NZ article attacking Celtic nations

[profitius]

I just spotted this strange article.

Rugby: Samoan backlash feared

There has been a cruel and spiteful inverse dynamic when it comes to Samoa in that the more they achieve, the more some in the established rugby world want to chop them down.

Last week's thrilling win against Australia has had the direct effect of lifting Samoa's confidence ahead of the World Cup while also giving the rugby romantics a sense of hope this tiny island nation can once again steal the show.

But, unfortunately, it will also have had indirect impact - and will have set off a chain of events, the consequences of which won't be felt for some time.

The established rugby order, particularly the Celts, have only ever seen Samoa as a threat. Wales have never processed the humiliation they felt after losing to Samoa in 1991 and their ability to embrace Pasifika was hardly improved by losing to Samoa again in 1999 and then to Fiji in 2007.

The Celts have a seat at the top table and don't want to give it up. They are acutely aware that Samoa, tiny little Samoa, has playing resources they can only dream of.

Scotland, Ireland and Wales are also acutely aware that if Samoa could be given organisational stability and an economic footing, they could become an instant contender - not necessarily capable of winning a World Cup but capable of pushing the big five close.

That thought never strays far from northern minds, which is why proposed changes to the eligibility laws have been repeatedly rejected in the last few years. Just as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, the Celts were never going to sign off on a proposal that would have allowed the Pacific Island nations to retrieve All Blacks and Wallabies who were no longer required by New Zealand and Australia.

The justification for rejecting the proposal was to protect the credibility of international rugby. Yet none of the Celts seemingly believe that England picking four New Zealanders, three South Africans, an American-Italian and a Tongan in their extended World Cup squad tarnishes the credibility of the game.

Victory in Sydney will only have hardened attitudes to find ways to make life tough for Samoa at an institutional level. The IRB will soon finalise their long-term capital expenditure plan on growing the game in developing nations.

It would be a major surprise if Samoa receives much investment. They pocketed £2.2 million the last time around and that will most likely be their lot.

The Tier One nations shared £14 million in the same funding cycle and then voted to award themselves another £1 million each in every World Cup year. The IRB revel in their supposed generosity yet they granted the richest nations - who have massive broadcast and sponsorship deals in place and major revenue-generating power - more money than they did Samoa.

Of greater concern is how the Australians react to defeat. While New Zealand is perennially accused of stealing Pacific Island talent by an ignorantly indignant northern media, their ire should be focused across the Tasman.

Samoa's assistant coach Tom Coventry says the relationship with New Zealand administrators is strong and collaborative.

"We have been having discussions with the NZRU about certain players who are dual qualified to get a handle on where they sat in the All Black pecking order," Coventry said. "We were both pretty open with each other about players we were interested in."

It would seem as if a gentleman's agreement was in play. But such cordial exchanges are unlikely to be enjoyed with the Australians. New Zealand has always allowed Pacific Island players into its Super Rugby teams.

The Australians opened their system only in 2008 and have done so in the most sinister way. When they announced the introduction of their "marquee" policy, where each franchise can sign one non-Wallaby eligible player, there was also the provision which allows one other player to fall outside the salary cap. The catch is this is player's eligibility can't already have been captured and the Australians have barely hidden their intention - that this was set up to enable them to lure young Polynesians to Australia and convert them into Wallabies.

Nothing is likely to make the Australians want the Pacific Islands' best talent more than the bitter taste of defeat. What better way to depower Samoa than lure their next generation of players with a bag of money and a gold jersey?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news...ectid=10740468

 

[shtove]

Two points:

1. The NZ attraction seems very good for island players. I used to slag off NZ for sucking up all the talent, but it's much more interesting than that.

2. International sport is about fidelity (however artificial), and loss of that would be worse for small nations - I guess the top-heavy nature of the soccer premiership in England proves the point.

 

[Muzzy]

i really don't understand how people think changing the eligibility laws is going to help the island nations, if anything it will hurt the island nations, if island players could play for more than one country all that would happen is, the best island players would choose to play for the bigger nations where they would get more money and the island teams would be stuck with only their weakest players, then when those good island players get older and out of their prime they'll suddenly want to change allegiances to play for an island team, which means the island teams will be filled with a bunch of old has been's. samoa don't need washed up players like jerry collins or rodney so'oialo, hell the forwards samoa have right now are better than them atm, and fiji sure as hell don't need an out of form joe rokocoko

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Swear this has been mentioned just recently on the forum.

 

[Conal]

would they pack it in about switiching country
caps should mean something they are binding and rightly so
and surely does this just mean the all the 2nd tier world class talent will bugger off to other countries and then come back on the verge of retirement or when they get dissapointed

 

[Feicarsinn]

You want to play for two countries? Bugger off. If Samoa become a serious power by keeping hold of all of their best players and getting guys with Samoan ties to represent them then fair dues. If they want to become a serious power by taking All Blacks who are past their sell-by date then I wouldn't want them to succeed, no.

 

[Thingimubob]

The irony of this is that back in the day, Wales were one of few nations who'd properly send tours to Samoa. Hardly trying to drag them back is it? Like how that whoever wrote this is all rightious fury about the Celts preventing this change happening, but forgets to mention that (what I;m guessing is his preferred team) the All Blacks would get a tidy benefit from all the players who'll think 'y'now, I'm gonna try for the All Blacks, I'll play for Samoa when they don't want me'
It would almost definitly happen with a lot of players, from what I've heard the All Blacks are well supported by Samoans, so it's natural to come to that conclusion. It'd only hurt Samoan rugby in the long run.
Also someone posted a thread about the same topic not long ago...had a very similar writing style too...
EDIT: Also the link to the article on the website doesnt work

 

[Sam Owen]

That thought never strays far from northern minds, which is why proposed changes to the eligibility laws have been repeatedly rejected in the last few years. Just as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, the Celts were never going to sign off on a proposal that would have allowed the Pacific Island nations to retrieve All Blacks and Wallabies who were no longer required by New Zealand and Australia.

The justification for rejecting the proposal was to protect the credibility of international rugby. Yet none of the Celts seemingly believe that England picking four New Zealanders, three South Africans, an American-Italian and a Tongan in their extended World Cup squad tarnishes the credibility of the game.

This is a very good point. My immediate thought is inconsistency. Im not hating on England Rugby Union whatsoever (beacuse of the example in the above quote) but on those that make these rules in particular.

 

[Conal]

This is a very good point. My immediate thought is inconsistency. Im not hating on England Rugby Union whatsoever (beacuse of the example in the above quote) but on those that make these rules in particular.

think youll find many comments from many diffrent people and countries from the north specificly having a go at england for picking these players and im pretty sure someone in one of the northenr unions will dislike what is happining

 

[Black Heart]

Two points:

1. The NZ attraction seems very good for island players. I used to slag off NZ for sucking up all the talent, but it's much more interesting than that.

New Zealand already has a huge Pacific Island community and most of our PI players are born here. The PIs that migrate to New Zealand generally do so of family ties and because of the tight nit Samoan/Tongan/Cook communities already established in places like Auckland (remember Auckland has the largest concentration of Pacific Islanders anywhere in the world)

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

back in the day, Wales were one of few nations who'd properly send tours to Samoa

That's true. The good oooooold days. No-one from anywhere is really doing them much in the way of favours nowadays. Rather than the poacher, New Zealand is their only real friend right now. In collaboration with the island nations we pursue with the IRB the issues that may effect positive change for them.

Who else is?

 

[Muzzy]

New Zealand already has a huge Pacific Island community and most of our PI players are born here. The PIs that migrate to New Zealand generally do so of family ties and because of the tight nit Samoan/Tongan/Cook communities already established in places like Auckland (remember Auckland has the largest concentration of Pacific Islanders anywhere in the world)

it should be noted that many island players are poached by nz (and other countries) while they're still teenagers, scouts see they're promising players so they give them scholarships so they'll end up playing for their country instead. Sivivatu is an example of this. though i can't blame them though after all they're being given scholarships and a chance at a better life, but still it bothers me when nz try to deny they're poaching island players

http://www.pacificislanders.co.nz/sitivenis.htm

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

it should be noted that many island players are poached by nz (and other countries) while they're still teenagers, scouts see they're promising players so they give them scholarships so they'll end up playing for their country instead. Sivivatu is an example of this. though i can't blame them though after all they're being given scholarships and a chance at a better life, but still it bothers me when nz try to deny they're poaching island players

http://www.pacificislanders.co.nz/sitivenis.htm

Good example, do you know of multiple others though?

 

[Black Heart]

it should be noted that many island players are poached by nz (and other countries) while they're still teenagers, scouts see they're promising players so they give them scholarships so they'll end up playing for their country instead. Sivivatu is an example of this. though i can't blame them though after all they're being given scholarships and a chance at a better life, but still it bothers me when nz try to deny they're poaching island players

http://www.pacificislanders.co.nz/sitivenis.htm

Let's look into this. Of all the current All Blacks, Sivivatu is the only foreign born player to have moved to New Zealand as a teen.

The other foreign born players, Mils Muliaina, Jerome Kaino and Joe Rokocoko moved here before they were 5 and Isaia Toeava when he was 7. Excellent scouting I must agree.

 

[Rhyer]

Let's look into this. Of all the current All Blacks, Sivivatu is the only foreign born player to have moved to New Zealand as a teen.

The other foreign born players, Mils Muliaina, Jerome Kaino and Joe Rokocoko moved here before they were 5 and Isaia Toeava when he was 7. Excellent scouting I must agree.

They really are talented scouts! Noticing players capabilities at such a young age! That is why you guys are so good at rugby...

 

[nickdnz]

it should be noted that many island players are poached by nz (and other countries) while they're still teenagers, scouts see they're promising players so they give them scholarships so they'll end up playing for their country instead. Sivivatu is an example of this. though i can't blame them though after all they're being given scholarships and a chance at a better life, but still it bothers me when nz try to deny they're poaching island players

http://www.pacificislanders.co.nz/sitivenis.htm

Other than Sivivatu who moved as a teenager to play rugby, there are no other All Blacks in the last ten years who have been poached. I've done so many long posts explaining it, but it doesn't seem to matter, as people still prefer long and blind allogations. As I've stated before, there are 30 All Blacks in history that have been born in the Pacific Islands. Of those 30, 15 have played fore the All Blacks in the last 10 years. Of those 15, only Sitivini Sivivatu moved here past the age of ten years old. The others have all lived most of their lives in New Zealand, played all their school, club and representational rugby in New Zealand as a product of the New Zealand rugby systems. Now as I mentioned only a few days ago, the Samoan team that played Australia had 11 players that were born in New Zealand, played school and club rugby in New Zealand. Your call on scouts going to the islands is very rare, as most academies recruite from one of the best school systems in the world, however if you look at players in Samoa and Tonga who move to New Zealand to play club rugby, a vast majority end up playing for their countries of birth.

The argument that was presented last time, was that the players Samoa have taken from New Zealand would not have likely played for the All Blacks, where as Samoa could have done with players such as Jerry Collins and Chris Mascoe. The point is this, while those players were born in Samoa, they became rugby players in New Zealand. They are not poached or stolen from anyone. They are products of the New Zealand rugby system, who are eligable to play for other countries than New Zealand. If they choose to play for the All Blacks, you presume it's because they prefer New Zealand to the country they were born in. The fact that New Zealand has supported the change in eligability rules is not only stupid, it's feeding the dog that keeps on biting their hand.

Now, in terms of picking on Sivivatu, you're right. He was "poached" as he was eligable to play or Fiji while he was a pro rugby player in New Zealand. That's fine. We all agree with that. With that in mind, guess where Nicky Little was born? Tokoroa. So I guess that's a player who was born in New Zealand, with an All Black unkle (also born in Tokoroa) played club rugby in New Zealand for Te Awamatu, played for Centerbury, Waikato and North Harbor. But he was selected to play for Fiji at 19 years old, having never actually lived in Fiji in his life. I guess Fiji's top point scorer of all time was "poached" from New Zealand.

Now in this history of the All Blacks, only 8 Fijians have ever played for New Zealand. Out of those 8, only two have played for the All Blacks in the last ten years, Joe Rokocoko and Sivivatu. Joe Rokocoko moved to South Auckland at five years old. He played age grade rugby for New Zealand in the U16's, U19's and U21's. He went to Saint Kentigern College and played in the first XV there. Was he poached? Who are these Fijians the All Blacks keep poaching?

Now, for the reason I beleieve this is a bad idea is pretty simple.

1). Giving Island Nations former top teir nations serves little practicle purposes. Would Samoa benefit from a thirty year old Jerry Collins? Probably, but what it does is takes away a spot from a another Samoan players, who has the desire to play for Samoa more than the All Blacks. At what point could they stop changing their allegiance? What happens if Samoa or Fiji become ranked 4th? Can they still take other players? Why can they do it and England can't?

2). A test cap is a test cap. There is few New Zealand kids who grow up not wanting to play for the All Blacks, out of all of them, only a few achieve it. To say "I'm not going to get selected again for the All Blacks, may as well play for Fiji" is disrespectful towards the All Blacks and Fiji. The argument for this is "what about players like Ben Atiga or Sosone Anesi who have only played one game?" Well, tough. David Holwell has played over two hundred first class games in New Zealand and never got ten seconds of game time for the All Blacks. There are roughly two hundred professional rugby players in New Zealand, more than that in England, France and South Africa and most of them will never get to play for their national team. It's just a tough bit of life.

3). IRB has just built new rugby facilities for Samoa which are world class. Some of that money comes from Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The IRB is doing its part. Instead of a stupid rule change, what needs to happen is more money is given for development of the PI nations (as well as the Asian and American nations), and most importantly, give those countries more international fixtures with windows open for players in Europe. Half the reason why Fiji, Samoa and Tonga are not competitive outside World Cup years is due to clubs putting pressure on players not to play outside the club, which really interfares with their teams. This would not change if the eligability rule changed or not. If Fiji can't get Isa Nacewa, Sireli Bobo and Vilimoni Delasau to play for them in a RWC year, what makes them think that they could get Sivivatu playing for them if he's playing for Clermont?

4. Talk about England poaching players is interesting. There is no question that players like Vainikolo, Hape, Flutey and Waldrom are "poached", but with that in mind, they were signed by clubs to play for England and they are eligable through heritage (like Thomas Waldrom is to England what Nicky Little is to Fiji), or they have lived in the country long enough to be considered English according to the IRB. The question of "is three years enough?", may want to be examined, but it's not a one way streak. If an English person lived in Fiji for three years, he is eligable to play for Fiji. Part of being in a multi-cultural society in which there are lots of job oppertunities is that you are going to get professionals who live in a country to practise their trade. It's no different with rugby, and I'm sure there are players who have played for England after playing professional rugby in New Zealand, who are proud to call England their new home.

 

[Black Heart]

The argument that was presented last time, was that the players Samoa have taken from New Zealand would not have likely played for the All Blacks, where as Samoa could have done with players such as Jerry Collins and Chris Mascoe. The point is this, while those players were born in Samoa, they became rugby players in New Zealand. They are not poached or stolen from anyone. They are products of the New Zealand rugby system, who are eligable to play for other countries than New Zealand. If they choose to play for the All Blacks, you presume it's because they prefer New Zealand to the country they were born in. The fact that New Zealand has supported the change in eligability rules is not only stupid, it's feeding the dog that keeps on biting their hand.

It should be made clear aswell that the quality of the rugby system and being brought up through it means that players who moved to New Zealand at a young age have presuably become significantly better players than what they would have otherwise been if they had stayed in their country of origin. It's difficult to think that guys like Mils Muliaina and Jerry Collins would have been of the same quality had they stayed in Samoa or even if they had been brought over at 16/17. And if the latter had been the case, it's unlikely they would have made the All Blacks This may also explain why Sivivatu has been the only exception in recent history.

 

[Gavin]

The name 'Celts' is a very clouded term and therefore their argument is very clouded as well.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

All this chat about England, didn't someone make a list of all the players currently playing for Samoa who weren't born there?
It was like 8 out of the starting 15 or something

They qualified through the same set of rules as these players qualified for England
(also: Who is the Tongan playing for England?)



I'd wager that 0 of the foreign players playing for England got poached,
I doubt the RFU got on the blower to Shontayne Hape and said "Alright mate, how do you fancy moving to play for Bradford, then switch codes and play for Bath, then we'll get you in an England shirt?" etc.

Manu Tuilagi is probably the closest they've come as he's the youngest, but then he's said from day one he wants to play for England
Maybe Waldrom? But then he went to the RFU saying he was eligible, not t'other way round

 

[Seaton]

Gads, this topic is becoming tedious.

Seriously, how many more times can articles be based on the same some subject, yet be considered 'newsworthy'?
This to me seems to be becoming the "goal-line technology" debate of rugby, in terms of the repetition surrounding it.

The Celtic nations are rich, greedy, scheming, scared as **** capitalists.
Anyone from the Pacific Islands = Angle-spawn
And New Zealand are poachers of grandiose proportions, the parasites of world rugby

We get it.