mxyzptlk
Colin Windon (37)
Actually I've heard that, but mainly in league, and mainly with regard to Queensland, especially in State of Origin discussions.Yes, but no one accuses Australia of strip-mining the PI for talent, do they?
Actually I've heard that, but mainly in league, and mainly with regard to Queensland, especially in State of Origin discussions.Yes, but no one accuses Australia of strip-mining the PI for talent, do they?
There have been calls in the NH for a 5-year residency rule, too. I've mainly heard it coming out of Ireland, where someone like Michael Bent flew in from New Zealand and the first game he ever played in Ireland was in a green jersey (ancestry).I'd change the residency rule to something like 7 years. At least 5. Or have a more simple citizens only rule like the Olympic games.
You do realise Polynesian is an ethnicity?
I'm not sure if Maitland's granny being Scottish would allow him to vote as soon as he moved there, but if that was the rule, it may have made a difference.
A 5-year residency rule would really make players think twice about where they're going, because they'd miss a World Cup cycle in the waiting.
It would also gut Samoa & Tonga as hardly any of their players would qualify.
I'm OK with the occasional Maitland or Best if that's the price of having the PI field competitive teams based largely on ethnicity as opposed to strict nationality.
The problem is they benefit the rich countries. Do you think Henry Speight would consider himself more Australian than Fijian? If money and professional contracts were no different, and Fiji played in the Rugby Championship each year who do you think he'd want to play for?
I just think it's ridiculous when people (and for that matter the IRB) say you can't allow players to represent more than 1 country in a career because it would somehow make test rugby less legitimate. And meanwhile there's a 3 year residency rule.
Like anything, the IRB has to come up with a one size fits all rule for these situations.
No they don't. They have to develop intelligent policies that meet the needs of our game, our game is unique and has its own unique strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Just as all games do, to a greater or lesser extent.
I probably have a different perspective than many, having seen rugby from the fifties (when the game was really struggling in Australia, and was saved as an international sport by two phenomenally successful Fijian tours), through to the high points of the advent of professionalism, and Australia's dominance (which coincided with the Super League debacle). All of us know what has happened since, very mixed success for the game here, we might disagree on the reasons.
I have lived and worked in countries like England, where rugby is relatively strong, and always will be. Tonga, where the game struggles against the inroads of both league and the export of the best players. I spent many years in Hong Kong as well, also Thailand, where the game is played, but mostly by expats.
The IRB needs to think a lot more creatively about how to meet the challenges of professionalism, particularly the huge money that is on offer in Europe. No athlete from a developing or undeveloped country can afford to turn his back on that money. National pride, patriotism, are okay for the well off, but for a young kid in Tonga or Romania, or many other countries where the game is played, the family, and his own economic future, will have a different priority than it might for people like us.
The rugby world is made up of very many different economic and social realities, and the IRB needs to govern in full cognisance of those differences. One size fits all when it comes to cheap clothing. But not in the development of policies for our sport. It deserves a whole lot better than that.
For the record, I would have no problem with players being able to play for a 2nd nation in test rugby so long as there'd been a time period of 3 or 4 years since playing their last test match for the first nation. But only if that eligibility couldn't be gained by 3 year residency.
I think the 3 year residency rule is a joke. It's much more ridiculous to have say Craig Wing playing for Japan than letting someone with two Tongan parents and a Tongan passport, that has one or two caps for Australia or New Zealand, play test rugby for Tonga.
Farking hell, what were you doing 3 years ago?
To ply your professional 3 years in a different nation is a massive commitment, let the man play.
You could have a bachelors degree and a masters in the time (if you did 6 subjects a year, it's doable).
Farking hell, what were you doing 3 years ago?
To ply your professional 3 years in a different nation is a massive commitment, let the man play.
You could have a bachelors degree and a masters in the time (if you did 6 subjects a year, it's doable).
I'd be okay with that as well. But I'd also love to see a time when Samoa or Fiji or Tonga are regularly poaching players from Australia and England because they had a granny born on an island.
I think this is the video you're looking for.
The point is it quite clearly benefits the rich nations over poorer nations. And the rich nations surely have enough advantages as it is!
Wealthy nations like Australia can sign promising young players from the islands and after 3 years take their pick. The islands get left with the players not good enough for the Wallabies, All Blacks, France, England etc. It helps maintain the status quo.
It really is a shame that the only time we ever really see Fiji, Samoa and Tonga at full strength these days is at the world cup and that all their best players basically have to play in Europe to get a professional contract and still play for their country. If they were part of the rugby championship every year how many more players would declare for them? How much stronger would they be?
How much better would super rugby be if all of the test players from Samoa, Fiji and Tonga played in the tournament (because lets say they had to do that in order to play in the rugby championship).
I just think it's a shame we have such a closed system. Rugby would be so much more vibrant and interesting at both super rugby and test level with a bit more inclusion and flexibility.
Is it a commitment though, the real sacrifice been made is relinquishing the opportunity to represent their home countries and rather chase the career opportunity of representing one of the higher paying tier 1 countries.
This isn't necessarily directed at Speight but look at some of the players with polynesian heritage playing in Europe and now starting to represent their test teams, i don't doubt for a second if Fiji, Tonga and Samoa were able to offer a similar amount of financial incentive that the tier 1 nations do that we would see significantly stronger pacific island test teams.
There would be a large number in Australia alone, who i don't doubt would happily represent their heritage rather then Australia. The issue is, if said player commits to their pacific islands country then they lose their career in Australia.
I don't know which PI players in Europe you're referring to, but players like Toby Faletau, the Vunipolas and Manu Tualagi ended up in the UK largely because their parents emigrated there.
The last point is hard to fix. Australia isn't exactly bursting at the seems with depth of our own. We're not really in a position to have large numbers of professionals who can't play for Australia. Invariably the players who choose to play for the country of their PI heritage aren't remotely close to playing for the Wallabies so often we're talking about fringe Super Rugby players (like Alex Rokobaro etc.).