Aussies 'stealing' NZ players

[admartian]

Am I the only one thinking that this is a little bit Hypocritical coming from NZ? I wonder what Samoa, Tonga and Fiji would say...

I'm sorry, but I believe this to be an ignorant post. Respectfully of course.

If you knew anything of the make up of NZ (or Auckland/Wellington at least) you'd know that NZ isn't poaching those nations. It'd be much the same if you were born in the States and decided to play basketball.

Heck, it wouldn't be poaching if all the millions (seems like it) of South Africans in the North shore played for the ABs.

 

[smartcooky]

Am I the only one thinking that this is a little bit Hypocritical coming from NZ? I wonder what Samoa, Tonga and Fiji would say...

Admartian calls this post ignorant. I won't even grant you that, because ignorance is no excuse for trying to perpetrate a falshood.

There is a world of difference between having a player in your international team who was born in another country but who grew up your country, and taking a fully established adult player who is playing professionally in another country and selecting him for your team on the basis of a grandmother.

In the 100+ years history of All Blacks rugby, there have been 1116 All Blacks. Of these only 78 were not born in New Zealand and of these, only 30 were born in the Pacific Island.... 30 out of 1100 in over 100 years

Out of all of these Pacific Island players, just four came to New Zealand as adult players, i.e. didn't go to school in NZ. They are:

Alama Ieremia (came to NZ to go to University)
John Schuster
Joeli Vidiri
Saimone Taumoepeau

 

[William18]

People should also realise that only about 100,000 people live in Tonga. I don't know the figures but there could be as many as 50,000 Tongans in New Zealand (just guessing). People come to New Zealand obviously because there are far more opportunities here and we have a low crime rate. Now that goes for Pacific Islanders AND South Africans too.

 

[nush]

pfffft whatever, the aussies are not the first or last nation to have players from different countries, seems to me that it was a topic that was brought up so hansen wouldn't have to answer why his team couldn't finish a weakened wallaby side

 

[admartian]

pfffft whatever, the aussies are not the first or last nation to have players from different countries, seems to me that it was a topic that was brought up so hansen wouldn't have to answer why his team couldn't finish a weakened wallaby side

Any Given Saturday/Sunday/Test.

Or are these games still played on paper?

 

[Sam Owen]

Hansen shouldnt have said what he said. Maybe if he said it when the Wallies initially announced him in the squad, then it wouldnt sound so sour but he's mentioned it now after Harris kicked his Wallaby team to a draw. I never heard of Mike Harris before this game, good selection from Deans.

 

[Larksea]

I kinda do have a problem with the mike Harris selection, I think when a player goes through a system in a country they should be tied to that nation. I think maybe a player should be committed to a nation/union at a particular age - like 15? Post 15 is when players start professional development and start getting selected to under 20's teams.

Think about all the time, effort and money that goes into a players development by the time they get to the point where they are professional.

I kinda feel the same way about league. I mean look at the players that come through the NZ schools rugby union system that end up in the NRL.

Sure there are very rare circumstances where the All Blacks benefit from overseas players but it's very very rare. Greg Rawlinson and Steve Divine maybe the only real obvious ones. Greg played 4 tests Steve only 10 hardly significant.

The island thing I don't believe is an issue. Rather than NZ taking advantage of the islands its actually the other way around - in a big way. and I don't really have a problem with it.

Back to the mike Harris thing, sure I think it was a massive failure that he missed out on selection in NZ and was welcomed with open arms overseas at the Reds but should he really be able to represent Australia?

Probably not a big deal, maybe there are more important things to think about. Guess it does smart a bit as a kiwi having a Born and Bread Kiwi being the main factor in preventing an All Black victory. Wonder how it feels for an Aussie having a Born and Bread kiwi being such an important part of a result for Australia. Like yeah well done Wallabies but shame they needed a kiwi to do it...? I know I didn't really like it when Greg Rawlinson played for the AB's, it really did not seem right to me, I honestly would rather watch a local guy even if he was not quite as good.

 

[smartcooky]

I'd like to see the "grandparent" cause done away with altogether. Its a hangover from the days when people could claim British Citizenship if they had a Grandparent born in the UK. What relevance does it have to rugby now? IMO, none.

What I would like to see is a properly constituted contract system that ties a player to a country (of their choice) when they get their first professional contract to play for an Elite level team. In other words, if you are selected for the Blues, or Waikato or Manawatu for the first time, you have to nominate your National allegiance at that time, and then you are stuck with it.

Players in lower level elite teams (ITM Cup, Currie Cup, Shute Shield, Vodacom Cup) could be allowed to play one season on an informal contract for the coaches to asses skills and talents.

This would make it a level playing field for all concerned.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Larksea I see you point, but this is an era of professional sport. A player should be able to do whatever they want to reach their goals as long as it fits within the rules of eligibility. Mike Harris, Brad Thorn, Steve Devine and co, all had an option and made a choice based on what they thought was best for them. I have no issue with that, it is what it is.

It is funny though how I haven't seen anyone posting comments about Harris being a "double agent" like they did with cooper and deans.

 

[RyotoTheDragon]

It is funny though how I haven't seen anyone posting comments about Harris being a "double agent" like they did with cooper and deans.

haha aussie mike harris is a double agent that's not very good at his job. We praised cooper and deans at our double agent awards last year.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

the letter from Deans to Graham Henry that someone made up was awesome, i think it's on greenandgoldrubgy.com

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i think there are a few kiwi's here being way to defensive, i think Hansen was just ****** of and said something stupid.

he needs to ask himself, would i have picked him in my squad?...answer, prob not. if he's not wanted by the ab's and is eligable for aussie then good on him.

no one kicked up a fuss when the likes of chainsaw and John leslie went and played for scotland, because outside of my own house they weren't considered good enough for the AB's...same thing, its just because he score all the points for the aussies and we drew

moving on now :bye:

 

[TRF_heineken]

i think there are a few kiwi's here being way to defensive, i think Hansen was just ****** of and said something stupid.

he needs to ask himself, would i have picked him in my squad?...answer, prob not. if he's not wanted by the ab's and is eligable for aussie then good on him.

no one kicked up a fuss when the likes of chainsaw and John leslie went and played for scotland, because outside of my own house they weren't considered good enough for the AB's...same thing, its just because he score all the points for the aussies and we drew

moving on now :bye:

Exactly!

once again, I apologise for my ignorance @Admartian and @Smartcooky

The perception from Non-NZ are that the All Blacks started with this "poaching" of mainly pacific islanders. In the past our newspapers were covered about articles of players playing for NZ and not being born there.

It only changed in South Africa with Beast, and only after there was a huge fight between SARU and the Government on allowing him to represent South Africa.

Based on what I've read here, and on the social media sites, my perception is shared by a vast majority. And mostly the people who share my views are also non-NZ's.

I really understand what you are telling me and that I might have pulled the lake from underneath the duck, but this is a talking point MANY people in rugby circles or at social occurances talk about. The consensus I'm getting is that Hansen is sour about the draw, and that Mike Harris is the reason why they drew and if he stayed in NZ, then the All Blacks would never have drawn or lost the match...

 

[nickdnz]

Exactly!

once again, I apologise for my ignorance @Admartian and @Smartcooky

The perception from Non-NZ are that the All Blacks started with this "poaching" of mainly pacific islanders. In the past our newspapers were covered about articles of players playing for NZ and not being born there.

It only changed in South Africa with Beast, and only after there was a huge fight between SARU and the Government on allowing him to represent South Africa.

Based on what I've read here, and on the social media sites, my perception is shared by a vast majority. And mostly the people who share my views are also non-NZ's.

I really understand what you are telling me and that I might have pulled the lake from underneath the duck, but this is a talking point MANY people in rugby circles or at social occurances talk about. The consensus I'm getting is that Hansen is sour about the draw, and that Mike Harris is the reason why they drew and if he stayed in NZ, then the All Blacks would never have drawn or lost the match...

Yeah fair enough. Believe me, every New Zealander is aware of the "NZ poach Pacific Islanders" discussion as it's been happening for years - but it's just not the reality that is painted. New Zealand like South Africa, have very, very rarely played players who weren't developed by New Zealand however because of the massive number of PI immigrants in New Zealand in the last 40-50 years, many of them have just been good enough to make the NZ team.

I agree regarding to Hansen - however as I mentioned the journalist asked a loaded question. Titles like "Hansen fuming over Aus poaching" are hyperbole. The reality is he was asked whether or not Mike Harris being selected and kicking all the points was annoying, in which Hansen reacted as per usual. The reality is that Mike Harris wouldn't make most NZ super rugby teams - as besides being a very reliable goal kicker is pretty average. I don't even think Hansen cares about Harris. What he was alluding to was a bigger issue and one that is genunely an issue. When limited resources go towards improving players - for those players to then be poached for a different team is unethical - and ignoring Mike Harris is becoming a bigger and bigger problem, with the likes of Woodward, Winston Stanley, Henry Speight and more all being players who the NZRU have invested in and developed - for Australia to then reap the rewards. Our player development system, which the NZRU funds through money the fans and players give towards, is being used as a substitute for Australia for developing their own talent with their own domestic competition.

So yes, the timing was unfortunate and I can see how it would be easy to say 'Hansen throwing his toys out of the pram' because of the media's coverage, however it doesn't mean that Hansen's point isn't valid. It's not fair that NZRU are investing in players for the ARU to offer them a spot in a national team as an insentive. They already have a kiwi coach...

 

[TRF_heineken]

You should also keep in mind that it's not just the ARU being at fault here, as the players themselves still have to make the choice of going, and whether they want to represent their adopted nation or just play in Oz or wherever.

Hansen didn't at any stage respect the choice that Harris made. So this, to me doesn't make Hansen's statement Hyperbole at all. Hansen said what he said without thinking, without taking other parties into consideration and aimed the attack towards the ARU. and I can understand why John O'neill took offence to it.

Harris, along with many others made a strategic move, which would give him a better, more financially assured future, and in the professional era, money of course plays a huge factor. it would be unfair if NZ didn't allow him to go, as they would then be the sole reason for depriving him from a more financial stability point of view.

 

[smartcooky]

Exactly!

once again, I apologise for my ignorance @Admartian and @Smartcooky

The perception from Non-NZ are that the All Blacks started with this "poaching" of mainly pacific islanders. In the past our newspapers were covered about articles of players playing for NZ and not being born there.

It only changed in South Africa with Beast, and only after there was a huge fight between SARU and the Government on allowing him to represent South Africa.

Based on what I've read here, and on the social media sites, my perception is shared by a vast majority. And mostly the people who share my views are also non-NZ's.

I really understand what you are telling me and that I might have pulled the lake from underneath the duck, but this is a talking point MANY people in rugby circles or at social occurances talk about. The consensus I'm getting is that Hansen is sour about the draw, and that Mike Harris is the reason why they drew and if he stayed in NZ, then the All Blacks would never have drawn or lost the match...

Heineken

Just to give you another perspective on this;

New Zealand's population is 4½ million. Of those about 300,000 are Pacific Islanders (Samoan, Tongan, Fijiam. Rarotongans, Cook Islanders, Niueans etc etc). That is about 6.7%, while the number of registered rugby players in New Zealand is about 150,000, and of those about 42,000 are Pacific Islanders. That is about 28%

So you can see that while only one in fifteen Kiwis is a Pacific Islander, one in four rugby players is. Pacific Islanders are over-represented in rugby, on a per capita basis by a factor of over 4!!!

That is why so many end up in our rugby teams. If you just randomly selected any 22 rugby players from throughout NZ, statically speaking, five or six would be Pacific Islanders.

That trend is "north loaded" too, meaning that the further north you go, the higher the numbers of Pacific Islanders appear in rugby teams. If you wander around the parks and reserves in which rugby is played in Auckland on any given Saturday in the season, it can be difficult to spot the white guys in the teams, especially at Junior levels..

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I heard somewhere that in NZ your youth get seperated into size groups as much as age. Is that accurate?

It makes sense in that it helps with skills development; big guys would need to develop skills to dominate other big guys while small guys who have skill don't get discouraged from playing rugby as they can 'catch up' later because lets face it at age grade a big guy can look brilliant while being so far ahead of the pack ITO sheer physical presence but might get found out later when his size advantage becomes more and moer insignificant.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Heineken

Just to give you another perspective on this;

New Zealand's population is 4½ million. Of those about 300,000 are Pacific Islanders (Samoan, Tongan, Fijiam. Rarotongans, Cook Islanders, Niueans etc etc). That is about 6.7%, while the number of registered rugby players in New Zealand is about 150,000, and of those about 42,000 are Pacific Islanders. That is about 28%

So you can see that while only one in fifteen Kiwis is a Pacific Islander, one in four rugby players is. Pacific Islanders are over-represented in rugby, on a per capita basis by a factor of over 4!!!

That is why so many end up in our rugby teams. If you just randomly selected any 22 rugby players from throughout NZ, statically speaking, five or six would be Pacific Islanders.

That trend is "north loaded" too, meaning that the further north you go, the higher the numbers of Pacific Islanders appear in rugby teams. If you wander around the parks and reserves in which rugby is played in Auckland on any given Saturday in the season, it can be difficult to spot the white guys in the teams, especially at Junior levels..

No I get this, but this still gives the impression that while they immigrate to NZ, they are still seen as Pacific Islanders, and that they go to NZ for better opportunities, which undoubtedly there will be in NZ. How is this in any way different when a South African family immigrates to NZ or Australia? None whatsoever. in ther near future we will see many South African Expats' children run out for Australia, especially due to the large contingent of Saffas living in Perth. Yet, what can we say? Oz stole them? nope, SA wasn't the place for them? most probably. Most Saffas move to Oz as they are fed up with crime, and all of them are closet racists. so they move to a place where they will be accepted.

Either way you want to look at any of this scenarios. the fact will always remain, Non-NZ's will always see NZ as poaching pacific islanders, no matter what the stats say or how much convincing there will be made. SA Expats moving to Oz will always be seen as pussy racists that will not be welcomed back to SA with open arms... and so on.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, and kudo's to you, but this won't change my mind on how I view things.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I don't agree that every white South African moving to Aus is a racist. I am not effected overly much by our current government but I won't tell someone they are this or that when they decide to make a move to a place with better opportunities for them and their children. Many of these people are effected by; crime (I know someone who up and left after his house was burgled 3 times in just over a month), particularly violent crime like rape and murder is rampant in SA, farm murders targeting white farmers, land reappropriation, BEE and affirmative action means they might not stand a chance of getting a job. Look at food technologists and Woolworths saying point blank they won't give a job to a white person. When it comes to your livelyhood and/or the safety of you family I say, move and good luck to you even though I see it as a great pity.

Talks of privatisation and the general corruption in our government. A steadily lowering of the value of the Rand and criminals being released back onto the streets en masse due to jails not having enough capacity. Brain drain, ever lowering standars in education, poor management and maintenece of infrastructure... I'd say there is a lot of reasons to leave and I'd welcome anyone back who would want to come back.

 

[William18]

You should also keep in mind that it's not just the ARU being at fault here, as the players themselves still have to make the choice of going, and whether they want to represent their adopted nation or just play in Oz or wherever.

Hansen didn't at any stage respect the choice that Harris made. So this, to me doesn't make Hansen's statement Hyperbole at all. Hansen said what he said without thinking, without taking other parties into consideration and aimed the attack towards the ARU. and I can understand why John O'neill took offence to it.

Harris, along with many others made a strategic move, which would give him a better, more financially assured future, and in the professional era, money of course plays a huge factor. it would be unfair if NZ didn't allow him to go, as they would then be the sole reason for depriving him from a more financial stability point of view.

Well fair enough. Hansen's point (which I think a lot of people seem to be missing) is that there must be inherent problems with Australia's player development if they have to pick a player who would probably be the 6th best first five if he was playing in New Zealand. Surely if you were the ARU you would have to look at your player development for such a situation to arise. Granted Harris is not in Australia's top team and granted most of their players are "true" Australians but, if not publicly, then at least privately there must be concerns in Australian rugby circles.

I'm not worried if other people think we are poaching players. As long as we are not actually poaching players that is what matters to me.