• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Former players turn out for Tier 2 Nations

Every other nation benefits from islander players except the island s

If this was about Manu Tuilagi, or Henry Speight, or Waisake Naholo then fair enough.
But it's not, you're saying the PI teams are entitled to players who aren't from there, weren't raised there, have never played there. You want to benefit from the Kiwi (/Australia) rugby systems.

The Barritts have Irish blood, should Ireland be ****** off at New Zealand? Crotty too.
Same question for Scotland re: Richie McCaw?


I know crazy request but just something that seems really unfair
Except it's not unfair in the slightest.
You could say it's unfair taking players like Manu etc. but it would be massively unfair if Samoa/Tonga/Fiji could just bring in experienced All Blacks/Wallabies etc. players
 
I haven't read the thread so I might be repeating what has already been said but there is a real danger that this could actually be worse for the tier2 nations. As it is, it must be incredibly difficult to decide whether to represent your native country or another that you qualify for that potentially offers higher quality matches, more money, better World Cup prospects, etc.

If we have a system that allows the player to reverse that decision later on then I think it becomes much easier to take the latter option and the tier 2 nations will lose more of their players, with only the consolation prize of them returning after their prime.
 
The Barritts have Irish blood, should Ireland be ****** off at New Zealand? Crotty too.
Same question for Scotland re: Richie McCaw?
rule would apply to them as well. doesnt just apply to islanders.


Except it's not unfair in the slightest.
You could say it's unfair taking players like Manu etc. but it would be massively unfair if Samoa/Tonga/Fiji could just bring in experienced All Blacks/Wallabies etc. players

dont blame u for not reading all my posts but tuilagi is mentioned.
isnt it just as unfair for the players who can still play at international level being denied because they played a couple of tests for a tier1 nation?
theres no answer to this. people like you find it unfair for eg Samoan players to play for Samoa because they've represented another nation in order to feed their families and have better opportunities. unless your from Samoa you wont really see the injustice.
i dont blame that you want the ABs to dominate and your worried about Samoa being a super power with exABs. its a justified fear. Samoa (and Tonga and Fiji etc) would be awesome with their exABs,
and that is the real reason for these eligibilty rules. it isnt to help tier2 nations, its for the haves to keep what they have in order to stay on top.
 
it would be massively unfair if Samoa/Tonga/Fiji could just bring in experienced All Blacks/Wallabies etc. players
but these players are still Samoan (or Tongan, Fijian) and they cant play for Samoa, but the could play for NZ (or Aus, Eng, Irenland etc)? ...and the tier1 nations don't want them anymore.

isnt being a Samoan a better reason for playing for Samoa than qualifying through residency? isnt being a Samoan, a massivley good reason to be allowed to play for Samoa?

nonu and vito could still cut up at international level. it would be awesome for the island nations to have so much talent available to them.

wouldve been awesome to have seen jerry play in blue

and i dont mind Island players playing for other nations. good on them for doing whats right for their families. its definitely not their fault for wanting a better life and opportunities for them and their families.
 
people like you find it unfair for eg Samoan players to play for Samoa because they've represented another nation in order to feed their families and have better opportunities.
You keep saying this but do you have ANY evidence that Maa Nonu didn't actually want to play for the all blacks but wanted to play for samoa instead, and only decided to play for the all blacks because of money?
He was born and raised in NZ, he grew up dreaming of playing for the ABs.

And yes I do think it's massively unfair for anyone to switch allegiance regardless of how much a country does or doesn't want to play them. If they felt strongly enough about playing for X, Y, Z nation then they should have done so. They know the rules, don't cry about it afterwards because you got 103 caps and now want to play for someone else.
 
You keep saying this but do you have ANY evidence that Maa Nonu didn't actually want to play for the all blacks but wanted to play for samoa instead, and only decided to play for the all blacks because of money?
He was born and raised in NZ, he grew up dreaming of playing for the ABs.

And yes I do think it's massively unfair for anyone to switch allegiance regardless of how much a country does or doesn't want to play them. If they felt strongly enough about playing for X, Y, Z nation then they should have done so. They know the rules, don't cry about it afterwards because you got 103 caps and now want to play for someone else.

im not crying. and nor do i expect you to understsand. as long as UK is looked after and have all the money and resources at their disposal who cares about the islanderss? your the perfect example of the mentality of why the Island nations are suffering whilst all the other nations benefit from the Islander players.

thank you TRF_Olyy for illustrating why the haves protect what they have and how they use the rules to their advantage to keep the status quo. your a shining example of why the rules want to be kept the same
 
deleted posted in error sorry
 
The rules should be kept because it preserves the sanctity of international rugby.
The whole point of international rugby is it's the best players for each country.

If you allow players to just pick and choose countries after already representing another then international rugby is no different to club rugby.

Your views on this whole situation are crazy and you just come across as massively entitled.


And, once again, YOU want the Islands to benefit massively from everyone else whilst also condoning everyone else. It's crazy.
Imagine how ****** Samoa would be without New Zealand training the 17/30 Kiwi born players in the samoan squad atm. What if they turned around and said "Oh wait your Grandparents are Samoan? Sorry we won't allow you to come through our systems, you're samoan not a new zealander." That's what you're saying right now.
 
The rules should be kept because it preserves the sanctity of international rugby.
sorry that is such BS. what "sanctity of international rugby" if bundeeAki, who has zero irish blood, can wait a few years and play for ireland? or manuTuilagi who has no english blood or connection , other than his brothers playing in Europe? or tanieluTupou, a tongan, who grew up in NZ goes to play for Australia? or fekitoa, jerryCollins, sitveniSivivatu...
wheres this sanctity when it counts? but i'm not begrudging these guys getting the best contract they can get to earn money for their families. i applaud them and with manuTuilagi i'm proud that Samoa boy has aspired and reached playing for the richest rugby nation on the planet. nor do i blame the island boys for playing for the ABs to be amongst the best.

my argument isnt just about the islands (tho i can understand why u think it is), its about tier1 benefiting massively off tier2 nations. i dont mean to sound entitled and nor am i just espousing just on behalf of Samoa. its just the example that im familiar with and why i feel so strongly about this situation but i'm arguing about all nations and the rule in general and how it affects tier2 .
 
And, once again, YOU want the Islands to benefit massively from everyone else whilst also condoning everyone else. It's crazy.
Imagine how ****** Samoa would be without New Zealand training the 17/30 Kiwi born players in the samoan squad atm. What if they turned around and said "Oh wait your Grandparents are Samoan? Sorry we won't allow you to come through our systems, you're samoan not a new zealander." That's what you're saying right now.
no thats not what i'm saying. again your a have that want s to stop the have nots.
but its ok for tier1 nations to benefit? thats my point.
and dont tell me NZ developed them, because thats only half the equation. their genetics gave them their speed, strength , co-ordination and warrior spirit.
 
and dont take this personally or get personal. it detracts from the argument and this is a topic i enjoy arguing and trading ideas about
 
Many think three year residency period was a joke and welcome the extension to five years. I'm sure it will increase the proportion of a national squad that were actually schooled and trained in the country they represent. To me that is the entire point of international sporting competition.

That residency has been overly lax in recent years is not an argument for being more lax based on grand-parentage.

If you expect a governing body that fought so hard to increase residency to 5 years to turn around and make the grandparent rule more loose to encourage greater shirt hopping between national teams then I think disappointment awaits.
 
If you expect a governing body that fought so hard to increase residency to 5 years to turn around and make the grandparent rule more loose to encourage greater shirt hopping between national teams then I think disappointment awaits.
Bruce_ma_goose - yes i agree , this is just a exercise in futile idea swapping and arguing
 
but its ok for tier1 nations to benefit? thats my point.
Benefit from players born and produced there? Yeah, of course they should. Why should PI sides benefit from everyone else's time training and money?
If Kiwi born players choose to player for PI sides (as more than half of the Samoan side have done) then fair enough, that's within the rules and they can make that choice if they want to.

I don't give a **** who players choose to play for, I do care about making international rugby a mockery which is exactly what this idea is all about.
This has absolutely nothing to do with tier 1 vs tier 2, stop being such a martyr.
 
I don't give a **** who players choose to play for, I do care about making international rugby a mockery which is exactly what this idea is all about.
This has absolutely nothing to do with tier 1 vs tier 2, stop being such a martyr.
international rugby its already a mockery as mentioned in my earlier blogs. unless your turning a convenient blind eye.
and im definitely not being a matyr, im not that altuistic or noble. i for one know this will never happen because the haves want to deny the have nots and keep them down where they are.
and what u mean is you dont give a **** about the tier2 teams. like i said earlier; i understand. your not Samoan (or Fijian, Tongan etc) so u dont give a ****. u are one of those that are the haves.
if this idea was given credence then the statusQuo would be challenged and there would be more than just 4 teams challenging for the WC.
 
Why should PI sides benefit from everyone else's time training and money?
for the same reason that teir1 nations benefit from these islanders genetics and warrior spirit.
and lets not make out how altruistic the tier1 nations are in developing these players. its for the benefit of their rugby and these players repay that development by winning games for them.
 
Five Meters Out, i dont get what you lose in this and why youre opposed to players playing for their home countries (and yes it is their home countries. islander kiwi's can have more than one home. i have Upolu and Wellington). in most cases the reason they played for the tier1 nation in the first place was an obscure reason that was a stretch and solely to get a non tier1 national into a tier1 team eg residency (NZ players who were born here aside)
 
OOps - posted a blank.
Just to say I'm not totally opposed to New Zealand born rugby players of Pacific Island decent, returning to play for wherever their parents/grandparents came from. I like the more than 5 years/less than 5 games since playing for the All Blacks rule. I could go with that.
I'd go further to say the Pacific Island boys brought to NZ by schools and France by clubs in their teens, should be free to return to play for their Island nation at any time.
However a born and bred New Zealander of Samoan heritage, such as Charles Piutau, brought through the NZ schools and academy system, nurtured by the All Blacks would be a different story. His wanting to now play for Samoa merely sounds opportunistic to me and shouldn't be allowed to happen.
 
OOps - posted a blank.
Just to say I'm not totally opposed to New Zealand born rugby players of Pacific Island decent, returning to play for wherever their parents/grandparents came from. I like the more than 5 years/less than 5 games since playing for the All Blacks rule. I could go with that.
I'd go further to say the Pacific Island boys brought to NZ by schools and France by clubs in their teens, should be free to return to play for their Island nation at any time.
However a born and bred New Zealander of Samoan heritage, such as Charles Piutau, brought through the NZ schools and academy system, nurtured by the All Blacks would be a different story. His wanting to now play for Samoa merely sounds opportunistic to me and shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Pistau is Tongan. Good point which I'll argue when get back
 

Latest posts

Top