Respect where it due

Wales will tour the Pacific Islands in 2017, further embarrassing the New Zealand Rugby Union as the All Blacks are still yet to play "official" tests in Fiji, Samoa or Tonga.

Wales Rugby CEO Roger Lewis said his union is committed to helping the Pacific Islands and this comes not only in their willingness to play midweek games at the 2015 World Cup in England but also with their commitment to make the long trek to the Islands in six years to play tests against all three countries.

"We have gone out of our way to welcome the likes of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga to Cardiff. But, more importantly, we're committed to supporting them in real terms," Lewis told Sunday News

OK, not quite sure this sets out to embarass New Zealand or not, but do you agree that this shows utmost respect to rugby in general?

Full Story here

Just because New Zealand doesn't play (and probably never will) Samoa.Fiji,and Tonga at their homes has absolutely nothing to do with snubbing them.
If wales really want to show us how much they support the Pacific Island teams then maybe they ,next time could vote in support of New Zealands repeated remit Allowing Pacific Island players the opportunity to go back and play for their ancestoral island after having played for a tier one nation.....

It also says that:

"Of the tier-one nations, Ireland, Italy, France and Wales have all been to Samoa, Australia and Italy have gone to to Fiji, while France, Ireland and Wales have played tests in Tonga."

And Samoa, Tonga and Fiji have all played matches in the November tours.

In 2016, Wales will be having a three test series in New Zealand.

In 2017, the British and Irish Lions will be touring New Zealand, whilst Wales are in the Pacific Islands touring.

YOU CYNICAL---ER YEAH GO AWAY !!!!! why the sub plots? if you aint got i dont flaunt it.

Well, like I said, I don't really get the angle suggested in the opening lines of the report re NZ snubbing the Islands.

And I am not suggesting that "only" Wales are taking the moral high ground (not that its been suggested, but could be perceived).

But, I would take issue with having played for one country then special dispensation should be considered for any player to then change allegiance and play for another regardless of Tier Status.

Since Howarthgate (is that a real term ?) I feel that we've moved on from that?

Anyway, do you agree that this shows utmost respect to rugby in general?

Red Dragon
Do you really think that the Poynesian situation doesnt merit a special dispensation?

I think they do merit a special dispensation - given how much they add to the world of rugby both as individuals and as parts of their particular teams - compared to the size of their populations.

There is the age old question of AB - 'B' teams and would this mean its easier for the AB's to - as it were - take first pick, particularly of the many polynesians living and playing there.

But then if you think back to when this sort of thing was more common how much better the RWC was for having, say, Inga playing whoever he was playing for.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Red Dragon
Do you really think that the Poynesian situation doesnt merit a special dispensation?

In context there should be no dispensation across the board, regardless of tier status....... I may be ignorant to some facts so please enlighten me, but I don't see how any nation can benefit long term from choosing failed/over the hill tier 1's.

This is why I have some sympathy with the likes of Samoa and Fiji, they have some very talented players and in Samoa's case a proactive management style thats trying to bring some structure and discipline to the way they play (I am not suggesting they were dirty players before) and are being successful to a degree in that department.

I think that without special dispensation they have achieved some great results, wins over Wales (ok we're not world beaters), france (maybe world beaters) and australia (actual world beaters) and as Lost in Wales said they bring so much to the game as individuals and as teams in the context of their population size.

I actually think it borders on patronising to give them special dispensation! and anyone else for that matter!

All I think is that the article shows that WRU have a regard for the islands showing due respect, this may be bourne out of losing to them in RWC's.

Like I said I don't get why NZ have been brought into the story?

There is no way anyone in New Zealand is being patronising to the Pacific Islanders.Polynesians form the big part of Auckland rugby their contribution is huge...look at the number of players from Counties Manukau,Auckland and North Harbour that played for teams other than the ABs in this World Cup.
If you think we are being patronising then you seriously underestimate New Zealanders.

aucklandlaurie wrote: There is no way anyone in New Zealand is being patronising to the Pacific Islanders.

I never said they were, I said it borders on patronising to the polynesian's (or anyone else). Who is being patronising is irrelevant.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Polynesians form the big part of Auckland rugby their contribution is huge...look at the number of players from Counties Manukau,Auckland and North Harbour that played for teams other than the ABs in this World Cup.

OK, I must be missing something here? As the numbers that play(ed) for other teams other than AB's already, then surely this means they don't need special dispensation? I'm assuming these players are eligible in the usual way?

aucklandlaurie wrote: If you think we are being patronising then you seriously underestimate New Zealanders.

Sorry if I'm giving that impression, it's not my intention.

I simply don't agree with players playing for 2 different countries, regardless.

Congrats on making the final BTW, hope you go on and win the thing now, and showing the French how to play Rugby at the same time.

Why don't other rugby super powers tour Tonga, Fiji or Samoa?

Because we can return them more by playing games against them here especially here in Auckland.

Red Dragon
So you dont see any harm in them having special dispensation?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Red Dragon
So you dont see any harm in them having special dispensation?

If they don't need it, then yes I do see the harm.

I'm interested to know why they need it though?

One argument seems to be that they don't have a big enough player pool so players who have already played for one country can be allowed to play for another? My argument against that would be that if they were eligible to play for that country in the first place means the player pool was big enough but not utilised?

I think I am slightly ignorant of some facts here, could you point me to the remit that NZ have/are promoting? Is it a short term retrospective solution or something more permanant?

Back to the original point of my post, I think that the WRU are showing a lot of respect to the 3 PI and to Rugby in general by touring there. It is a supportive gesture that can/could/should be taken further with tours of some of the emerging eastern block countries as well imo. It is to be appluaded.