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
International Test Matches
Questions about NZ rugby from afar
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="wayner" data-source="post: 273995"><p>Sorry folks - I am not trying to insult New Zealanders - I love rugby and the All Blacks are my favourite team because I love the exciting style of rugby that they play. As a former player and as a fan I look to NZ as the "mother country" of rugby where the sport is the unequivocal number one sport. My favourite player of all time is Lomu and I love watching guys like Richie McCaw play the game.</p><p></p><p>It is just that the perspective from North America is a bit different as international sports are less important than winning club championships, even though some of our sports, such as basketball and ice hockey, are now very global. We have many European and American ice hockey players who come to Canada as teenagers to hone their skills - the best ones stay on to play professional hockey but still represent their native country (i.e. Russia) in international competitions. And many Canadians play ice hockey for the nation of their parents, just as I believe there are New Zealanders/Aussies/South Africans playing rugby for Scotland, Canada, USA, Italy, etc. From a North American perspective it seems overly restrictive to enforce national team players to play domestically so I want to understand the rationale for doing so - and what is mentioned above makes sense. And the most global sport that pretty much everyone is familiar with - soccer - doesn't seem to have these restrictions.</p><p></p><p>Brazil is an example of a country where the national soccer team manages to thrive even though very few, if any, of the national team players play on domestic teams. Perhaps the difference between NZ and Brazil is that Brazil has 180 million people and is therefore much bigger than New Zealand, and even SA and Aus.</p><p></p><p>If a player moves over to England or NZ or Aus as a child then I don't have a problem with them playing for their adopted country. If they move over from a rugby minnow (and by this I mean any country other than the 3 or 6 Nations) at 15 or 16 to attend a school to improve their rugby skills and then play for England or the ABs or Wallabies then I think that is somewhat unfair to the player's native country and detrimental to the development of rugby as a whole since you are weakening a team, like Fiji, that struggles to be in the top 10 rankings in the game. I think the example cited for soccer is somewhat different since there are dozens of countries that are competitive in soccer. In rugby I would only give 7 countries a realistic chance to win the next RWC (perhaps I am being charitable to Ireland and Wales in grouping them with the TriNations, England and France) - that is not enough and this situation is getting worse rather than better and rugby will not grow as a global game as a consequence.</p><p></p><p>Maybe you folks from the traditional rugby powers don't understand this but it is frustrating as a Canadian to see the competitiveness of our national rugby team fall back, even though we are not necessarilly dropping in terms of our international ranking. It just seems that the gulf between the 3Nations, England, France, Ireland, Wales and the rest of the world seems to be widening (Argentina is a notable exception) and I am questioning whether this movement of players is making it worse.</p><p></p><p>There is a bitter example of losing a prospective teenager in Canadian soccer. Owen Hargreaves was born and raised in Canada but plays for England in soccer - he left the country at 16 for Bayern Munich in Germany and is eligible for England because his parents are English - even though he didn't even play for a club based in England (at least not when he first played for England). Canada has only once qualified for the soccer world cup - it would sure help if we had Hargreaves on our side.</p><p></p><p>Similarly if Daniel Carter or Richie McCaw had been born and raised in Canada or the US to New Zealand parents and went to NZ to develop his rugby skills and stayed to play for the ABs then I don't think that is right and I think that would hurt the growth of the game.</p><p></p><p>By the way - how do the NH club teams afford the salaries to lure players from the SH? When I watch the Guiness Premiership (or Magners) games the crowds seems very sparse - they can't be making much money from attendance. Do they get lots of money from TV rights? Do they make it all from Heineken Cup? Is the TV revenue at risk or dropping?</p><p></p><p>And by the way GingerGenious - Lennox Lewis is Canadian - as is Greg Rusedski.</p><p></p><p>p.s. Didn't some former ABs play for Japan in a RWC in the past? They have since changed the rules, haven't they?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wayner, post: 273995"] Sorry folks - I am not trying to insult New Zealanders - I love rugby and the All Blacks are my favourite team because I love the exciting style of rugby that they play. As a former player and as a fan I look to NZ as the "mother country" of rugby where the sport is the unequivocal number one sport. My favourite player of all time is Lomu and I love watching guys like Richie McCaw play the game. It is just that the perspective from North America is a bit different as international sports are less important than winning club championships, even though some of our sports, such as basketball and ice hockey, are now very global. We have many European and American ice hockey players who come to Canada as teenagers to hone their skills - the best ones stay on to play professional hockey but still represent their native country (i.e. Russia) in international competitions. And many Canadians play ice hockey for the nation of their parents, just as I believe there are New Zealanders/Aussies/South Africans playing rugby for Scotland, Canada, USA, Italy, etc. From a North American perspective it seems overly restrictive to enforce national team players to play domestically so I want to understand the rationale for doing so - and what is mentioned above makes sense. And the most global sport that pretty much everyone is familiar with - soccer - doesn't seem to have these restrictions. Brazil is an example of a country where the national soccer team manages to thrive even though very few, if any, of the national team players play on domestic teams. Perhaps the difference between NZ and Brazil is that Brazil has 180 million people and is therefore much bigger than New Zealand, and even SA and Aus. If a player moves over to England or NZ or Aus as a child then I don't have a problem with them playing for their adopted country. If they move over from a rugby minnow (and by this I mean any country other than the 3 or 6 Nations) at 15 or 16 to attend a school to improve their rugby skills and then play for England or the ABs or Wallabies then I think that is somewhat unfair to the player's native country and detrimental to the development of rugby as a whole since you are weakening a team, like Fiji, that struggles to be in the top 10 rankings in the game. I think the example cited for soccer is somewhat different since there are dozens of countries that are competitive in soccer. In rugby I would only give 7 countries a realistic chance to win the next RWC (perhaps I am being charitable to Ireland and Wales in grouping them with the TriNations, England and France) - that is not enough and this situation is getting worse rather than better and rugby will not grow as a global game as a consequence. Maybe you folks from the traditional rugby powers don't understand this but it is frustrating as a Canadian to see the competitiveness of our national rugby team fall back, even though we are not necessarilly dropping in terms of our international ranking. It just seems that the gulf between the 3Nations, England, France, Ireland, Wales and the rest of the world seems to be widening (Argentina is a notable exception) and I am questioning whether this movement of players is making it worse. There is a bitter example of losing a prospective teenager in Canadian soccer. Owen Hargreaves was born and raised in Canada but plays for England in soccer - he left the country at 16 for Bayern Munich in Germany and is eligible for England because his parents are English - even though he didn't even play for a club based in England (at least not when he first played for England). Canada has only once qualified for the soccer world cup - it would sure help if we had Hargreaves on our side. Similarly if Daniel Carter or Richie McCaw had been born and raised in Canada or the US to New Zealand parents and went to NZ to develop his rugby skills and stayed to play for the ABs then I don't think that is right and I think that would hurt the growth of the game. By the way - how do the NH club teams afford the salaries to lure players from the SH? When I watch the Guiness Premiership (or Magners) games the crowds seems very sparse - they can't be making much money from attendance. Do they get lots of money from TV rights? Do they make it all from Heineken Cup? Is the TV revenue at risk or dropping? And by the way GingerGenious - Lennox Lewis is Canadian - as is Greg Rusedski. p.s. Didn't some former ABs play for Japan in a RWC in the past? They have since changed the rules, haven't they? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Questions about NZ rugby from afar
Top