Tied to 1 country? Not any longer.....

[crossref]

also - there is a big difference between a player who is wanted by two countries, trying to play one off against eachother, and a player who is no longer wanted by his own country, trying to make a living for himself elsewhere.

In the UK, where many people are qualified for more than one of the hoem nations, I view the attempts by countries to set out to capture as many young players as possible, without any real commitment to them for the future, as also cynical..

 

[Toby Warren]

no, not really - this discussion started on the subject of pacific islanders coming to NZ as teenagers and waiting out long qualification processes. Or someone who comes from a non-rugby playing nation but is truly world class and wants to play for a first class team.
or someone who has grown up in a country, feels part of it, learned rugby there, but doesn't have a passport. Or someone who foolishly once played for his national team, the republic of Lictenstralstan whaen hwe was 19, and now finds hhimself captured.

In all those cases I don't see anything but a very short residency period (if at all) being needed.

But for someone who already plays for a 1st class team, like Dan Carter I would support the concept of being captured.

NO that's the other thread!

This is about the Olympics creating an ability to play for 2 teams!

 

[Browner]

But if you make national sides 'free' from national qualification criteria - or greatly reduced criteria then international rugby becomes 'club' sport.

Which is kinda my point, my criticism is of the body, not the players for exploiting it.

I care not which country Steffon Armitage chose ( having dual qualification) but once he decides he should be made to stick to it.

NZ could probably a 6ths to be better than Kenya's 1sts, but a whole team of mercenary kiwis turning out for Kenya would be disastrous on so many levels irrespective of the match result.

If a family emigrate and start a new life, and their child then meets an "emigration" qualification at say 16 then sobeit.

Children being coersed away from their families is entirely different scenario, as is rich nations plundering the rising talent pool of poorer nations, as is nation swapping for personal betterment.

 

[RobLev]

also - there is a big difference between a player who is wanted by two countries, trying to play one off against eachother, and a player who is no longer wanted by his own country, trying to make a living for himself elsewhere.

The problem is in trying to distinguish between the two situations (at least where the player has already played for one Union) in the rules.

In the UK, where many people are qualified for more than one of the hoem nations, I view the attempts by countries to set out to capture as many young players as possible, without any real commitment to them for the future, as also cynical..

I can see very good (non-cynical) reasons for Unions capturing talent early; it makes it a lot easier to plan player development and introducing new talent into the national team if you know that some other Union isn't going to jump in and take the player you've been developing. Again, writing rules to distinguish between a Union that takes that aspect seriously, and one that simply captures as much talent as possible but with no thought to subsequent player development, is hardly a trivial exercise.

 

[crossref]

as is nation swapping for personal betterment.

why are you holding rugby players to such an extraordinary and unfair standard?

do you consider it wrong for plumbers, nurses, builders, au pairs, teachers, investment bankers to move from nation to nation for personal betterment? Or is it just sportsmen whom you think should be made to stay where you consider they belong.

for me: if a person has the opportunity to use his or her talents to achieve a better life for themselve and their family, by honest endeavour, then good luck to them. And if someone's talent is sport I don't see why anyone benefits from having world class sportsmen eking out enforced idlesness for significant periods of their careers.

It's only a game - let them play.

 

[Toby Warren]

why are you holding rugby players to such an extraordinary and unfair standard?

do you consider it wrong for plumbers, nurses, builders, au pairs, teachers, investment bankers to move from nation to nation for personal betterment? Or is it just sportsmen whom you think should be made to stay where you consider they belong.

for me: if a person has the opportunity to use his or her talents to achieve a better life for themselve and their family, by honest endeavour, then good luck to them. And if someone's talent is sport I don't see why anyone benefits from having world class sportsmen eking out enforced idlesness for significant periods of their careers.

It's only a game - let them play.

But this is representative sport.

They can better themselves playing club sports and earn their money - but the very essence of international sport is 1 nation v another.

We clearly have very different views - both of which are perfectly valid - but this discussions is now going circles - so I think I'll dip out now

 

[Guyseep]

Guyseep

I see where you are coming from but its a dreadful concept. Its already bad enough that we have mercenary club teams like Toulon, ostensibly a French team except that it is composed of mostly Kiwis, Aussies, South Africans, English, Irish and Welsh players with hardly any Frenchmen.

Imagine what would happen if a cash-rich Union decided to go on a four year campaign to win the RWC by buying up the world's best players to make a "superteam". The integrity of international rugby would be shot to pieces.

As I mentioned in my proposal you can prevent a super team created by a cashed up nation by restricting the number of players of this type that a team can have on their books to handful of players.

I think the idea that players are these greedy people only concerned about money and don't care about playing for their country is false. This is their job, they have every right to earn as much as possible, but also they are competitive people and want to play at the highest level. This is a good thing for fans as it means the best players in the world are on the field for internationals.

Here's another example - a player who is capped by a team like Cyprus. Cyprus is not going to be playing in top level games in the near future. Imagine that player develops to become the best player in the world of his generation, but because of a cap for a minnow team he will NEVER see the highest level of international competition. That is not fair for him nor for the fans.

 

[RobLev]

why are you holding rugby players to such an extraordinary and unfair standard?

do you consider it wrong for plumbers, nurses, builders, au pairs, teachers, investment bankers to move from nation to nation for personal betterment? Or is it just sportsmen whom you think should be made to stay where you consider they belong.

...

Surely the position of plumbers etc would only be relevant if they became involved in national representative plumbing etc? Once the long-awaited day dawns when national teams of plumbers plumb it out for world honours, then the question of which national plumbing team they can plumb for can be decided. Until then, what they do in their day-job is up to them; as is what rugby players do in their day (club) job.

 

[FlipFlop]

Here's another example - a player who is capped by a team like Cyprus. Cyprus is not going to be playing in top level games in the near future. Imagine that player develops to become the best player in the world of his generation, but because of a cap for a minnow team he will NEVER see the highest level of international competition. That is not fair for him nor for the fans.

Tim Visser deliberately choose not to represent the Netherlands for this very reason.

 

[Browner]

Here's another example - a player who is capped by a team like Cyprus. Cyprus is not going to be playing in top level games in the near future. Imagine that player develops to become the best player in the world of his generation, but because of a cap for a minnow team he will NEVER see the highest level of international competition. That is not fair for him nor for the fans.

For every person that proposes a quota, there will soon be another who proposes to extend the quota, and then crossref who seemingly wants it removing.

Your best player in the world will be playing for a top club franchise & showcasing his great skills on the worldwide franchise stage in return for a great monthly wage, the franchise fans will love watching him.

He'll also be a national hero.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Tim Visser deliberately choose not to represent the Netherlands for this very reason.

So he could play for........................Scotland!:biggrin::scot:

 

[TNT88]

Is all the energy spent arguing about this really worth it? Last time I checked the NZ team were kiwi, the French team were French, the English team were English, the Australian team were Aussie.

We live in a global community so you are going to get the odd "foreigner" representing a country he moved to after high school. That's just how the world works now, people move countries.

 

[RobLev]

...

Here's another example - a player who is capped by a team like Cyprus. Cyprus is not going to be playing in top level games in the near future. Imagine that player develops to become the best player in the world of his generation, but because of a cap for a minnow team he will NEVER see the highest level of international competition. That is not fair for him nor for the fans.

But this invites the question - how do we know that he's the best player in the world of his generation (or indeed how does he become that player) until he has been measured against the best in the world? Until then, he's just a good club player who might or might not kick on at international level. In another sport, Graeme Hick is an example; a phenomenal batsman at county level, averaging over 50, top score 405no, with another 135 centuries and 158 50s to his name. England cricket fans counted down the days before he obtained England qualification. Outcome: a pretty undistinguished Test career - just shy of 3,400 runs at an average of a tad above 31. Do you really want to monkey with current national qualification, with the risks involved to the international game, on the of-chance that someone from a Tier 2/3/n nation may turn out to be pretty good, with the attendant risk that they may turn out to be a Hick?

Your argument would also apply to players from traditionally strong countries, by the way; why should the fans be denied the chance to see Aaron Cruden just because he happens to be qualified for the same Union as Dan Carter?

Test Rugby's purpose is surely not to ensure that the best players get a game - or we'd have to introduce legislation requiring the Kiwis to give the Pacific Islands some of their players (back :biggrin. Isn't it to give the best national teams in world rugby the chance to play one another?

 

[Guyseep]

But this invites the question - how do we know that he's the best player in the world of his generation (or indeed how does he become that player) until he has been measured against the best in the world? Until then, he's just a good club player who might or might not kick on at international level. In another sport, Graeme Hick is an example; a phenomenal batsman at county level, averaging over 50, top score 405no, with another 135 centuries and 158 50s to his name. England cricket fans counted down the days before he obtained England qualification. Outcome: a pretty undistinguished Test career - just shy of 3,400 runs at an average of a tad above 31. Do you really want to monkey with current national qualification, with the risks involved to the international game, on the of-chance that someone from a Tier 2/3/n nation may turn out to be pretty good, with the attendant risk that they may turn out to be a Hick?

Your argument would also apply to players from traditionally strong countries, by the way; why should the fans be denied the chance to see Aaron Cruden just because he happens to be qualified for the same Union as Dan Carter?

Test Rugby's purpose is surely not to ensure that the best players get a game - or we'd have to introduce legislation requiring the Kiwis to give the Pacific Islands some of their players (back :biggrin. Isn't it to give the best national teams in world rugby the chance to play one another?

In my example of the player from Cyprus. If he is really that great he would likely be playing club rugby in England, or France or even Super Rugby. If he is excelling in those competitions it is a fair to use that as a measuring stick to his skill level.

And I do think it is the purpose of Test rugby to field the best players possible. Again using the example of Pacific Islanders playing in NZ or Aus. Imagine they are capped once for either NZ or Aus and then can't get a game at international level again. Meanwhile Fiji or Tonga struggle to find a player of his quality to fill a key position in their team. Instead of having this great player sit on the sidelines for the better part of a decade why not allow him to represent another country at the international level.

An extension of your Cruden example. Let's look at Colin Slade. He is a great player, some would even say he could be world class. But as it stand now he is probably fourth in the pecking order in NZ behind Carter, Cruden, and Barrett. Slade has already been capped by NZ, but what if he still has ambitions to play Test rugby. If he makes a calculated decision to move to another country and go through the process why shouldn't he be allowed to? There is risk that he won't be as good as hoped or he may even miss selection in his new country, but it at least gives him the opportunity to play.

Nick Evans is another great example. He left NZ when he knew he would likely never get a start for the All Blacks as long as Carter was around. So other than European rugby, fans and Evans himself have missed out on many years of Test rugby

As well this is happening already to a certain extent with Bundee Aki in NZ. He is a prospect but has decided before he was capped to move to Ireland and try and qualify for them. Why should a player with only a few caps be denied basically the same opportunity?

 

[Ian_Cook]

As I mentioned in my proposal you can prevent a super team created by a cashed up nation by restricting the number of players of this type that a team can have on their books to handful of players.

I suggest you Google two things...

1. The Bosman Ruling

2. The Kolpak Ruling

If unions have been prevented from bringing in rules to limit the number of foreign players in their own club competitions, what makes you think a Union could not assemble a superteam if national eligibility wasn't opened up?

 

[RobLev]

In my example of the player from Cyprus. If he is really that great he would likely be playing club rugby in England, or France or even Super Rugby. If he is excelling in those competitions it is a fair to use that as a measuring stick to his skill level.

That's precisely why I chose Graeme Hick as an example; he was superlative - at county level.

And I do think it is the purpose of Test rugby to field the best players possible. Again using the example of Pacific Islanders playing in NZ or Aus. Imagine they are capped once for either NZ or Aus and then can't get a game at international level again. Meanwhile Fiji or Tonga struggle to find a player of his quality to fill a key position in their team. Instead of having this great player sit on the sidelines for the better part of a decade why not allow him to represent another country at the international level.

Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion over what national representative sport is about. I see it as about national representative competiton; you do not.

An extension of your Cruden example. Let's look at Colin Slade. He is a great player, some would even say he could be world class. But as it stand now he is probably fourth in the pecking order in NZ behind Carter, Cruden, and Barrett. Slade has already been capped by NZ, but what if he still has ambitions to play Test rugby. If he makes a calculated decision to move to another country and go through the process why shouldn't he be allowed to?

Because nations are nations, not franchises.

There is risk that he won't be as good as hoped or he may even miss selection in his new country, but it at least gives him the opportunity to play.

Nick Evans is another great example. He left NZ when he knew he would likely never get a start for the All Blacks as long as Carter was around. So other than European rugby, fans and Evans himself have missed out on many years of Test rugby

As well this is happening already to a certain extent with Bundee Aki in NZ. He is a prospect but has decided before he was capped to move to Ireland and try and qualify for them. Why should a player with only a few caps be denied basically the same opportunity?

Ditto. There is already a feeling that national teams allow non-nationals to "qualify" too easily. In loosening the restrictions further, you risk destroying the fan support that is the economic foundation of national representative sport. In England, people watch the English team because it represents England; if it were just another club team made up of people from around the globe, why bother? There's one of those just down the road.

National representation is an honour, not an entitlement, however good a player you are.

EDIT: And of course, you destroy any hope of developing the sport in any country which doesn#t already have a robust structure if you allow its Union to draft in mercenaries to take the places of home-grown players.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If a family emigrate and start a new life, and their child then meets an "emigration" qualification at say 16 then sobeit.

Children being coersed away from their families is entirely different scenario, as is rich nations plundering the rising talent pool of poorer nations, as is nation swapping for personal betterment.

You're full of crap Browner. There are between 1500 and 2500 scholarships awarded to foreign students in NZ every year. These scholarship programmes are offered to students in mostly developing nations, giving them an opportunity at higher education that they would not necessarily be able to get in their home countries. Students come from a wide variety of countries; Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, PR China, Cook Islands, Fiji, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, FS Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.

Over the last 20 years there have been over 40,000 foreign students who have come to this country and received secondary and tertiary education opportunities at the NZ Government's expense; a cost of a few hundred million $NZ. Over that same period, just FIVE players who have come to NZ for scholarships have ended up becoming All Blacks.

Casey Laulala (Wesley College, Auckland)
Siti Sivivatu (Wesley College, Auckland)
Sosene Anisi (St Pauls High School, Hamilton)
Chris Masoe (Wanganui College, Wanganui)
Malakai Fekitoa (Wesley College, Auckland)

That is five out of 40,000 in 20 years at a cost of about a hundred million per All Black. If it is a scheme to coerce kids away from their parents as you say, it is a singularly unsuccessful and hugely expensive one. A few hundred million invested at grass roots would have produced a lot more that five players!!

As is usual with the sniping, innuendo and bullshiit on this topic that you continue to post on an ongoing basis in this forum, none of it stands up in the light of the facts.

 

[Rushforth]

Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion over what national representative sport is about. I see it as about national representative competiton; you do not.

...

Because nations are nations, not franchises.

The problem with the latter of these two statements is that in the era of professional rugby, it is simply not true. Not that they are quite franchises either, but national teams represent sportswear companies and mobile carriers and insurance companies and the like.

 

[OB..]

The problem with the latter of these two statements is that in the era of professional rugby, it is simply not true. Not that they are quite franchises either, but national teams represent sportswear companies and mobile carriers and insurance companies and the like.

Irrelevant. The current requirement is that the players in a national team are in some sense (other than just playing for them) members of that nation. This is true across all sports, though the criteria differ significantly. In the Olympics some athletes have represented more than one country because switches are allowed, but I am not sure i want to see Qatar winning the RWC on a similar basis.

Here is a little rant from Arthur Budd (England 1878-81)

And, again, what does this professionalism lead to? Does it encourage native or residential talent, which, mark you, should be the first and only object of every football club? On the contrary, it leads to trie wholesale importation of players of repute from other districts or, it may be, countries, to the exclusion of indigenous ability. Is this sport? I say, certainly not. It is nothing more nor less than handing over success in the game to the best capitalised club. If you could give me the wealth of the Duke of Westminster and professionalism in Rugby football to boot, I would in a very short time produce the most formidable fifteen in the United Kingdom. They should be called the "Charing Cross Crusaders," though, probably, on their arrival from the North the majority would have to make inquiries as to the whereabouts of that metropolitan centre. If the hiring of these aliens constitutes sportsmanship, then Sir Augustus Harris, who, at great outlay, brings to Drury Lane the best pantomimists of the day, has earned this distinction equally as well as the controllers and financiers of our Association professional football teams. One can understand people becoming enthusiastic over a bona-fide club that is, a club composed of players who have been born or reside in the district - but it is past my comprehension to understand how eleven men, transported from various points of the compass, can inflame with partisanship the natives whom they are actually excluding from the team which they ought themselves to be representing. The summum bonum of football and every other game consists in the encouragement and development of local ability, and not in the transportation of peripatetic exhibitioners.

 

[Toby Warren]

You're full of crap Browner. There are between 1500 and 2500 scholarships awarded to foreign students in NZ every year. These scholarship programmes are offered to students in mostly developing nations, giving them an opportunity at higher education that they would not necessarily be able to get in their home countries. Students come from a wide variety of countries; Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, PR China, Cook Islands, Fiji, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, FS Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.

Over the last 20 years there have been over 40,000 foreign students who have come to this country and received secondary and tertiary education opportunities at the NZ Government's expense; a cost of a few hundred million $NZ. Over that same period, just FIVE players who have come to NZ for scholarships have ended up becoming All Blacks.

Casey Laulala (Wesley College, Auckland)
Siti Sivivatu (Wesley College, Auckland)
Sosene Anisi (St Pauls High School, Hamilton)
Chris Masoe (Wanganui College, Wanganui)
Malakai Fekitoa (Wesley College, Auckland)

That is five out of 40,000 in 20 years at a cost of about a hundred million per All Black. If it is a scheme to coerce kids away from their parents as you say, it is a singularly unsuccessful and hugely expensive one. A few hundred million invested at grass roots would have produced a lot more that five players!!

As is usual with the sniping, innuendo and bullshiit on this topic that you continue to post on an ongoing basis in this forum, none of it stands up in the light of the facts.

Don't know why you reply to him, you two will never agree and neither of you will influence the other's view point - regardless of merit of the arguments.