3 years has nothing on 5 years

With all the hoo ha in football about 5 year qualification rules and how it is ruining the national game, does this throw some un-wanted light on the Rugby and its pitifully short 3 years.

In all honesty in all the radio debates, I am surprised no-one has mentioned rugby as an alternative example, but if it turns our that football finds that 5 years is too short a time for qualification for a national team, do you think the Rugby world will take notice and look at its 3 years?

My personal opinion is 3 years is a joke and it should be 5 years (at least), so maybe football have it right already

Its amazing that rugby fans and players tend to look down at football and their crowd yet we're the ones looking shallow in this case.

Agree with that, 5 years minimum. That shows true commitment on the players behalf.

Someone said something in another thread that made sense as well, which was that you have to have arrived in that country by 15 years of age. Not sure about the cut off age, but made sense to stop countries shopping around other countries for prospects, which ain't cricket.

Well three years suit the National Rugby unions.

Think about it, first season syndrome, nobody know you, so you shine if you have any talent.

Year two is the "we know you now so try the same Poopie"

Year three is where a player establishes himself. If he hasn't done by then his chances reduce significantly.

I love it how Kevin Pietersen cited himself and Jonathan Trott directly to Jack Wilshere on twitter as to how he was being offensive.

No disrespect to the above players... but they are and will forever be mercenaries. They came to England as adults because they couldn't make it happen in SA... had they got into the SA team they would have stayed.

Guys like Mo Farah, Andrew Strauss, Matt Prior etc all came to UK as kids, Pietersen came to the UK as an adult. Big difference.

Pietersen and Trott also didn't qualify through residency.

It was through ancestry, eh?

I believe Pietersen did have to qualify actually, came to the UK in 2001 aged 21, got his first cap in 2005. I remember at the time they were waiting for him to pass a certain date before selecting him.

Pietersen's mum was English but his dad was Afrikaans and his first language was/is afrikaans. Not sure his mum was born in England.

In my book that makes him Afrikaans.

the guy is a tool anyhow. He never knuckled down and worked hard in SA, didn't understand the system and just left as a crying baby.... if it was so bad then how were the vast majority of the test players white, the captain white etc. He's just a baby with a big chip on his shoulder.

Immensely talented but not as good as he thinks he is.

Parents in both cases Biltong. If Pietersen qualifies to play for England, wants to play for England, classes himself as English, that's good enough for me.

To the original post it should be longer than 3 years and you shouldn't be able to represent 2 separate countries messrs Flutey and Hape I'm looking at you.

Probably the one thing all rugby fans are unanimous in...should be more than 3 years.

my issue with Pietersen only came about because of the way he treated the SA public when he toured with England.

Of course he got stick from the crowds first off, he can't expect a thunderous applause given he openly criticised the country and the team prior to playing in SA.. saying things like England are more of the team then SA etc.

Jonathan Trott has never got massive stick yet his highs have been arguably higher then Pietersens given he was made ICC world player of the year a while back.... something Pietersen has never achieved etc. He never got stick because he has always been rather humble and never gone on the offensive on it.

Same when chaps like Mouritz Botha played for England... the fans never cried over him, one because he would never have been good enough to play for SA but also because he has always been respectful about his home country as well as his adopted country.

5 years should be the minimum but can someone explain how Pietersen had to qualify via the residency route when his mother is English, wouldn't that have made him qualified automatically anyway?

That sounds very galling FA (re Pieterson), that would make anyone wild how he behaved in SA! Fancy antagonising his birth place like that, shameful.

I'm pretty sure he had to qualify.

In South Africa when someone says they're English (but have a south african accent) it doesn't mean they are actually English, but rather English derived or even English educated.

I know a guy called Johannes van Niekerk who after assuming he was Afrikaans and introducing myself as thus was told... "uh, sorry, I'm not Afrikaans, I don't understand, can you speak in English please".

Its like Irish americans calling themselves Irish. Most probably wouldn't qualify through grandparent ancestry but see themselves as Irish etc.

Hmm, strictly speaking I'm wrong (in every sense!) when i said he was English qualified through their parents. Seems you have to spend 4 years now 7 after you're 18 in the county scene before you are chosen.

FA wrote:my issue with Pietersen only came about because of the way he treated the SA public when he toured with England

I wholeheartedly agree with that. If you want to leave, then leave, but when you criticise a system you barely gave chance publically you are merely making an Donkey's backside of yourself.

I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

The project players in Josh Strauss for Scotland, CJ Stander in Ireland and various saffa's in AUS have been particularly ugly for the sport.

Guys like Mouritz Botha who went there on their own accord is one thing... guys who are shopped whilst in their own country is another.

I think the home nations fall in a total different category due to the natural movement of the populous.

I would think a large proportion of the population of the home nations would have mixed blood due to parents or grandparents.

I hate the term "PROJECT PLAYER" this should be banned outright and is a p155 take of the sport we all love.

Biltong wrote:I think the home nations fall in a total different category due to the natural movement of the populous.

I would think a large proportion of the population of the home nations would have mixed blood due to parents or grandparents.

 


Yes that is correct, although it would be a bit of a bind for somebody from Wales to move to England or Scotland or N Ireland it would not be the end of the world because everything is the same. You can even use the same passport and you would not need a visa ect, it would be no different for me to move to Bristol as it would for me to move somwhere in North Wales, infact Bristol would be easier for me. 

Well whether you call them project players, projects, stock, whatever, it is what it is.

fa0019 wrote:I believe Pietersen did have to qualify actually, came to the UK in 2001 aged 21, got his first cap in 2005. I remember at the time they were waiting for him to pass a certain date before selecting him.

Pietersen's mum was English but his dad was Afrikaans and his first language was/is afrikaans. Not sure his mum was born in England.

In my book that makes him Afrikaans.

Pietersen did serve a qualification period, but that was an ECB policy that players had to played County Cricket for x number of years. Under ICC regulations, having an English parent made him always available to England.

LordDowlais wrote:I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

If only that were so. I think I had better leave it at that.

Back to the main subject area I was amused a couple of years ago when England played Wales they both had the same number of English born backs..

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

If only that were so. I think I had better leave it at that.

Back to the main subject area I was amused a couple of years ago when England played Wales they both had the same number of English born backs..

Come on then, enlighten me what is the big culture shock between our two countries, England and Wales ?

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

If only that were so. I think I had better leave it at that.

Back to the main subject area I was amused a couple of years ago when England played Wales they both had the same number of English born backs..

Come on then, enlighten me what is the big culture shock between our two countries, England and Wales ?

I dont really want to go there as it could just turn into an anti Welsh rant which will serve no purpose. I know it is very much a horses for courses thing, and I would qualify things by saying I did meet some lovely welsh people and things are not universal, just as there more than your fair share of English idiots and bigots if you go looking for them (especially in the Mumbles if you must know).

I lived in Swansea for 7 years and hated it. I never expected things and people to be as different from what I was used to as it turned out, and before moving was genuinely excited about the new opportunity that was there and being by the sea.

Prior to that I lived in several different UK cities including London for several years. I have now moved to the NW and am, quite frankly, loving it.

Quote/para quote (its from memory) from Milton Jones I heard the other day ' And then I became an eco protester. Usually its hard for someone to become an eco protester because you have to get used to living in a hole, but I am from Swansea so I was alright'

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

If only that were so. I think I had better leave it at that.

Back to the main subject area I was amused a couple of years ago when England played Wales they both had the same number of English born backs..

none?  

quinsforever wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

If only that were so. I think I had better leave it at that.

Back to the main subject area I was amused a couple of years ago when England played Wales they both had the same number of English born backs..

none?  

  I think it was just outside backs - but Wales had North, Cuthbert and JD2. England had Manu and Barritt born overseas.

Personally I dont have a problem with a lot of the qualification regs, but occasionally you see one or 2 which makes you scratch your head a little, like McHeathcote

Scotland wouldn't have any of their best players playing for Scotland if this rule was here from day 1...
 

Of the current Scotland starting line-up only Maitland, Swinson and Visser weren't born or brought up in Scotland having said that I find the idea of project players abhorrent and an insult to hard working young players who have dreamed of playing for Scotland. The idea that you can come to a country just to play internationally is ridiculous if a player signed for Glasgow or Edinburgh and played well for three years and won his place on merit fair enough but otherwise it's unfair. I would say a points system would be best and you have to earn 100 points so for example:

Birth: 100
Brought up/ Spent more than 5 years as a child: 100
Parent: 80
Grandparent: 50
Years residence: 20

Numbahs, Hamilton?

123456789 wrote:Of the current Scotland starting line-up only Maitland, Swinson and Visser weren't born or brought up in Scotland having said that I find the idea of project players abhorrent and an insult to hard working young players who have dreamed of playing for Scotland. The idea that you can come to a country just to play internationally is ridiculous if a player signed for Glasgow or Edinburgh and played well for three years and won his place on merit fair enough but otherwise it's unfair. I would say a points system would be best and you have to earn 100 points so for example:

Birth: 100
Brought up/ Spent more than 5 years as a child: 100
Parent: 80
Grandparent: 50
Years residence: 20

I honestly done have a problem with Heathcote having a shot at an international career with Scotland, and I hope he gets to make the most of it, but the only link he has is that he was born there because that was where his dad was stationed at the time. Its like saying so and so is Spanish because they were born there when their parents were on holiday.

Birth is a big deal but its not everything. Nationality is complex - there are no simple answers

GeordieFalcon wrote:Probably the one thing all rugby fans are unanimous in...should be more than 3 years.

Not unanimous - I disagree.

It is wrong that countries with large playing populations can add to those numbers after only three years qualification simply because they have the money to attract players from all over the world. Worse, the prospect of local qualification is used by unscrupulous clubs as an excuse to stop releasing players to their 'natural' Test teams in International windows. These countries should have at least a five and hopefully a seven year residency qualification period.

OTOH those nations like Scotland with a much smaller professional base are already disadvantaged because of their small playing numbers, and with only two professional teams are unlikely to have many players able to qualify on residency anyway. So for this band of nations - three years is about right.

Finally there are those nations who have no home professional leagues to attract any players on residency at all because they can't afford to. So the poorer nations lose players to the rich leagues through residency but have no way to redress that drain in their direction. These nations should have a qualification (by intent) period of say one year. There are probably 3rd generation PIs in say New Zealand who no longer qualify for Fiji/Samoa/Tonga through ancestry but who would love to play for their ancestral nation, so why not boost those nations' playing numbers by having a very short qualifying period.

Aukster wrote:OTOH those nations like Scotland with a much smaller professional base are already disadvantaged because of their small playing numbers, and with only two professional teams are unlikely to have many players able to qualify on residency anyway. So for this band of nations - three years is about right.

I understand your reasoning, but cannot agree with it. What you are basically saying is countries who have a professional setup, but smaller than other countries must get favourable treatment to "recruit" players to bolster their stock.

So let's say I am 24 years old, a professional player and recieve two offers, one from England and one from Scotland, I can qualify for Scotland in three years but have to wait five years before I can play for England?

Mmm, 3 years for players entering Scotland disadvantages those countries the players are pilfered from but strengthens Scotland. That's a win-lose situation and what right does Scotland have to do this? Because they're poor and have a small player base? No, this is not fair.

If a PI player that lives in NZ has lost his right to play for his country of heritage, then it's simple, migrate back to the islands for 3 years and lose the ability to play in the ITM cup or for a s15 franchise. What's often forgotten, is that many of these PI players are raised and taught rugby in NZ and are for all intents and purposes kiwis. Would they have achieved the same level of excellence if their families never emigrated long ago? Probably not.

And where are the NH players migrating to the islands to gain residency? It's one way traffic and it sucks. Pro rugby has made a mockery of international rugby and it's getting worse every year. Even Oz are scouting NZ clubs for players with their credit cards, disgraceful. And Oz fans are happy with that. I'd be embarrassed personally given their proud history over the last few decades.

great ideas get copied

arbitrages and market inefficiencies get eliminated, especially as the game becomes more professional

ebop wrote: Even Oz are scouting NZ clubs for players with their credit cards, disgraceful. And Oz fans are happy with that. I'd be embarrassed personally given their proud history over the last few decades.

It isn't only OZ supporters that are happy about it mate, you find the majority of supporters who's countries benefit from this is happy with it.

There will be somthing like ten South Africans in Australia next year, 6 at the Force and Jake White's "project" with Canberra University has yielded 4 youngsters for them.

Pride these days are bought, many don't have issues bragging with other countries' cattle.

Our problem is the level of scouting. The scouts are aiming at kids at the under 13 level. I was talking to one of the dads at the end of the season and his son is being chased by several English schools (he's Polynesian). Tialata's Cousin, Nelson Asofa Solomona was targeted by Australian rugby schools and eventually signed with league when he was 15 (He grew up playing union). Most NRL sides can boast a NZ union convert. Benji Marshall is the most high profile (a former NZ under 16 union player, signed to a contract whilst on a school field trip to Australia). It's becoming a bigger and bigger issue every year. We are talking about the cream of the crop.

That makes my blood boil

ebop wrote:That makes my blood boil

I'm gutted about Solomona. He's a Wellington boy and freak of nature. Came through the system. He's ranked by some of the scouting operations as the top union kid in the country. The Canes developments staff have said he's biggest talent they've seen. A 120kg+, 2m+ 17 year old. His aerobic fitness is very good for an international player (Beep test). He's a dominant lineout force and great on his feet and already has a good SBW offload. He has pace and Storm are looking to play him at centre. Apparently the Lions didn't show any interest early enough.

by FIFA rules any one that is british could actually play for any team they want in football. Because we are all the same internationally.. Ideally of course they want us as 1 country(which to be honest- England plus ramsey and bale!) would be a world class team!!). But us british still have a say on international football and out 4 associations have seats on the committee so that won't happen soon.

However its the FA that are so strict on this. And the reason they are strict on it is to protect the smaller nations teams within the UK.

Football is a truly important sport in this nation.

lostinwales wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I also agree with this three years is a joke, but in GB as we are an island with three countries stuck together and one country that is part of another, I know it sounds weird, and we all see ourselves as British our residency rules are a bit different, for example, I have family living in both England and Scotland, but my cousins see themselves as Welsh and they class their children as Welsh also, even though their kids were born in the countries where their jobs took them, so we have grey areas there because there are no cultural differences and we all use the same money and when our brave service men and women are out in the middle east they are all British and we are proud of them all, what I do not agree with are people who for what ever reason cannot make it in their own country so they come over here to get "capped", and to be honest, and this is not a dig, but the main culprits are England and Scotland, it will not be long before those two have a national side without any indigenous British people playing, but I suppose this is the way the world is going. 

If only that were so. I think I had better leave it at that.

Back to the main subject area I was amused a couple of years ago when England played Wales they both had the same number of English born backs..

none?  

  I think it was just outside backs - but Wales had North, Cuthbert and JD2. England had Manu and Barritt born overseas.

Personally I dont have a problem with a lot of the qualification regs, but occasionally you see one or 2 which makes you scratch your head a little, like McHeathcote

I was trying to make a point about the difference between a British player playing for another British side as when it comes down to it we are all not that very different on this small island, to a South African, or a New Zealander for example. Sheeesh that stay in the Mumbles has really turned you into a little monster.

britain made man u- he is english. no problem with him playing at all! he moved here at about 12 or something

Biltong wrote:

Aukster wrote:OTOH those nations like Scotland with a much smaller professional base are already disadvantaged because of their small playing numbers, and with only two professional teams are unlikely to have many players able to qualify on residency anyway. So for this band of nations - three years is about right.

I understand your reasoning, but cannot agree with it. What you are basically saying is countries who have a professional setup, but smaller than other countries must get favourable treatment to "recruit" players to bolster their stock.

So let's say I am 24 years old, a professional player and recieve two offers, one from England and one from Scotland, I can qualify for Scotland in three years but have to wait five years before I can play for England?

Yes - what's wrong with that? England have over 6 times the number of pro players so some incentive for players to choose the smaller nations might help make Test rugby more competitive. Of course a 24 year old player has to decide what's best for his career. First he has to serve his residency period and THEN he has to be selected. Some will choose England/France because they could make more money even if they never become an international.

Perhaps residency qualification should be scrapped altogether with no period long enough but be age based. Longer residency periods will surely encourage the phenomenon of scouting schoolboys at younger and younger ages - although there has to be a point where this becomes impossible as the boy will be just too young to show any indicator of future potential. Therefore the rule could be that any boy coming to a country can only qualify for it if he has moved there before the age of (say) eleven.

Big rugby nations produce more rugby players than they can sustain professionally. They have the pick of the bunch to foster and develop into Test players. What is wrong with the best of the rest becoming qualified to play Test rugby for someone else? Increasing the quality and quantity of the player pool in small nations by transferring some of the huge numbers excluded by their own nations surely has to be good for the game?

good for small nations initially. would be very unpopular with NZ and SA.

bad for international rugby too. will turn off the fans over time, as the inevitable corollary of this is central contracts, and international players for hire.

and international rugby is the golden goose...

The Great Aukster wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Aukster wrote:OTOH those nations like Scotland with a much smaller professional base are already disadvantaged because of their small playing numbers, and with only two professional teams are unlikely to have many players able to qualify on residency anyway. So for this band of nations - three years is about right.

I understand your reasoning, but cannot agree with it. What you are basically saying is countries who have a professional setup, but smaller than other countries must get favourable treatment to "recruit" players to bolster their stock.

So let's say I am 24 years old, a professional player and recieve two offers, one from England and one from Scotland, I can qualify for Scotland in three years but have to wait five years before I can play for England?

Yes - what's wrong with that? England have over 6 times the number of pro players so some incentive for players to choose the smaller nations might help make Test rugby more competitive. Of course a 24 year old player has to decide what's best for his career. First he has to serve his residency period and THEN he has to be selected. Some will choose England/France because they could make more money even if they never become an international.

Perhaps residency qualification should be scrapped altogether with no period long enough but be age based. Longer residency periods will surely encourage the phenomenon of scouting schoolboys at younger and younger ages - although there has to be a point where this becomes impossible as the boy will be just too young to show any indicator of future potential. Therefore the rule could be that any boy coming to a country can only qualify for it if he has moved there before the age of (say) eleven.

Big rugby nations produce more rugby players than they can sustain professionally. They have the pick of the bunch to foster and develop into Test players. What is wrong with the best of the rest becoming qualified to play Test rugby for someone else? Increasing the quality and quantity of the player pool in small nations by transferring some of the huge numbers excluded by their own nations surely has to be good for the game?

So lets say Scotland need 3 years residency and Samoa/ Japan needs 1/2. Then Samoa beat Scotland and Japan beat Wales, so do they move up the world rankings list and have to wait the 3 years?

Personally while I see where you are coming from, a plan to tailor residencies won't work and will just mean that even more good but not quite the best Kiwis and Saffas will be turning out for other countries, which can only be a bad thing for the game in the 'smaller' countries in the long run as less locals are involved.

Your right it is actually a good thing for the globalisation of the game.

I think the PI nations are a special case, but I dont think anyone else has the same problems at the moment.

lostinwales wrote:I think the PI nations are a special case, but I dont think anyone else has the same problems at the moment.

I think South Africa are facing a similar problem, but that is with fringe international talent. Have a look at the Rabo sides, and have a look at how many time-serving, project-players are from SA.