Top 14? Are they just trying to maintain their status as a newly formed tier 1 team? Do they not want to see the global game grow? Or is it simply because they lack the funds to be able to pay players earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in order for them to be able to afford them? I don't know what is so hard for you to understand about it. You selectivly group every little bit of information that totally shows why your idea doesn't work, and just chuck the label of "New Zealand looking after New Zealand".

What you really don't understand, is that it's not a case of New Zealand rugby losing a couple of dollars. It's a case of rugby in New Zealand being totally destroyed by your suggestions. We have a sustainable system which offers players considerably less than what they can earn in Japan, England, Wales, Ireland and especially France, and by a miracle, New Zealanders still want to play here. Now what you've constantly been suggesting, is that we start recruiting forign talent (who you fail to understand don't want to come here, as they can't play for the All Blacks and they are earning a lot less money) to make the game more global, even if it means that the sport will die here.

Now because of your ignorance, you look at the French system and say "that's ideal, why doesn't everyone act like them". Why doesn't New Zealand change their system (a country with only one billionaire living there in Graeme Hart, and not enough millionairs who can treat teams like play things) use what limited funds they have to recruite players who are potentially worse than their home grown talent, for more money?! Anything else is clearly an attempt to oppress other nations and keep themselves on top. We'll ignore any information to the contrary, about New Zealand providing Samoa with most of their players (a lot of whom are now earning a lot more money than they can in New Zealand, in France), and the fact that New Zealand is allowing more forign players (which don't even count PI players) into their teams. What New Zealanders should not expect, is for those players to earn a spot in those teams through playing in New Zealand's system, no, we should tell a New Zealand kid who has been great at club rugby and NPC, that they think an Argentinian player is better, through no means of comparrison. Anything else is just hegemonic.

At the end of the day, New Zealand has very little to offer forign players at a professional level. We can't pay them much (we can't pay our own players much), and we can't offer them as many spots in our teams. We just can't. It's not an attitude thing, it's that our game is too fragile to do that. What we can do, is help forign teams at grass roots, through our school and club systems which PI players and coaches learn to play and provide that wealth of knowlege to the Samoan/Fijian/Tongan national set ups. That is all we can afford to do. There is no reason why we should throw a hundred years worth of rugby culture out the window, to provide a short lasting solution to helping the game becoming more global. All that would happen is that professional rugby in New Zealand would be destroyed, and we'd be in the same crappy boat as so many other tier 2 and 3 teams, which is what I suspect you actually want. Your entire attitude is the equivelent of telling a poor single mother that they are morally obligated to give more to charity.

smartcooky · Nov 6, 2011

TRF_nickdnz said:
I feel like we are going around and around in circles, mainly because you selectively read what you want to read, and then disgard any information to the contrary. So I'll ask you a very simple question. Why does the Argentine club system not sign up and offer large amounts of money to players in the Top 14? Are they just trying to maintain their status as a newly formed tier 1 team? Do they not want to see the global game grow? Or is it simply because they lack the funds to be able to pay players earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in order for them to be able to afford them? I don't know what is so hard for you to understand about it. You selectivly group every little bit of information that totally shows why your idea doesn't work, and just chuck the label of "New Zealand looking after New Zealand".

What you really don't understand, is that it's not a case of New Zealand rugby losing a couple of dollars. It's a case of rugby in New Zealand being totally destroyed by your suggestions. We have a sustainable system which offers players considerably less than what they can earn in Japan, England, Wales, Ireland and especially France, and by a miracle, New Zealanders still want to play here. Now what you've constantly been suggesting, is that we start recruiting forign talent (who you fail to understand don't want to come here, as they can't play for the All Blacks and they are earning a lot less money) to make the game more global, even if it means that the sport will die here.

Now because of your ignorance, you look at the French system and say "that's ideal, why doesn't everyone act like them". Why doesn't New Zealand change their system (a country with only one billionaire living there in Graeme Hart, and not enough millionairs who can treat teams like play things) use what limited funds they have to recruite players who are potentially worse than their home grown talent, for more money?! Anything else is clearly an attempt to oppress other nations and keep themselves on top. We'll ignore any information to the contrary, about New Zealand providing Samoa with most of their players (a lot of whom are now earning a lot more money than they can in New Zealand, in France), and the fact that New Zealand is allowing more forign players (which don't even count PI players) into their teams. What New Zealanders should not expect, is for those players to earn a spot in those teams through playing in New Zealand's system, no, we should tell a New Zealand kid who has been great at club rugby and NPC, that they think an Argentinian player is better, through no means of comparrison. Anything else is just hegemonic.

At the end of the day, New Zealand has very little to offer forign players at a professional level. We can't pay them much (we can't pay our own players much), and we can't offer them as many spots in our teams. We just can't. It's not an attitude thing, it's that our game is too fragile to do that. What we can do, is help forign teams at grass roots, through our school and club systems which PI players and coaches learn to play and provide that wealth of knowlege to the Samoan/Fijian/Tongan national set ups. That is all we can afford to do. There is no reason why we should throw a hundred years worth of rugby culture out the window, to provide a short lasting solution to helping the game becoming more global. All that would happen is that professional rugby in New Zealand would be destroyed, and we'd be in the same crappy boat as so many other tier 2 and 3 teams, which is what I suspect you actually want. Your entire attitude is the equivelent of telling a poor single mother that they are morally obligated to give more to charity.

Melhor Time

Perhaps you weren't aware that the NZRU already allows their Super Rugby franchises to recruit up to two foreign players per franchise. This is the policy under which James Haskell has been recruited for the Highlanders this year.

[TEXTAREA]New Zealand's five Investec Super Rugby Franchises will be able to contract up to two foreign players, under a new foreign player policy approved by the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) Board at its meeting in Wellington today.

New Zealand Rugby Union Chief Executive Steve Tew said the move to the new policy was a logical one but comes with restrictions to ensure that the right balance is maintained between adding to the competition and helping Franchises address their depth, while at the same time ensuring that Super Rugby continued to develop New Zealand players.

â€œWeâ€™re comfortable that we can achieve that and this gives some flexibility to Franchises in their recruitment and contracting as the new Investec Super Rugby competition develops.â€

The policy includes some limitations for Franchises including meeting the â€œno equivalent New Zealand eligible playerâ€ threshold; no more than one foreign player in a specialist position across New Zealand (such as a tighthead prop or first five-eighth); and within a Franchise only one foreign player can be contracted in certain position areas such as prop or lock.

In the past, the approval for the contracting of foreign players has been granted only where exceptional circumstances have existed, such as a significant lack of depth at a particular position within a Franchise.

However the NZRU considers that selection of foreign players could assist in the development of New Zealand players and also has the potential to add excitement to the competition.
[/TEXTAREA]

This policy does NOT include any non-NZ eligible Pacific Island players; they are allowed to be recruited over and above this policy.

[TEXTAREA]Pacific Island players are not treated as foreign players under this policy. The existing approach to the contracting of Pacific Islands players, whereby players from the Pacific Islands who are not eligible to play for New Zealand may be contracted to play for New Zealand Franchises if no equivalent New Zealand eligible player is available, remains. This recognizes the special relationship that exists with the Pacific Islands and the contribution that Pacific Island players have made to Super Rugby.
[/TEXTAREA]

This policy has been in effect since September 2010

Here is the link for you: http://www.allblacks.com/news/14362/NZRU-approves-foreign-players-for-Investec-Super-Rugby-

The offers have not been taken up. I know that the Crusaders tried to recruit a couple of Argentine players playing in France, and they approached them during the world cup, but the problem is, we simply cannot match the money being offered in France.

Also, I renew my assertion that European Club Rugby routinely prevents Pacific Island players from playing for their countries, both in regular internationals AND the Rugby World Cup... READ THIS MELHOR TIME, don't just brush it off, or ignore it because it doesn't fit in with the view you have of Top 14 that you see when you look through your Rose tinted spectacles.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5835961/Rich-Europe-squeezing-life-out-of-Pacific-rugby

I can tell you that New Zealand Rugby Clubs, Provincial Unions, and Super Rugby franchises have;

► NEVER prevented any player from playing for their country.
► NEVER offered inducements to players not to play for their country.
► NEVER contracted a player in such a way that they had to give up the right to play for their country.
► NEVER terminated the contract of a player for playing for their country.

Can you truthfully say the same for Top14 and Premiership teams?

If the NZRU were to put in place the things you want; unlimited foreign involvement in Super Rugby Franchises and unrestricted selection of All Blacks who play outside New Zealand, it would utterly destroy the game in New Zealand. Our Premier domestic competitions would be reduced to the level of the Meads and Lochore Cups... amateur part-timers.

In reality you are asking the NZRU to open up to foreign players, while the competitions in Europe are actually going the other way; moving to restrict foreign involvement

[TEXTAREA]The FFR requires Top 14 clubs to limit the number of foreign players on their books. Squads are required to contain at least 40 per cent of players that have been registered with the FFR for at least five years before turning 21, or have spent three seasons in an FFR-approved training centre if they are currently under 21. This is from having no restrictions at all, and I expect them to tighten this up even further as time goes on.[/TEXTAREA]

You are also asking the NZRU to pick players who play in Europe and overseas, yet England are going the other way on that...

[TEXTAREA]The Rugby Football Union has written to players to say England intend to only select players who play for domestic clubs in England following the 2011 World Cup.[/TEXTAREA]

IMO, it is the realization by the FFR and the RFU, that allowing players to play anywhere they like has hugely damaged the competitiveness of their national teams that has led them to a policy of moving towards NZ's "home players only" stand.

Seaton · Nov 6, 2011

For some reason this thread reminds me of the Battle for Pelennor Fields...

New Zealand as World Champions need to change themselves

English Arrogance

International

Hall of Fame

TRF Legend

International

TRF Legend

Bench Player

First XV

First XV

International

Rugby Gaming Nut

First XV

First XV

Bench Player

Bench Player

Academy Player

AKA Dingo_Darwin

International

Referee Coach and Advisor

First XV

Similar threads