Rugby World Cup 2003 - The Rugby Widows Weep!

[Mickeyj]

Originally posted by Havak


Of course I take the contrary view to Andydog there – I feel they should only be able to play for their own country full stop

Very rich, so how's young Abbott doing? I'll not mention Catt as you can keep him, probably the most over-rated player in world rugby (excluding Healy of course).

It seems money is more important at the moment, Pierre de Villiers to France, both Daniel Vickerman and Clyde Rathbone (SA under 21 captain) have made the move to aus and it sure isn't for the women.

[Havak]

Well, as always, the real problem lies in England

And this has exactly what to do with the young man kicking his heels in New Zealand?

Yes players are directly contracted to clubs here. All the clubs happily release English players at the moment. Most will release overseas players on a non-salaried basis. Several overseas players choose to stick with their lucrative club contracts instead of tuppence Island contracts - you can't blame them on that basis.

But lets approach the problem from the right direction and make their Unions worth playing for rather than pick on English clubs yet again.

[finbar]

Fulltime:

Fiji 41 -d- Japan 13

Oh well. More of the same old thing, really. Japan can compete for three quarters, but the last one finds them out against physical opposition. Busting their small frames takes it out of them. They caught Fiji's fumble-itis in the second half and Fiji gradually overpowered them. Fiji, as expected, never clicked as a team. Their tries were all individual efforts, one of them quite stunning. The good Japanese winger struggled - he found an opponent who was just as quick but twice his size.

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Havak
Of course I take the contrary view to Andydog there – I feel they should only be able to play for their own country full stop

It wouldn’t work in NZ, for reasons I’ve banged on about before - there is too much variation in our population and everyone’s blood is ultimately a mixture of immigrants (mainly from the Islands, Asia, and Europe) that arrived during some point in the last 250 years. It would be too difficult (and very wrong in our eyes) to draw the line as to who can play for us and who can’t.

And to impose a 4 year minimum residency rule would be pointless – you’d still get just the same mix of ancestry in the AB squad, you’d only be excluding those who haven’t lived here long enough, and that is not an acceptable reason to needlessly exclude segments of our population. As I’ve said before, it goes against all that is NZ.

The policy of ‘if you live in NZ, you can play our rugby’, is here to stay. There will be too much opposition to the prospect of pointlesss discrimination I’m afraid.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Mickeyj
Just attaching a newspaper clipping of what it feels like to be a saffa at the moment.

Grating but...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
But lets approach the problem from the right direction and make their Unions worth playing for rather than pick on English clubs yet again.

Um ... no. Sorry. I think I'd rather pick on English clubs.

Aside: "Talk about leaving an opening you could drive a Fijian prop through!".

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Fulltime:

Fiji 41 -d- Japan 13

Oh well. More of the same old thing, really. Japan can compete for three quarters, but the last one finds them out against physical opposition. Busting their small frames takes it out of them. They caught Fiji's fumble-itis in the second half and Fiji gradually overpowered them. Fiji, as expected, never clicked as a team. Their tries were all individual efforts, one of them quite stunning. The good Japanese winger struggled - he found an opponent who was just as quick but twice his size.

I thought the Fidjians had also the same 'last 20 minutes" problem and that it would not be an important factor.

[Havak]

Ah Mickeyj you misread me totally - I'm not a fan of border hopping at all. Mike Catt should not be able to play for England (and if he lasts five mins without injury Sunday I'll be amazed anyway)

Abbott is tricker for me - my instinct is that he shouldn't qualify as he was raised in South Africa - but I believe his mother is actually English and that seems reasonable enough given what some other sides get away with.

The problem is I can't do anything about it - two Boks have been picked for us and I'll not stop supporting us just for that reason.

On the plus side Catt is end of career and come the six nations as long as young Ollie Smith has stayed injury free in the meantime Abbotts brief tenure should come to an end too.

I've also grilled Finbar about Vickerman and Rathbone - but I don't think he has a problem with either.

But then the Kefu's are from 'northern' Australia too.

Oh and Healey - yeah he can be shocking at times but by god could your boys have done with him Saturday - an unpredictable game breaker is what both sides lacked.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Mickeyj
Very rich, so how's young Abbott doing? I'll not mention Catt as you can keep him, probably the most over-rated player in world rugby (excluding Healy of course).

It should apply to them too. And the Welsh and French Kiwis etc.

[Havak]

It would be too difficult (and very wrong in our eyes) to draw the line as to who can play for us and who can’t.

It’s an artificial difficulty. What could be easier than saying “you personally were not born here therefore you do not qualify”. You could then add caveats to cover such things as parents relocating for work when you were a minor BUT importantly have a panel composed of members from different Unions (i.e an IRB committee) vote on each case to stop abuse of the system.

Or we could just do what the IRB seems to prefer and do nothing.

The All Blacks may sweep all before them – but New Zealand never will. The country name has been wiped from the branding right?

you’d only be excluding those who haven’t lived here long enough, and that is not an acceptable reason to needlessly exclude segments of our population

Um, yes it is. If you are not born in New Zealand and currently have not lived there three years you cannot pull on a black shirt by the current regulations. So where exactly is your point here?

We are talking sport here, not human rights. And please don’t bring hints of racism into it – I’m talking about where people are born not their colour or ethnic ancestry. And specifically talking about the way Unions abuse eligibility to their own ends. That’s not an attack specifically on the ABs – but you can’t absolve them simply by saying in effect ‘we are multicultural with a transient population from Australasia therefore anyone in the borders on x date should qualify’ – that’s ludicrous and would end up with tourists playing.

Let me clarify – I don’t give a monkey if Joe A, born in Auckland, whose parents are German-French plays for the ABs. That’s quite legitimate. But say there’s a Joe B, born in Fiji to Fijian parents, whose talent is spotted young and his family relocated to NZ whilst he is still a minor, and he ends up playing for the ABs – it’s wrong pure and simple. There’s simply no moral argument for it. And it can be stopped. Luckily for you the IRB won’t do so for a while – they seem to live in fear of upsetting the ABs.

In the final analysis, regardless of what you or I think, eligibility will be tightened. Because our sport likes to think it is Professional these days – and Professional sports regulate such things. I live for the day I see an all NZ born AB side take the field.

Try to take a step back and consider this – if English scouts were visiting NZ and whisking away every talented 15 year old and their families to England – and three years later they were back out there touring in an England shirt – how would you feel?

[Mickeyj]

Originally posted by Andydog
The policy of ‘if you live in NZ, you can play our rugby’, is here to stay. There will be too much opposition to the prospect of pointlesss discrimination I’m afraid.

Unions like Fiji cannot afford to offer players the money that the NZ unions are offering, effectivly NZ are buying fine players for their national team.

Stopping nation hopping will prevent the plundering of good players from smaller nations. A bit like the English plundering the colonies. Taking top players harms rugby at a grass roots level, less supporters watch live matches as all the good players are playing overseas. Good players are crowd pullers and will in turn raise funds for the unions. How many fijians have Sky TV to watch the super 12?

And to contradict everything I have just said, the Little brothers were fantastic ambasadors for rugby by returning to play for Fiji once their NZ spells were over.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


I thought the Fidjians had also the same 'last 20 minutes" problem and that it would not be an important factor.

The Japanese tire. The Fijians get lazy. They got lazy tonight, too, but were just too strong.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I've also grilled Finbar about Vickerman and Rathbone - but I don't think he has a problem with either.

Sorry. As I said at the time, Vickerman came here with his parents as a late teenager. They migrated here as a family. They weren't lured here. His parents chose to leave South Africa. Their choice. Under your rules, because Vickerman wasn't born here, and even though he's a naturalised Australian, he would have to return to South Africa to play Test rugby. Unfortunately, the situation - or the solution, anyway - isn't as simple as you seek to imply.

I'm not privy to Rathbone's personal life, but I suspect he has come here for purely rugby reasons. As I said at the time, given that he'd already represented South Africa, I had a problem with that. Yet his grandmother is Australian. You don't seem to have a problem with mothers. How about grandmothers?

And what of Steve Devine? His talents were totally ignored in this state. It's his perfect right to want to play rugby at the highest level. He migrated. He is now a New Zealander. And he is playing rugby at the highest level. Under your rules, he would still be playing club rugby in Sydney.

Sorry, old son, and I know you won't take this the wrong way, but your rules have a Tory scent about them.

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Havak
It’s an artificial difficulty. What could be easier than saying “you personally were not born here therefore you do not qualify”.

It may be easy for the English to say it, but it ain’t for us. I would consider such a rule in our country to be totally pathetic. There is such variation in our population with people coming and going all the time, who gives a monkeys anus where they happened to be born? I really don’t know how else to explain it to you so you’ll understand.

And specifically talking about the way Unions abuse eligibility to their own ends.

That is a separate issue, and without going too far into it, I actually agree that this is wrong, especially when it causes other rugby nations to struggle. However there are much much better ways to deal with the problem than introduce nonsensical ‘you weren’t born here so bugger off’ type rules.

Let me clarify – I don’t give a monkey if Joe A, born in Auckland, whose parents are German-French plays for the ABs. That’s quite legitimate. But say there’s a Joe B, born in Fiji to Fijian parents, whose talent is spotted young and his family relocated to NZ whilst he is still a minor, and he ends up playing for the ABs – it’s wrong pure and simple.

Luring him away may be wrong, but if Joe B came on his own accord to pursue a rugby career I don’t see any wrong in it at all. I couldn’t imagine anything worse than playing rugby with Joe B, who may love his rugby, and considers NZ as his home having spent a few years here, making friends, etc, and knowing that this poor old Joe B could never play for the ABs. I’d be ashamed.

Try to take a step back and consider this – if English scouts were visiting NZ and whisking away every talented 15 year old and their families to England – and three years later they were back out there touring in an England shirt – how would you feel?

If they liked living in England and now consider themselves English, I can honestly say I wouldn’t have a problem with it. And that’s the truth.


Clearly we have different attitudes to those born outside our countries (and I’m not suggesting anyone here is xenophobic!). I guess my attitude has arisen out of being brought up in mixed cultures with all sorts of different people, and also from the fact that I have done a fair bit of travelling recently. I’ve seen how much some countries miss out by not welcoming immigrants and embracing their particular culture. And I’m going to stop there before this turns into a debate on the merits of immigration.

[Andydog]

Actually I've just read over that and don't mean to suggest that England has a bad attitude towards foreigners. I’ve found quite the opposite to be true, and I enjoy living in London amongst such variety of culture.