Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Nation Eligibilty Catch-All Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 1136164" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>Whereas this is more interesting. I cannot verify the stats or the definition of 'homegrown', but it still paints a picture. </p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=twitter]1670428782275035143[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>My take:</p><p></p><p>France/England - no issue, privately owned clubs trying to the strengthen their squad. To my surprise I would put Aus in this category as almost all their imports are non-Aussie Q. I could put Italy here too. Huge volume of imports but really struggling to find ItalianQ players. Levels should fall sharply with the extended residency rule and the u20s now being at an adequate standard.</p><p></p><p>Wales/Ireland - a mixture of squad strengthening and project players (which should decline with residency changes). I didn't realise Wales had so many non-WelshQ players. I guess they are doing their bit to try and raise the standard/depth of their sides with foreign players (I wrongly thought they weren't doing enough of that). Add NZ to this category but at a far lower level (like it isn't so determined or organised).</p><p></p><p>Fiji - really positive stats with almost 3/4s of the Drua players being Fijian born already just two years into the project. Again i assumed the Drua were largely ANZAC guys.</p><p></p><p>Moana Pasifika - seemingly exclusively ANZAC guys. But it is only two years into the project and they have said the longer term aim is to develop players born/raised in Samoa and Tonga. If it is still like this in a few years I think questions should be raised about whether this project is an appropriate use of WR funds. </p><p></p><p>Scotland - 6 out of 10 players in the Scottish URC matchday 23s weren't developed by Scotland with almost 2/3rds of these being Scotland Q players. This is what a fully mobilised project player scheme with dedicated recruitment resources can look like. </p><p></p><p>As an aside, Scotland's youth development situation is so dire that this season they have started advertising for non-Scottish Q players with a UK passport to join their domestic Super 6(?7) league, ideally of English championship level (although the advert appears to have now expired). That suggests to me they have too many Super clubs (3x based in Edinburgh).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 1136164, member: 74121"] Whereas this is more interesting. I cannot verify the stats or the definition of 'homegrown', but it still paints a picture. [MEDIA=twitter]1670428782275035143[/MEDIA] My take: France/England - no issue, privately owned clubs trying to the strengthen their squad. To my surprise I would put Aus in this category as almost all their imports are non-Aussie Q. I could put Italy here too. Huge volume of imports but really struggling to find ItalianQ players. Levels should fall sharply with the extended residency rule and the u20s now being at an adequate standard. Wales/Ireland - a mixture of squad strengthening and project players (which should decline with residency changes). I didn't realise Wales had so many non-WelshQ players. I guess they are doing their bit to try and raise the standard/depth of their sides with foreign players (I wrongly thought they weren't doing enough of that). Add NZ to this category but at a far lower level (like it isn't so determined or organised). Fiji - really positive stats with almost 3/4s of the Drua players being Fijian born already just two years into the project. Again i assumed the Drua were largely ANZAC guys. Moana Pasifika - seemingly exclusively ANZAC guys. But it is only two years into the project and they have said the longer term aim is to develop players born/raised in Samoa and Tonga. If it is still like this in a few years I think questions should be raised about whether this project is an appropriate use of WR funds. Scotland - 6 out of 10 players in the Scottish URC matchday 23s weren't developed by Scotland with almost 2/3rds of these being Scotland Q players. This is what a fully mobilised project player scheme with dedicated recruitment resources can look like. As an aside, Scotland's youth development situation is so dire that this season they have started advertising for non-Scottish Q players with a UK passport to join their domestic Super 6(?7) league, ideally of English championship level (although the advert appears to have now expired). That suggests to me they have too many Super clubs (3x based in Edinburgh). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Nation Eligibilty Catch-All Thread
Top