• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Samoa is the most improved International team!

Country do not do the poaching the club will do it like English clubs and players suddenly on some study venture where they get a nice house and car...... Matt Stevens cough cough

Some countries encourage it though. Scotland, Australia, among others.
 
Some countries encourage it though. Scotland, Australia, among others.
Yeah but who do they encourage? Guys who have no chance or is over looked by its own country for selection suddenly gets a chance to play international rugby? Who would say no? Not any. Another chance gets offered.

Normally when these guys suddenly start to perform well at international level the people start to make noise and throw poaching allegations.
 
Yeah but who do they encourage? Guys who have no chance or is over looked by its own country for selection suddenly gets a chance to play international rugby? Who would say no? Not any. Another chance gets offered.

Normally when these guys suddenly start to perform well at international level the people start to make noise and throw poaching allegations.

Hardly the point?
 
Hardly the point?
So Sean Maitland goin over to play for Scotland has nothing to do with the fact that he did not receive a top kiwi contract or the carrot of future AB selection?

Yeah right
 
So Sean Maitland goin over to play for Scotland has nothing to do with the fact that he did not receive a top kiwi contract or the carrot of future AB selection?

Yeah right

Sorry, you misunderstood.

The fact that Scotland etc. is picking up NZ's sloppy seconds doesn't make it any less of a poach. Scotland are still gaining at NZ's expense (the investment put into Maitland). I don't think your ancestors should come into the picture at all, if should purely be a case of having to reside in a country for 5 years before you qualify for their team.

As it stands, what Scotland did is perfectly fine under IRB rules - I don't think that makes it right. Whether Scotland are enticing great players, good player or crap players, it's still poaching.
 
Sorry, you misunderstood.

The fact that Scotland etc. is picking up NZ's sloppy seconds doesn't make it any less of a poach. Scotland are still gaining at NZ's expense (the investment put into Maitland). I don't think your ancestors should come into the picture at all, if should purely be a case of having to reside in a country for 5 years before you qualify for their team.

As it stands, what Scotland did is perfectly fine under IRB rules - I don't think that makes it right. Whether Scotland are enticing great players, good player or crap players, it's still poaching.
True. But if you make your u/20 your designated 2nd team then those players can't be poached by Scotland or Wales or Tjasikstan or Uzbekhistan etc etc. So its NZ choice and they decided not to do so. Scotland really did not poach. Its just he went on for better employment. But I believe teams have to pay compisation to NZ franchises when he gets transferred so they got money back
 
True. But if you make your u/20 your designated 2nd team then those players can't be poached by Scotland or Wales or Tjasikstan or Uzbekhistan etc etc. So its NZ choice and they decided not to do so. Scotland really did not poach. Its just he went on for better employment. But I believe teams have to pay compisation to NZ franchises when he gets transferred so they got money back

The problem with making your U20 team your second XV is that if a player passes 20, you can't lock them in to your country. It's a lose-lose situation. To be honest, the U20's should be an automatic lock in as well as the first team, with a third designated team also allowed.
 
Huh... )) Ukrainian and Russian national teams would probably be only too happy to call under the flag everyone who would go. I heard about the scouts fidgeting among all the other federations trying to find anyone with "roots". If our officials had opportunity to comprise national squad of 15 players who had never even visited our country - they would not hesitate :D In our countries it's not poaching. It's evident and undisguised "hiring" of players to national team. Players - who barely have any relation to the country))
 
The problem with making your U20 team your second XV is that if a player passes 20, you can't lock them in to your country. It's a lose-lose situation. To be honest, the U20's should be an automatic lock in as well as the first team, with a third designated team also allowed.

Actually for once I agree he makes a good point. We don't have any tournaments where we can enter a second team anyway. The NZ Maori has pretty much become that but for some reason that doesn't lock you into New Zealand. So - I'm not convinced anyone is allowed to make the U20's a second team - but if you can that'd actually be ideal (especially seeing as it would lock 30 odd different players into that team every year - safe guarding a massive 300 players over a decade, not bad if even 80% of them aren't Super Rugby players).

I agree that the U20's should lock players in. That we we can really see who would play for the Islands at JRWC or not - my guess is very few players would risk their future with the All Blacks to do so.
 
So - I'm not convinced anyone is allowed to make the U20's a second team
You can, but it only counts if you play against another designated-second-side.
For example, there was a big kick-off a year or two ago because Steven Shingler got called into the Scotland squad, after playing u20s for Wales. This wouldn't have been a problem but Wales have no 'A' side, so their u20s is their second side, and in the previous u20s Six Nations Shingler had played against France u20s, who are France's second side, so he was locked to Wales. If he'd had just played England it would have been fine, but because it was 2nds vs 2nds, it locked all the players to that nation.
 
The SA u20 players recieved caps for SA as our dedicated 2nd team if I'm not grossly mistaken.
 
The problem with making your U20 team your second XV is that if a player passes 20, you can't lock them in to your country. It's a lose-lose situation. To be honest, the U20's should be an automatic lock in as well as the first team, with a third designated team also allowed.
Like Stormer2010 said out u/20 team is our designated second team.

As for compensation I think you guys due to working from a central contract system which btw have been working well for NZ, that if a player must be payed compensation who you going to pay it to? Canterbury might be responsible for his development but he was contracted to the NZRU and they won't let Canterbury receive that money so shouldn't that pose as a problem for NZ.

The other thing is lets look at Maitland. 24 years old and not received a Kiwi contract or that AB lure. So it means you stay in NZ less pay and no international rugby. So here comes Scotland who gave him a chance to play international rugby. Should one be peed off about it or proud about him representing the NZ developing system and its culture like the Samoans are proud of their players no matter for whichever country they play for.

You know he would not see a Kiwi shirt but he get a opportunity so NZ should be proud of him and really support him when he takes the field. Similiar to what South Africans did with Tiaan Strauss who went and play for Australia.

Ps. The Kiwi remarks of taking Island players was just banter in the NZ vs France thread. I know the Kiwi's or some jump out of their seats for it. But we all know that Issue have been solved by the one country rule.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, whenever I see Maitland play for Scotland or the Lions I hope he does well - though surely I'm not the only one that sees something inherently wrong with him being eligible for these teams.

As has been said many times by many people on these forums, these players have to be self interested - it certainly is in Maitland's best interests to play for another international team, and I think he should take advantage of the system as best he can. However, I don't think ANY player should be allowed to switch allegiances like Maitland has. It's a problem with the IRB, not with the players.
 
Don't get me wrong, whenever I see Maitland play for Scotland or the Lions I hope he does well - though surely I'm not the only one that sees something inherently wrong with him being eligible for these teams.

As has been said many times by many people on these forums, these players have to be self interested - it certainly is in Maitland's best interests to play for another international team, and I think he should take advantage of the system as best he can. However, I don't think ANY player should be allowed to switch allegiances like Maitland has. It's a problem with the IRB, not with the players.

I totally agree. Like you say I generally hope Maitland does well for Scotland as I was a big fan of him in New Zealand. Same goes with Thomas Waldrom for England. But I think selecting players based of grandparents just devalues international rugby - as its a selection criteria which is arbitrary and constantly abused. Did anyone one of Thomas Waldrom, Sean Maitland, Michael Bent, Isaac Boss or Michael Harris feel evenly remotely English, Scottish, Irish or Australian? None of them lived over there for more than a few years (while they were playing professional rugby) and qualified purely because of grandparents and not on residency basis.

I'd be much happier for these players if I believed they truly felt those countries were their home - and spent more than a year or so before they that became the case. There doesn't seem any point in playing international rugby if unions select foriegners for their international teams.

I don't buy the "well you produce so much talent - so you should share it around". No. That's the easy way out. It's not up to NZ to produce competitive players or coaches for other unions. If they want to leave to play overseas then fine, but don't select them for a national team based off grandparents or even parents. They have to live in the country first. What's even more embarrasing is when these unions try and pretend the players themselves consider themselves from that country because of grandparents. You even had Scott Johnson say that it was actually Maitlands parents who were from Scotland - no sorry Scott, it was his Grandparents, don't talk BS. I'm guessing if Maitland truly felt Scottish he wouldn't have played for NZ Maori first.
 
Last edited:
If NZ make their U-20 their designated second team, that will be disallowed very soon by the IRB. Too much to lose for the other countries.
I'm against that being possible anyway. (note: France has neither profited nor being profited from this. No French U-20 has played for another country, and no one that has played U-20 for another country has played for France)
 
If NZ make their U-20 their designated second team, that will be disallowed very soon by the IRB. Too much to lose for the other countries.
I'm against that being possible anyway. (note: France has neither profited nor being profited from this. No French U-20 has played for another country, and no one that has played U-20 for another country has played for France)

Daniel Kotze, Antonie Claassen and Bernard le Roux disagree.
 
Daniel Kotze, Antonie Claassen and Bernard le Roux disagree.
They played for South Africa U-20?
I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about the whole elligibility rules, only about designating the U20 as your second team.
 
Well they certainly came up through the SA ranks. As did many others that are jogging out for other countries and will jog out for other countries in the near future. I am firmly behind the NZ posters on here saying that there is an odd taste in the mouth WRT these players saying the 'feel' Scottish or English or French or whatever. If you are a mercenary that's fine be a mercenary but lets be honest about it. Hendre Fourie saying he sees himself as English, pfft, nothing more than PR spin doctoring; i know him and see his sister often; he is about as Afrikaans as they come.

Eidt; Surely SA and NZ can say; we have put a lot of development as organizations into these players and if you want to represent SA at u20 level then we see that as a full commitment. You have the choice not to jog out for SA or NZ if you do not want to make that commitment but we don't want to waste that opportunity to represent us at u20 level on players who aren't interested in going up through our structures further.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree. Like you say I generally hope Maitland does well for Scotland as I was a big fan of him in New Zealand. Same goes with Thomas Waldrom for England. But I think selecting players based of grandparents just devalues international rugby - as its a selection criteria which is arbitrary and constantly abused. Did anyone one of Thomas Waldrom, Sean Maitland, Michael Bent, Isaac Boss or Michael Harris feel evenly remotely English, Scottish, Irish or Australian? None of them lived over there for more than a few years (while they were playing professional rugby) and qualified purely because of grandparents and not on residency basis.

I'd be much happier for these players if I believed they truly felt those countries were their home - and spent more than a year or so before they that became the case. There doesn't seem any point in playing international rugby if unions select foriegners for their international teams.

I don't buy the "well you produce so much talent - so you should share it around". No. That's the easy way out. It's not up to NZ to produce competitive players or coaches for other unions. If they want to leave to play overseas then fine, but don't select them for a national team based off grandparents or even parents. They have to live in the country first. What's even more embarrasing is when these unions try and pretend the players themselves consider themselves from that country because of grandparents. You even had Scott Johnson say that it was actually Maitlands parents who were from Scotland - no sorry Scott, it was his Grandparents, don't talk BS. I'm guessing if Maitland truly felt Scottish he wouldn't have played for NZ Maori first.

Ah, come on Nick, that is balls and you know it. There's absolutely nothing to stop a guy from feeling a part of two communities and being proud to represent either. Or for a guy to feel more connection to his parents' land than the land he grew up in, or even the land of his grandparents - which in the case of Isaac Boss, what I've heard on Ulster sites and seen from his interviews, is true in a sporting sense at least.

And every method of eligibility can be abused. Even place of birth. Tom Heathcote was born on his parents' holiday in Scotland and never been back until he was capped to the best of my knowledge. He's as Scottish as Edward I. You'd have to have some very draconian restrictions in place to stop that.
 
Ah, come on Nick, that is balls and you know it. There's absolutely nothing to stop a guy from feeling a part of two communities and being proud to represent either. Or for a guy to feel more connection to his parents' land than the land he grew up in, or even the land of his grandparents - which in the case of Isaac Boss, what I've heard on Ulster sites and seen from his interviews, is true in a sporting sense at least.

And every method of eligibility can be abused. Even place of birth. Tom Heathcote was born on his parents' holiday in Scotland and never been back until he was capped to the best of my knowledge. He's as Scottish as Edward I. You'd have to have some very draconian restrictions in place to stop that.

That's fair enough but what then about these players playing for other countries in U20 or national schools teams earlier in their carreers? IMO DON"T play for the country you are not going to turn out for as you are denying guys who want too and are willing to make a commitment that chance. You are old enough to decide where your loyalties/identity lies. To get back to my point U20 is old enough to make a commitment IMO; how many guys around that age are turning out for senior sides in recent years! I can't see why they shouldn't be 'locked in.
 

Latest posts

Top