Who do you think are more of the player poaches NZ or Northern Hemisphere?

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by diehardkiwi07, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. Just wanted to hear your opinion with the exodus of players leaving to go over to the NH clubs, as the NH have a reputation of accusing NZ of poaching young talent from the Islands.

    Who do you think are more of the poachers NZ or NH?
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. KZNSharksFan

    KZNSharksFan Guest

    Well England (their Rugby team anyway) dont have three quarters of their starting XV as citizens of other countries. The poaching of young talent from SA, Aus, NZ AND the poaching of Islanders is unsavoury but I reckon NZ are more in the wrong
  4. Brodizzle

    Brodizzle Guest

    As the Samoan goalkicker said after the South African game, as kids Islanders usually look towards playing for the All Blacks first as thier ultimate goal, then towards thier own Island nations if they don't make the cut.....I don't think that the All Blacks are poachers in the NH sense as the Islanders see the All Blacks as the ultimate and usually make the first step to play for the All Blacks, and of course many of them live in New Zealand anyway....the NZRU basically props up Island rugby anyway so it's hardly like the NH who simply dangle the carrot in front of a player.

    In the end the difference= they both poach yet the difference is that the NZRU actually develops Island regions so are not simply ravaging the Islands of talent...
  5. shazbooger

    shazbooger Guest

    Two different arguements that should be debated seperately.

    The exodus to the North is on based on the clubs spending power. This is a series of individual moves, made by the clubs, to get the talent in and increase revenue. This is not a move by the national rugby union's to improve their own game and enhance the international setup. This is just business.

    New Zealands island strategy is a little more coordinated. The goal being to get the best talent from the other island nations to represent your own. Of the current squad, Collins, Sivivatu, Muliaina, Rokocoko, So'oialo, Lauaki, Masoe and Toeava were born on the islands. This is some pool of talent.

    However this is not something exclusive to to NZ, and there is little consistency in most arguements. England have no problem playing South Africans (and given the warblings over quota's you may find a lot of South African talent will start to declare for England), France had a history of taking talent from African Nations (Betsen and Nyanga).

    The main issue is that NZ have access to the greatest pool of talent, hence the objections.

    Personally I think it would be great to see the likes of Collins and Sivivatu represent their birth nation, but on the other side, I know if Ireland had a bunch of rugby mad Islands off our coast, and a huge amount of the population wanted to play for us. I sure as **** wouldnt object to letting them play.
  6. KZNSharksFan

    KZNSharksFan Guest

    I totally agree. Isn't it a pain in the arse when politics gets tangled with sport though? Collins, Muliaina etc. all grew up in NZ so NZ have a fair claim to them.
  7. fcukernaut

    fcukernaut Guest

    There is not a single player on the All Blacks squad that has been poached. There are 8 players who were born overseas(Jerry Collins, Rodney So'oialo, Chris Masoe, Mils Muliaina, Isaia Toeava, Sione, Lauaki, Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu), yet they all grew up in New Zealand. Last time I checked 6 year olds don't make their international debuts. Since they did immigrate into New Zealand at such a young age, with their families, the islands have no claim to them. The NZRU developed these players, not the islands. The NZRU are the ones who have spent the money developing them. Do you really think Jerry Collins would be the player he is today if he wasn't in the NZ system? It is completed absurd to suggest that the NZRU have pillaged anything, and I wish people, most noteably journalists, would do a bit of research before spouting idiotic ideas.
  8. I think you are entirely wrong in saying that the Islands have no claim to those players. Even if I moved to France at the age of 6, I would still be English. Your nationality is a combination of where you are born and the nationality of your parents, not who funds your education.

    If they choose to play for New Zealand then that is their choice, but it's ludicrous to suggest that they don't have Pacific Island blood flowing through their veins. Personally I would be proud to represent my place of birth, but then I've never moved abroad and so have never had to question where my loyalties lie.
  9. Thingimubob

    Thingimubob Guest

    To be honest, it doesn't matter much that the All Blacks have players that are from teh Islands playing for them. As fcukernaut said, they probably wouldn't be as good as they are now if they'd have stayed with their brith country. And something you have to remember is, it's not the Islanders that make the All Blacks so good, it's the quality of the coaches and training that does that. And I haven't heard anyone mention that it's wrong that teams like Italy and Japan field foreign born players. I have no problem with this either, but it's exactly the same thing, but not frowned upon as it is with the All Blacks. And people who say, only NZ do it, where do you think the likes of Lote Tuiqiri (Fijian) and George Gregan coem from (Zambian)?
  10. shazbooger

    shazbooger Guest

    Sitting in the middle, and playing devils advocate (cause I really dont give a toss either way), its hard to refute this;
    Thats the way it should be really but ......... as another guy mentioned, people ignore the South Africans playing for England, The Kilted Kiwi's for Scotland, the Africans playing for France, Shane Howarth wasnt even legal when he played for Wales, and the numerous nationalities playing for Italy, Japan.

    Jesus, Imagine an AB's team without Jerry Collins, Rodney So'oialo, Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu.
  11. scuubasteve

    scuubasteve Guest

    The state of origin arguement is a tough one. I feel place of birth (and heritage) should be there to give the player a choice about where they wish to play. And it does, so I don't have a problem.

    People obviously have different perspectives of what "poaching" is, or they don't know the facts.

    I believe if the player benefits most from the country they play for internationally then its not a problem. Otherwise players like Andrew Mehrtens (born in SA to NZ parents) and Percy Montgomery (born in Walvis Bay, now Namibian) wouldn't play for the country that was responsible for them becoming the players they are.

    In the case of NZ poaching, from the 38 players of Pacific Island decent who have to played for the All Blacks I only have problems with Joeli Vidiri, Sitiveni Sivivatu and Saimone Taumoepeau. For starters, 17 of the 38 were born in NZ anyway. Of the remaining 21, only these 3 moved to New Zealand at an age where their time in the islands had any effect on their game. Vidiri was an Adult, Sivivatu was 16 and Taumoepeau was 20.

    Of the others, Kupu Vanesi was 8 and Joe Rokocoko was 5. The rest were younger still.

    Now either NZ has an amazing recruitment program, or it was by chance that the parents of these future All Black kids moved to NZ for the security of more jobs and better money.

    If you contrast this to the player movements north its really just the same thing. People moving to a place with more jobs and more money, often with their childrens best intentions in mind.

    The players moving north are unlikely to switch allegiance for which nation they represent (in most cases) so I don't see there being the same problem.

    I believe that if the All Blacks didn't exist that the Pacific Islands rugby would be much worse off. Similarly, if the Pacific Islands didn't exist then the All Blacks would not be the team they are. But the All Blacks were still an amazing team before the recent polynesian migration gave the team its current balance of ethnicities.

    Trying somehow to blame the AB's for the migration trends of the south pacific region doesn't really hold much weight. And if the NZRU is happy to allow pacific island players to represent the nations of their birth (or parents heritage) whilst playing in the Super14 and NPC domestic competitions then its hard to argue that they aren't doing their bit to aid the development of the Islands. Maybe cutting them into the 3N and Super14. But then thats a SANZAR issue, not soley NZ.

    It is hard to argue that the NH clubs are giving anything back to the NZ, SA or Aus nations for the talent moving in their direction though. Revenue sharing, to attempt to even out the obvious differences that currency exchange has on player salaries, might be a start. But that is very unlikely to happen.
  12. Thats the way it should be really but ......... as another guy mentioned, people ignore the South Africans playing for England, The Kilted Kiwi's for Scotland, the Africans playing for France, Shane Howarth wasnt even legal when he played for Wales, and the numerous nationalities playing for Italy, Japan.

    Jesus, Imagine an AB's team without Jerry Collins, Rodney So'oialo, Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu.

    These are the replacements for :
    1. Jerry Collins - Liam Messon
    2. Rodney So'oialo - Jerome Kaino
    3. Joe Rokocoko - Cory Jane
    4.Sitiveni Sivivatu - Dougie Howlett

    NZ is capable of fulfilling empty positions with the amount of talent we have in NZ.
  13. fcukernaut

    fcukernaut Guest

    New Zealand wouldn't miss a beat without Jerry Collins, So'oialo, Sivivatu, and Joe Rokococo. Sure the omissions would change the game plan, but they would still be able to execute effectively. Rueben Thorne, Troy Flavell, Angus MacDonald, Liam Messam, Jonno Gibbes, Kieran Reed could be replacements for Jerry Collins, you could even put out a couple of other opensides like Braid and Holah to team up with McCaw. At number 8, Mose Tuiali'i or Liam Messam could certainly replace So'oialo. At wing, Doug Howlett and Rico Gear. What I did notice when I was thinking of repalcements though was that most of the backrow positions throughout the country were filled with pacific island born players.
  14. KZNSharksFan

    KZNSharksFan Guest

    True, but if the national rugby union invests hundreds of thousands in a player who has lived in that unions country for the majority of his life, it is only fair that they get a return on that investment. TBH i think if a player's past 21 yrs or has represented a country, he shouldnt change national sides, and as none of the afore mentioned All Blacks have done that I see no real ethical problem.

    Also, NH clubs tend to poach old players past their prime who no longer have a place in the National side(except McAlister)
  15. shazbooger

    shazbooger Guest

    Historically yes, I think you'll find the average age profile is certainly starting to drop.
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page