Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nickdnz" data-source="post: 589329" data-attributes="member: 38640">Well, the Top 14 is certainly the higher paid of the competitions. However its also the longest competition, nearly twice as long as Super Rugby. Players get spent in the top 14, particularly if they&#039;re playing for clubs that don&#039;t have benches like Toulon&#039;s. The very reason the players don&#039;t all go where the money is, is that the national game is still seen as the epitome of rugby - and every player in New Zealand, from being a 5 year old kid onwards - wants to play for the All Blacks. Money is more something that comes into it when you&#039;re nearing the end and want to cash out. Now we&#039;re seeing more and more guys just wanting to cash out.It is a big deal, yes. Like I&#039;ve mentioned - if the best players are playing overseas, then we&#039;ve spent money on developing players for someone else to get the benefit - while our competition is no longer as strong because they are gone. It works okay in football, because it is such a global game that teams which can&#039;t afford the greatest leagues just get left behind. There are so many professional rugby leagues, offering so much money, for a game which is designed to be so professional that club soccer is so much more important than national soccer - that no one cares.And how are the best players selected? In New Zealand the selection of these players is to see how they perform at Super Rugby comparred to other players also in Super Rugby. How do you compare players playing in different leagues where there is no cross over matches? How is for example, Ma&#039;a Nonu who has played 16 games for the Highlanders, going to compare to Luke McAlister who has played 30 odd games for Toulouse within one season? Does McAlister look good because the competition is worse? Or is that Nonu&#039;s problem? Impossible to compare. Regardless, what benefits the national team is a strong domestic league, and picking players outside it only harms rugby within New Zealand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nickdnz, post: 589329, member: 38640"] Well, the Top 14 is certainly the higher paid of the competitions. However its also the longest competition, nearly twice as long as Super Rugby. Players get spent in the top 14, particularly if they're playing for clubs that don't have benches like Toulon's. The very reason the players don't all go where the money is, is that the national game is still seen as the epitome of rugby - and every player in New Zealand, from being a 5 year old kid onwards - wants to play for the All Blacks. Money is more something that comes into it when you're nearing the end and want to cash out. Now we're seeing more and more guys just wanting to cash out. It is a big deal, yes. Like I've mentioned - if the best players are playing overseas, then we've spent money on developing players for someone else to get the benefit - while our competition is no longer as strong because they are gone. It works okay in football, because it is such a global game that teams which can't afford the greatest leagues just get left behind. There are so many professional rugby leagues, offering so much money, for a game which is designed to be so professional that club soccer is so much more important than national soccer - that no one cares. And how are the best players selected? In New Zealand the selection of these players is to see how they perform at Super Rugby comparred to other players also in Super Rugby. How do you compare players playing in different leagues where there is no cross over matches? How is for example, Ma'a Nonu who has played 16 games for the Highlanders, going to compare to Luke McAlister who has played 30 odd games for Toulouse within one season? Does McAlister look good because the competition is worse? Or is that Nonu's problem? Impossible to compare. Regardless, what benefits the national team is a strong domestic league, and picking players outside it only harms rugby within New Zealand. [/QUOTE]

Verification