The success of League players in Rugby Union

[mxyzptlk]

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.

 

[mxyzptlk]

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.

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).

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.

 

[mxyzptlk]

You do realise Polynesian is an ethnicity?

The debate seems almost more of a political one than an ethnic one. Would Sean Maitland have gone to Scotland if A.) He was getting a chance in a black jersey, and B.) He didn't have grandparents from there that allowed to to start playing Test rugby immediately? In other words, would he still have gone to Scotland if he had to establish residency first?

Maybe another way to look at it is which country can a player legally vote in. Someone in New Zealand may qualify to play for Tonga or Fiji, but if they've always voted in New Zealand, it seems their allegiances have been stated. 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.

 

[Omar Comin']

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.

It wouldn't allow him to vote but it would allow him to get a 5 year ancestry visa into the UK. If he then lived there for that period of time he'd be able to get citizenship after that.

I think you should definitely be allowed to play for a country one of your parents was born in. Grandparents...maybe. But having just 1 grandparent from a place you have little connection with is pushing it a bit.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

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. It just really, really pisses me off when people, deliberately or otherwise, blur the line between them. It's been happening for 40 years that I know of, although less so since the advent of PI/NZ/SA & Aussie guys turning out for the Brits & Irish.

"Actually I've heard that, but mainly in league, and mainly with regard to Queensland, especially in State of Origin discussions"

To lighten the mood perhaps someone who knows how could post a link to the "That's in Queensland" YouTube vid.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Isn't rugby already one of the more strict requirements compared with the Olympics, etc.?

Is this really any issue?

 

[Omar Comin']

It would also gut Samoa & Tonga as hardly any of their players would qualify.

What? None of the Samoan and Tongan players qualify on residency.

We're not talking about making eligibility only possible after 5 years of residency. It would be changing the 3 year residency period to 5 years. It wouldn't affect Samoa and Tonga at all. All their players qualify through birth or ancestry.

 

[mxyzptlk]

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.

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.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

I would guess at this point Henry Speight considers himself a Fijian Australian.

He's the one who has made the decision to emigrate here.

Maybe in a perfect world, he'd like to play for Fiji, but to do that he'd either need to be an amateur and live in Fiji or play professional rugby in Europe and be selected for Fiji.

Do you not think that maybe his decision was based more around wanting to be an Australian than cherry picking which country he played rugby for?

The three year continuous residency rule is very similar to the requirements to become an Australian citizen so I hardly see it as being grossly too short.

The three year residency rule is probably a fair one considering professional sporting careers are short lived. It's not like your association with your adopted country ends after the three year residency period is up. Essentially that is when it begins. Craig Wing has been living and playing in Japan for five years now.

The question of players changing countries is quite different in my opinion and not simple to answer. There are obvious ones such as Soseni Anesi who played one test for the All Blacks and can't represent anyone else. In his case it would be logical to allow him to represent Samoa.

Would it help Fiji to have Sitiveni Sivivatu play on the wing for Fiji now after 45 tests for NZ? It probably would in the short term but it would also deny someone else a chance who might have a much longer career for them. You would risk making the Pacific Islander nations fill their teams with a bunch of old, big names who really aren't up to it anymore but put bums on seats because they're famous.

Like anything, the IRB has to come up with a one size fits all rule for these situations.

 

[wamberal]

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.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

Well, come up with a proposal for how it should work then.

You have said that a single rule is inappropriate and then provided a lovely narrative of living overseas but provided no discussion on what would work better.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And none of that really gives any reason why the current system works.

Europe is what is saving the players from smaller nations as they can make great money, yet still represent their country of birth.

Without this their option would be to come to Aus/NZ/SA/Eng as foreign development players.

 

[en_force_er]

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).

 

[TOCC]

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).

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.

 

[Omar Comin']

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).

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.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

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.

Yep & yep.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

The system benefits the players who are free to ply their trade as professionals wherever they want. The big advantage Australia, NZ and other wealthy countries have is that they attract migration. If you look at most players born overseas playing for Australia or NZ, they didn't move here for football opportunities, their families moved here for better opportunities in life.

It would be awesome if the Pacific Nations were stronger but they don't have the money or domestic markets to operate professional leagues or fund teams in Super Rugby etc.

I disagree completely with your paragraph about wealthy nations like Australia being able to recruit young PI players and then taking their pick after three years. I don't think this plays out in reality in any discernible way.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.).

 

[Pfitzy]

How many of these players are League Players again?

Sorry to get back on topic.

 

[TOCC]

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.).

I'm no encyclopaedia of rugby players, but Nathan Hughes for starters; "I have had chats with Fiji and Samoa over the phone but nothing face-to-face," said Hughes. "The World Cup is something to consider, but in two years I will qualify for England. It is a hard decision to make and I will not be rushing into anything; I am still young and developing as a player."

As for the last point, once again its an unfortunate byproduct of professionalism, everyone can understand why the ARU has made that ruling on player eligibility, but it has invariably lead to players relinquishing the opportunity to represent their home country.
New Zealand is also in a similar boat, I'm not completely familiar with the NZRU contractual process but i believe they have restricted their squads to 2 foreign players. Given teams like the Chiefs already have their 2 foreign players, if a third player opted to represent his home country he would relinquish his super rugby contract when it comes up for renegotiation.

I don't know what the solution is, until Fiji, Samoa and Tonga can start to pay their test players and internatinoal unions restrict their rulings on foreign players in the club competitions the issue will continue.