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
New Players
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="Charles" data-source="post: 193710"><p>Read Frenchie, Read</p><p></p><p>Post 13 of this very thread : <a href="http://www.therugbyforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=39292&view=findpost&p=317393" target="_blank">http://www.therugbyforum.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=317393</a></p><p></p><p>But why bother scrolling up when you can just make yourself look like an idiot... again</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How's it flawed logic - Your saying that he was poached by New Zealand Rugby - the fact of the matter is he moved to New Zealand at the behest of his own countrymen when he barely and is only as good as he is today because he came up through the New Zealand rugby system. You make it out like he was fully developed as a Rugby player and that the NZRFU talent scouts on their annual raiding parties spotted him scoring 16 tries a game against men sides.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Once again, find me a talent scout who can spot a sure fire international player at the age 13-14 and I will personally pay his salary on behalf of the NZRFU. Your whole arguement has been David Smith was poached on the incorrect notion he came at the age 16 - but now your saying it's ok for players who go to a country in their early to mid twenties to play for France, despite the fact France had no role in shaping them into the players they became and didn't help their development one iota. New Zealand on the other hand, bought David Smith up through it's system, through the First XV system as well as age group teams and invested our resources and time into him from a relativley young age. Yet we poached and you lot didn't? :cheers: Good for you son, keep telling yourself that.</p><p> [/b]</p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, some clarifications. Since you didn't response I thought this was a dead case but let's have another round, Kiwi. :bleh!: (Did it take you that long to think and write all of that ?)</p><p></p><p>You say he came at 14, sent by two Samoan coaches . First, why was he advised to go in NZ if it's not rugby ? Makes no sense otherway. :wall: (Maybe the NZRFU WILL pay those scouts after all aye :bleh!: ) That means he had potential to become a good rugby player (maybe).</p><p>Then , in NZ he gets a scholarship at Mt Albert ( age ?). Once again, if it's not for his rugby ability then what ? And then he goes on to play for Auckland in the NPC and everything.</p><p></p><p>So he was effectively formed by NZ. Since he arrived a 14, (no way he could have been formed by the Samoan union, even if they wanted to). For the rugby. Not like Muliaina or So'oialo, who came in NZ with their parents for a better life.Can we agree on that ? </p><p></p><p>Let us now see the case of say Pieter De Villiers.</p><p></p><p>SA born. Goes through the whole SA club system. Plays at Stellenbosch season 94-95. The SA selectors and age groups had like eight years of him playing in SA to select him. </p><p>Arrives in France for the 95-96 season at the age of 23 ( NOT 14). First capped in 99 at 27. SA had plenty of time to cap him if they wanted, in the end they did not, we did. If you can't see the difference with Smith's case, then nothing will do I'm afraid.</p><p></p><p>You got me on the Fcukernaut thing. Scrolled back but somehow didn't see it. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />h34r:</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Charles, post: 193710"] Read Frenchie, Read Post 13 of this very thread : [url="http://www.therugbyforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=39292&view=findpost&p=317393"]http://www.therugbyforum.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=317393[/url] But why bother scrolling up when you can just make yourself look like an idiot... again How's it flawed logic - Your saying that he was poached by New Zealand Rugby - the fact of the matter is he moved to New Zealand at the behest of his own countrymen when he barely and is only as good as he is today because he came up through the New Zealand rugby system. You make it out like he was fully developed as a Rugby player and that the NZRFU talent scouts on their annual raiding parties spotted him scoring 16 tries a game against men sides. Once again, find me a talent scout who can spot a sure fire international player at the age 13-14 and I will personally pay his salary on behalf of the NZRFU. Your whole arguement has been David Smith was poached on the incorrect notion he came at the age 16 - but now your saying it's ok for players who go to a country in their early to mid twenties to play for France, despite the fact France had no role in shaping them into the players they became and didn't help their development one iota. New Zealand on the other hand, bought David Smith up through it's system, through the First XV system as well as age group teams and invested our resources and time into him from a relativley young age. Yet we poached and you lot didn't? :cheers: Good for you son, keep telling yourself that. [/b][/quote] Okay, some clarifications. Since you didn't response I thought this was a dead case but let's have another round, Kiwi. :bleh!: (Did it take you that long to think and write all of that ?) You say he came at 14, sent by two Samoan coaches . First, why was he advised to go in NZ if it's not rugby ? Makes no sense otherway. :wall: (Maybe the NZRFU WILL pay those scouts after all aye :bleh!: ) That means he had potential to become a good rugby player (maybe). Then , in NZ he gets a scholarship at Mt Albert ( age ?). Once again, if it's not for his rugby ability then what ? And then he goes on to play for Auckland in the NPC and everything. So he was effectively formed by NZ. Since he arrived a 14, (no way he could have been formed by the Samoan union, even if they wanted to). For the rugby. Not like Muliaina or So'oialo, who came in NZ with their parents for a better life.Can we agree on that ? Let us now see the case of say Pieter De Villiers. SA born. Goes through the whole SA club system. Plays at Stellenbosch season 94-95. The SA selectors and age groups had like eight years of him playing in SA to select him. Arrives in France for the 95-96 season at the age of 23 ( NOT 14). First capped in 99 at 27. SA had plenty of time to cap him if they wanted, in the end they did not, we did. If you can't see the difference with Smith's case, then nothing will do I'm afraid. You got me on the Fcukernaut thing. Scrolled back but somehow didn't see it. :ph34r: [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
New Players
Top