The Residency Rule Thread

[TRF_heineken]

Consider all the salty salty tears you'd have thought the number of poached players in the Springboks would be a bit fat zero.

Poaching in South Africa is a major problem. Meanwhile in China we have thousands of Chinese men rubbing their cocks with rhinoceros hair thinking they'll be able to f**k better...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The rules are what they are, they're never going to satisfy everyone and every country takes advantage of the loopholes as much as they are able

Not true. Give me one example, just one, of Argentina taking advantage of the loophole. Just one.
I can think of two Pumas who werent born in Arg. Martin and Cancelliere. Both because their parents happened to be temporarily living abroad when they were born. Both Argentine by birth and raised in Arg. I dont consider that taking advantage of a loophole as, by law, people born to Argentine parents abroad are (or can be) Argentine.

Even brazil has NZ born players. Dont you think we could poach a couple? We don't. And this something that we do in every sport. Just look at our footie team. Every single one of them, again, born and raised in Arg. We take pride in this.

An interesting perspective, especially given you have no choice in where you live before you are 18.

See, that is precisely the point imo. It's not supposed to be a choice. The idea was for every country to play with what they had, end of.

You can sugar coat it the way you want, but once you add choice to the equation you end up benefiting a richer nation at the expense of a poorer nation, 99% of the times.

And yes, some might use the counter-example of NZ born players playing for Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. True. What they don't tell you, conveniently, is this

- A very good player from Fiji/Tonga/Samoa often gets poached by a rich nation
- The NZ born players who end up playing for Fiji/Samoa/Tonga are players who never made it to the ABs

The flow to talent is one way and one way only. From poor to rich.


Just to be absolutely clear, i am not suggesting that a team could only field born players. No, i am not saying that. What i am saying is that there needs to be a mechanism in place that prevents cherry-picking.
A 20-year-old playing for one country and later playing for another is unacceptable.
Brian Mujati's example is hard to comprehend. On week the Lions were trying to get him kicked out of south africa for being on an invalid visa (he's Zimbabwean) and the next week he's playing for the Springboks.

This idea that a country's rejects can pick another country and play for them is wrong.

I would do something along these lines (v broad strokes):
Once you are 18, you need to pick a team and in order to pick that team, you need to be a citizen of that country (or have the nationality).
If you started playing after that, when they write you down in your union, same as the above, pick a team.
If you have represented country A in any sport, you cannot pick another country.
Once you put on a country's jersey, that's the only jersey you can ever wear. No exceptions. No refugees, no "ive been living here for 10 years", no nothing.
Before ANY game WR has to check that the players are eligible (to avoid what happened with Belgium with Spain). All unions give WR a list of elligible players, WR keeps that database updated. End of.

This is not my preferred solution but something i think most countries could work with.
It is simple, clear, and relatively easy to implement. It still allows rich nations to poach players from poorer ones but way less than now.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Consider all the salty salty tears you'd have thought the number of poached players in the Springboks would be a bit fat zero.

Poaching in South Africa is a major problem. Meanwhile in China we have thousands of Chinese men rubbing their cocks with rhinoceros hair thinking they'll be able to f**k better...

 

[Paulo]

And yes, some might use the counter-example of NZ born players playing for Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. True. What they don't tell you, conveniently, is this

- A very good player from Fiji/Tonga/Samoa often gets poached by a rich nation
- The NZ born players who end up playing for Fiji/Samoa/Tonga are players who never made it to the ABs

The flow to talent is one way and one way only. From poor to rich.

But if this was true, that NZ often poach the Island talent and only send the NZ born islanders back. And NZ only has 3 (I think) non NZ born players in there squad.

Where are all these poached players actually playing? Why aren't they going back to play for their country of birth? The fact is, some are, but the Island teams also get filled by NZ born players, born, raised, trained, coached, and developed in NZ. What you are conveniently omitting is that players being coached, trained, developed and conditioned in NZ are better rugby players for it. The talent most assuredly flows back to the Islands, or do you think the Island teams would perform better without the NZ born players, and had the 'poached' talent back?

 

[Scotty]

Indeed.

But based on this article, it appears that Scotland and the USA are the real poachers if you look at the guys in their squad and how many of them represented other countries when they were a bit younger.

It's interesting that South America doesn't have any foreigners in their 2 squads. And based on Geographics, it's looking like this:

Europe:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 7
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 46

Australasia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 5
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 56

Asia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 18

North America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 17

Africa:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 1

South America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 0

Ok so geography is a real weakness of mine. Any chance of more of a break down of them. You say scotland and USA are bad then bunch them with other teams.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Not true. Give me one example, just one, of Argentina taking advantage of the loophole. Just one.
I can think of two Pumas who werent born in Arg. Martin and Cancelliere. Both because their parents happened to be temporarily living abroad when they were born. Both Argentine by birth and raised in Arg. I dont consider that taking advantage of a loophole as, by law, people born to Argentine parents abroad are (or can be) Argentine.

Even brazil has NZ born players. Dont you think we could poach a couple? We don't. And this something that we do in every sport. Just look at our footie team. Every single one of them, again, born and raised in Arg. We take pride in this.



See, that is precisely the point imo. It's not supposed to be a choice. The idea was for every country to play with what they had, end of.

You can sugar coat it the way you want, but once you add choice to the equation you end up benefiting a richer nation at the expense of a poorer nation, 99% of the times.

And yes, some might use the counter-example of NZ born players playing for Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. True. What they don't tell you, conveniently, is this

- A very good player from Fiji/Tonga/Samoa often gets poached by a rich nation
- The NZ born players who end up playing for Fiji/Samoa/Tonga are players who never made it to the ABs

The flow to talent is one way and one way only. From poor to rich.


Just to be absolutely clear, i am not suggesting that a team could only field born players. No, i am not saying that. What i am saying is that there needs to be a mechanism in place that prevents cherry-picking.
A 20-year-old playing for one country and later playing for another is unacceptable.
Brian Mujati's example is hard to comprehend. On week the Lions were trying to get him kicked out of south africa for being on an invalid visa (he's Zimbabwean) and the next week he's playing for the Springboks.

This idea that a country's rejects can pick another country and play for them is wrong.

I would do something along these lines (v broad strokes):
Once you are 18, you need to pick a team and in order to pick that team, you need to be a citizen of that country (or have the nationality).
If you started playing after that, when they write you down in your union, same as the above, pick a team.
If you have represented country A in any sport, you cannot pick another country.
Once you put on a country's jersey, that's the only jersey you can ever wear. No exceptions. No refugees, no "ive been living here for 10 years", no nothing.
Before ANY game WR has to check that the players are eligible (to avoid what happened with Belgium with Spain). All unions give WR a list of elligible players, WR keeps that database updated. End of.

This is not my preferred solution but something i think most countries could work with.
It is simple, clear, and relatively easy to implement. It still allows rich nations to poach players from poorer ones but way less than now.

This is kinda equivalent to not allowing immigrants to vote, don't you think? They can come to your country but they can't call it their country, if they migrated after 18.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ok so geography is a real weakness of mine. Any chance of more of a break down of them. You say scotland and USA are bad then bunch them with other teams.

I just did it like that to give an indication that people tend to migrate to certain areas more than others, so there is a natural process of certain regions getting more migrants which will result in more guys being selected because of residency.

But. Scotland and the USA have a lot of players who are as Scotland put it, project players, who lured guys to come and play for them while they were playing professional rugby in another county with the idea to get them to play for Scotland. Off the top of my head I can think of Josh Strauss, WP Nel, Huw Jones and Allan Dell.

WP Nel was at the time overlooked for the Springboks when Beast was starting to show his prowess, so WP knew, partly because of the Quota system that he won't get a chance perhaps in the next 2 years, even though many people like myself felt like he deserved a shot for the Boks. Strauss and Jones were both decent Super Rugby Players, but it would have taken a monumental effort from them to get a shot at representing the Boks, as they both play positions where we have oodles of talent. And Dell, he represented SA at U/20 WC championships, and then got a lucrative offer at a scottish team, which was paying him way more than what he'd get as an entry-level player in SA.

Now let's remove the Pacific Islands from this equation, as the Islands of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga are so small, that they can't really have a HPC or even more than 2 stadiums on an island so most of the players in that region have to go to NZ or Australia in order to get better training. It does change the outlook quite a bit.

But this article doesn't paint a complete picture though, as it's just about the World Cup. And there are plenty of guys who have made their debuts for their new nation, or are on the verge of doing that.

The one thing is for certain is that NZ, South Africa and Argentina doesn't have to worry so much of scouting guys from other countries and try and lure them to play for them. We have a very good system in place, and I don't see for the foreseeable future that the stats would change for these countries, whereas I have a suspicion the amount of players obtaining residency might increase at emerging nations as they try to become a stronger rugby nation.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Huw Jones was born in Scotland

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

that NZ often poach the Island talent

I never said that NZ poached. I was very careful with my wording and said, "poached by a rich nation". You, not me, said NZ.

Let me be clear. This is not a NZ problem. This is a WR problem.

This is kinda equivalent to not allowing immigrants to vote, don't you think? They can come to your country but they can't call it their country, if they migrated after 18.

Gonna need a couple of lines.

I understand what you are saying but i disagree. For several reasons. First, it happens already in other sports and you dont see people crying foul. It's one of the few things that, though far from perfect, you see way less often in footie. George Weah played for Liberia, Drogba for Ivory Coast, George Best for Northern Ireland, Teofilo Cubillas for Peru, Bale for Wales.
You look at the any, ANY top 20 ranking of players in the history of the sport and you will only find tier 1 players. Only tier 1. See where i'm getting at?

Second, regarding your equivalence, i dont think that's the right one. The right equivalence would be being a member of two countries governments. Would you like your national security advisor to be last year's "INSERT COUNTRY HERE" security advisor?
I wouldn't.

Third, there is quite a big difference between being unable to call a country your own and being unable to play for the national rugby team.

Do you sincerely think say, CJ Stander would be playing for Ireland had he been a 1st pick in the springboks? I dont. Not for a second.
Sure, after that he probably liked the country, fell in love with the poeple, etc etc. But this is not "1st country rejects team". It's the national team.
To prove my argument is harsh but fair, I dont have the slightest problem with Jordi Murphy playing for Ireland (he wasnt born there). Perfectly fine with me.

Let me repeat myself: you have/had players from Country A on a student visa on country B, representing country B at a national level. And i am not talking about Jamaica vs Mexico. I am talking Tier 1 nations.


I'll try to boil it down to a very crystal clear example. Say the next rugby genius is born and raised in Tonga. He's got Lomu's strength and power, Habana's speed, Cullen's intuition, the complete package.
By the time he is 16 there are youtube videos going viral in every corner of the world. Every Union is aware of him.
If money weren't on the table, he wouldn't even consider representing a rugby union other than Tonga's.

The question is, what do you think are the odds of him representing Tonga and no other team.
I think they are zero and i think that is a tragedy.

I know some will say "let him chose, his call". My answer would have 2 parts.

a) I dont want it to be a choice at all, for anyone, but i can understand how practically is very difficult to implement so at least i want to reduce the choices.
b) The minute money was on the table there was no real choice. And the evidence for this is overwhelming. You dont see Aus/Tongan/NZ/RSA/Samoan/Fijian players playing for Peru, Cambodia or Chad. They play for Japan.

Again, for me, the idea of having nations play against each other means for them to play with the hand that was deal with them. This is, for me but i think i wouldn't be wrong if i say for us, a fundamental aspect of the game. That is why even thou i disagree with Pichot's extremeness, i understand where he is coming from. I think he is precisely wrong but directionally correct.

And again, we put our money where our mouth is. We dont poach. We dont do it in rugby, we dont do it on footie, we dont do it (there is probably an obscure example to prove me wrong but i hope you get the gist).
For us this is very important.

It's like family. You dont get to pick your family, but you have to stick with it and do your best. Sometimes it sucks.
If you want to watch the best rugby teams money can buy, well, there's club rugby for that.

To recap, my arguments are two. One philosophical and one practical.
-The first is about what the competition between nations is supposed to be about.
-The second is that the system as it stands benefits richer nations at the expense of poorer ones.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Huw Jones was born in Scotland

England have a better claim to Jones than SA. Unfortunately now that he's been dropped you have to rely on that Catholic ****** King James II to motivate you for the potential world cup meeting.*

* This is obviously a joke, approximately 53 of Scotland's 31 man travelling squad is born and raised in England so there's your motivation... and there's absolutely no chance of these teams meeting each other either!

 

[McTallshort]

Poaching in South Africa is a major problem. Meanwhile in China we have thousands of Chinese men rubbing their cocks with rhinoceros hair thinking they'll be able to f**k better...

So that's why they shoot them? Could they just not eat more greens or at a push get some viagra?

 

[munstermuffin]

@Cruz_del_Sur just on CJ Stander. The man moved here to play rugby as he was told he was too small and would not make it in South Africa.
Since he has came here he has bought in to every bit of culture and laid his roots here. He did not come just to play for Ireland. Far from it. He struggled for many years to hold down his Munster spot. He's bought a house and ser up his family home here. But had he being picked for Springboks he'd have never moved to Ireland but that just meant lifes plan was not to be a Sprinbok. The only difference with NZ or a country like that is they can offer better opportunities at a younger age

 

[Paulo]

I never said that NZ poached. I was very careful with my wording and said, "poached by a rich nation". You, not me, said NZ.

Let me be clear. This is not a NZ problem. This is a WR problem.

You specifically mentioned NZ as an example of a rich nation and talent flowing one way (which is demonstrably wrong given the number of NZ born players playing in the Island teams - clearly talent is flowing from NZ to other PI countries).

Yes, it is a wider problem than NZ, but that is the issue, each migration or selection has its own dynamics. England selecting Brad Shields is different to NZ selecting Fafita. My example counter argument was specific to NZ hence I named them, and in direct response to your reference to NZ.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

@Cruz_del_Sur just on CJ Stander. The man moved here to play rugby as he was told he was too small and would not make it in South Africa.
Since he has came here he has bought in to every bit of culture and laid his roots here. He did not come just to play for Ireland. Far from it. He struggled for many years to hold down his Munster spot. He's bought a house and ser up his family home here. But had he being picked for Springboks he'd have never moved to Ireland but that just meant lifes plan was not to be a Sprinbok. The only difference with NZ or a country like that is they can offer better opportunities at a younger age

I am aware of CJ Standers story. I think the difference lies in the fact that you think it is reasonable for him to play for Ireland. I do not.
I find it particularly convenient that the people who "buy every bit of culture and lay roots" tend to do it either

a) if they cannot play for the country they were born in.
b) in countries richer than the ones they were born.

As the rules stand today, countries buy, sorry, can financially incentivize players to switch national teams. I think that is tragic. I know i am part of a minorty tho.

You specifically mentioned NZ as an example of a rich nation and talent flowing one way (which is demonstrably wrong given the number of NZ born players playing in the Island teams - clearly talent is flowing from NZ to other PI countries).

Name me a NZ born and NZ citizen player who could be/have been a starting XV All Black but decided to play for Tonga, Fiji or Samoa. Just one.
I repeat. The NZ born players that play for Tonga, Samoa and Fiji are players who didn't make it to the ABs. The opposite does not happen.
The number of players from NZ to pacific islanders is probably (way) higher, but the drivers that move talent one way or the other are very different. The evidence is overwhelming and out there for anyone with interest in the subject to see.

Lets make this evidence-based. Your ball.

 

[Paulo]

W

I am aware of CJ Standers story. I think the difference lies in the fact that you think it is reasonable for him to play for Ireland. I do not.
I find it particularly convenient that the people who "buy every bit of culture and lay roots" tend to do it either

a) if they cannot play for the country they were born in.
b) in countries richer than the ones they were born.

As the rules stand today, countries buy, sorry, can financially incentivize players to switch national teams. I think that is tragic. I know i am part of a minorty tho.



Name me a NZ born and NZ citizen player who could be/have been a starting XV All Black but decided to play for Tonga, Fiji or Samoa. Just one.
I repeat. The NZ born players that play for Tonga, Samoa and Fiji are players who didn't make it to the ABs. The opposite does not happen.
The number of players from NZ to pacific islanders is probably (way) higher, but the drivers that move talent one way or the other are very different. The evidence is overwhelming and out there for anyone with interest in the subject to see.

Lets make this evidence-based. Your ball.

Whether or not they would play for the ABs or not is irrelevant. They are NZ born and bred players, going and getting selected for the PI teams. Clearly the PI teams feel they are stronger with these NZ players. The PI teams are benefiting from the eligibility criteria. Talent has flowed to them, not away.

 

[TRF_heineken]

@Cruz_del_Sur just on CJ Stander. The man moved here to play rugby as he was told he was too small and would not make it in South Africa.
Since he has came here he has bought in to every bit of culture and laid his roots here. He did not come just to play for Ireland. Far from it. He struggled for many years to hold down his Munster spot. He's bought a house and ser up his family home here. But had he being picked for Springboks he'd have never moved to Ireland but that just meant lifes plan was not to be a Sprinbok. The only difference with NZ or a country like that is they can offer better opportunities at a younger age

I think we've discussed the CJ Stander issue quite a lot in the past. But I cannot completely agree with what CJ is saying in Ireland about why he wasn't picked. He was a youngster at the Bulls, and wasn't completely settled in his position as first choice as we had at that time 2 3 other players in the Bulls squad who were all Springboks. He felt that it's not happening soon enough, so he went to Ireland.

But here's where it gets even more dodgy. He got his regular positioning spot while there were South Africans as part of the coaching team at Munster. Would that have been the case if no other South African was there to hold his hand?? We'll never know.

But CJ isn't being completely honest with the Irish public either. Yes he is now part of the community, and yes he's put roots down there, that happened because of his situation. But CJ still comes to SA, he still misses things and places about SA, he still has family here.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I think we've discussed the CJ Stander issue quite a lot in the past. But I cannot completely agree with what CJ is saying in Ireland about why he wasn't picked. He was a youngster at the Bulls, and wasn't completely settled in his position as first choice as we had at that time 2 3 other players in the Bulls squad who were all Springboks. He felt that it's not happening soon enough, so he went to Ireland.

But here's where it gets even more dodgy. He got his regular positioning spot while there were South Africans as part of the coaching team at Munster. Would that have been the case if no other South African was there to hold his hand?? We'll never know.

But CJ isn't being completely honest with the Irish public either. Yes he is now part of the community, and yes he's put roots down there, that happened because of his situation. But CJ still comes to SA, he still misses things and places about SA, he still has family here.

This is the same as Parkes for Wales. He is from a farm in the Manawatu and is about as kiwi as you can get - real NZ country boy. His wife is a kiwi as well, and family etc is all in NZ. Would see a very low chance of him remaining in Wales after his rugby career is done.

 

[Scotty]

Its old now but still, Nathan Hughes just chose ti be here, decided it was his choice who he played for and turned down a 2015 world cup spot with fiji.

https://www.ruck.co.uk/nathan-hughes-explains-hed-rather-play-england-native-fiji/

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I never said that NZ poached. I was very careful with my wording and said, "poached by a rich nation". You, not me, said NZ.

Let me be clear. This is not a NZ problem. This is a WR problem.


Gonna need a couple of lines.

I understand what you are saying but i disagree. For several reasons. First, it happens already in other sports and you dont see people crying foul. It's one of the few things that, though far from perfect, you see way less often in footie. George Weah played for Liberia, Drogba for Ivory Coast, George Best for Northern Ireland, Teofilo Cubillas for Peru, Bale for Wales.
You look at the any, ANY top 20 ranking of players in the history of the sport and you will only find tier 1 players. Only tier 1. See where i'm getting at?

Second, regarding your equivalence, i dont think that's the right one. The right equivalence would be being a member of two countries governments. Would you like your national security advisor to be last year's "INSERT COUNTRY HERE" security advisor?
I wouldn't.

Third, there is quite a big difference between being unable to call a country your own and being unable to play for the national rugby team.

Do you sincerely think say, CJ Stander would be playing for Ireland had he been a 1st pick in the springboks? I dont. Not for a second.
Sure, after that he probably liked the country, fell in love with the poeple, etc etc. But this is not "1st country rejects team". It's the national team.
To prove my argument is harsh but fair, I dont have the slightest problem with Jordi Murphy playing for Ireland (he wasnt born there). Perfectly fine with me.

Let me repeat myself: you have/had players from Country A on a student visa on country B, representing country B at a national level. And i am not talking about Jamaica vs Mexico. I am talking Tier 1 nations.


I'll try to boil it down to a very crystal clear example. Say the next rugby genius is born and raised in Tonga. He's got Lomu's strength and power, Habana's speed, Cullen's intuition, the complete package.
By the time he is 16 there are youtube videos going viral in every corner of the world. Every Union is aware of him.
If money weren't on the table, he wouldn't even consider representing a rugby union other than Tonga's.

The question is, what do you think are the odds of him representing Tonga and no other team.
I think they are zero and i think that is a tragedy.

I know some will say "let him chose, his call". My answer would have 2 parts.

a) I dont want it to be a choice at all, for anyone, but i can understand how practically is very difficult to implement so at least i want to reduce the choices.
b) The minute money was on the table there was no real choice. And the evidence for this is overwhelming. You dont see Aus/Tongan/NZ/RSA/Samoan/Fijian players playing for Peru, Cambodia or Chad. They play for Japan.

Again, for me, the idea of having nations play against each other means for them to play with the hand that was deal with them. This is, for me but i think i wouldn't be wrong if i say for us, a fundamental aspect of the game. That is why even thou i disagree with Pichot's extremeness, i understand where he is coming from. I think he is precisely wrong but directionally correct.

And again, we put our money where our mouth is. We dont poach. We dont do it in rugby, we dont do it on footie, we dont do it (there is probably an obscure example to prove me wrong but i hope you get the gist).
For us this is very important.

It's like family. You dont get to pick your family, but you have to stick with it and do your best. Sometimes it sucks.
If you want to watch the best rugby teams money can buy, well, there's club rugby for that.

To recap, my arguments are two. One philosophical and one practical.
-The first is about what the competition between nations is supposed to be about.
-The second is that the system as it stands benefits richer nations at the expense of poorer ones.

I agree with a lot of this, having put forward the same issue in two of my posts in this thread - that the rich countries get first choice.

If you can vote you can probably be security advisor too.

I'm not as patriotic as I was as a kid following my countries sports teams, i more just play into it for the fun of the charade. In saying that the fun is greater the more you feel the team represents the country. But I do feel some patriotism, to the extent I am part of a society with values I can influence and have a responsibility for.

At the same time if I was a woman in Pakistan I'd probably not want to live there and wouldn't want to represent their country. So if I was the greatest rugby player in the world I wouldn't be allowed to play for any country, by your policy. Even if I moved to another country that I felt represented me better. If you don't feel like your country represents you, why would you want to represent them?

Now I don't know what the answer is, and understand our philosophy underlying this is quite different.

Part of the problem is nations like New Zealand who make money off their national team, it becomes less about nationalism, more about money. It's not all that different to the general immigration policy, but it does mean richer countries will have better, hence more profitable, rugby teams, just as they have more labour resources in general. In that sense the rugby team represents the nation; a nation that prioritises wealth over culture.

Did I end up agreeing with you? I don't know, but I think I decided my stance on immigration is that it should be based on values to society, not on value to the economy. I'd rather have a refugee that wasn't a bigot than a billionaire white supremicist.

Hmmm, I think that was a tangent. What I wanted to say was that it would help if there was no money in the national teams, that any money gained went to compensating the clubs you had taken the player from. I'm sure there are plenty of flaws to that too, but I've had a few....

 

[Groundhog]

I think we've discussed the CJ Stander issue quite a lot in the past. But I cannot completely agree with what CJ is saying in Ireland about why he wasn't picked. He was a youngster at the Bulls, and wasn't completely settled in his position as first choice as we had at that time 2 3 other players in the Bulls squad who were all Springboks. He felt that it's not happening soon enough, so he went to Ireland.

But here's where it gets even more dodgy. He got his regular positioning spot while there were South Africans as part of the coaching team at Munster. Would that have been the case if no other South African was there to hold his hand?? We'll never know.

But CJ isn't being completely honest with the Irish public either. Yes he is now part of the community, and yes he's put roots down there, that happened because of his situation. But CJ still comes to SA, he still misses things and places about SA, he still has family here.

Don't understand this post. So Stander was told he would need to switch position to hooker to have a shot in South Africa, as he didn't have the size of other guys, something he naturally didn't want to do, so he sought opportunity elsewhere where he would be played at his preferred position. Understandable surely, or have I my facts wrong?

He got his regular position at Munster? He was signed as an 8/ backrower, why wouldn't he? Also im not sure what South Africans we had coaching in 2012, my memory is foggy but I know Rob Penney and Simon Mannix and Anthony Foley for the pack. We may have had a South African on board but I don't remember him anyway. Regardless Stander's first season or two for Munster were not solid. He showed flashes but rarely started. He didn't walk into a jersey by any means. There were rumors for a while he'd be let go actually because he wasn't establishing himself as was expected.
On the last point..... So? Stander has put down roots in Ireland, has a mortgage on a house and is tied in here for some time. He's made his career here, had his kid here, but it's not mutually exclusive with loving the country he grew up in. No one here demands he purges all fondness for his home country.
I'm not really arguing the residency thing because I'm not going to change any opinions, nor do I care to, but I think this is a cynical enough view on Stander's move.