4 matches that will shape the World Cup

There's always a lot of talk about building for a World Cup and what players might make the plane, but as 2018 draws to a close and we enter 2019, it might be worth looking at the 4 pool games that could shape the World Cup knockout stages.

Game One: France vs Argentina, Pool C, 21st September

The first Saturday is set to be a spicy one with New Zealand vs South Africa and Australia vs Fiji, but the repeat of the 2007 bronze final will probably end up as the one with the biggest impact on the pool stages. At the time of the draw, Argentina were the 9th ranked team in the world and therefore were always going to be the third seed most likely to crash the party. The loser of this game on Day 2 of the tournament will be walking a tightrope for the rest of the pool stages, and with Tonga (who beat France in 2011) and England still to come, the loser of this match will put themselves under a lot of pressure.

Game Two: Australia vs Wales, Pool B, 29th September

Australia and Wales probably thought they'd done their time in Pools of Death, but with Georgia's pack and 4th seeds Fiji coming good this autumn, the repeat of the 2011 bronze final match will be hugely important. The winner will probably go on to top the pool, get a slightly easier quarter-final and avoid the All Blacks in the semis, while the loser will most likely be left scrapping in a three-way battle for 2nd and may not make it out the pool at all.

Game Three: Italy vs South Africa, Pool B, 4th October

If results go as expected, Italy will start this game ahead of South Africa on points in the pool - possibly 9-6. It is a game South Africa would be expected to win, but a loss against New Zealand would leave South Africa as the first Tier 1 team to face an elimination match (a 4-1 win for Italy in the earlier scenario would eliminate South Africa). With a chance to secure their progress and eliminate South Africa a week before having to face the All Blacks, the Italians would be right up for this one and could cause a major upset, both in terms of the individual game and the tournament as a whole.

Game Four: Japan vs Scotland, Pool A, 13th October

Popular narrative tells you that this game will be a second-placed play-off in Group B, and if so what a match it will be for the hosts, trying to make their first World Cup quarter-final. And even if they were to fall short against Samoa or failure to pick up a bonus point against Russia leaves them with too big a gap to try and breach, it would still be the first non-Tier one country to host a World Cup signing off on their tournament. For Scotland's part, they'll obviously be hoping they've beaten Ireland and need this game to close the group, but if it does end up as a play-off they'll be hoping to continue their impressive record of qualification.

What does everyone else think? Any game with two tier-one team's is going to be an event, but I think these 4 games will be key in shaping how the knock-out stages look, and potentially coaches' jobs come November 2019.

Wales seem to get Oz a lot at the world cup!

1987 - 3rd place play off (Wales won)
1991 - same pool together
1995 - Did not meet
1999 - quarter finals. Oz knocked us out of our own tournament
2003 - Did not meet
2007 - same pool together
2011 - 3rd place play off (Oz win )
2015 - same pool
2019 - same pool

Give us the All Blacks instead

I find the prospect of facing Japan after losing to Ireland unnerving to say the least. Samoa in 2015 was bad enough. I'm amazed we nearly reached the semis to be honest.

My concern is Townsend very much backs the loose and lucky style, and that could be our undoing in Japan.

Win against Ireland and that pool is thrown open. I have a feeling that if we were to beat Ireland we would undo the hard work by losing to Japan. It's tough on the blood pressure being a Scotland supporter...

NeilyBroon wrote:I find the prospect of facing Japan after losing to Ireland unnerving to say the least. Samoa in 2015 was bad enough. I'm amazed we nearly reached the semis to be honest.

My concern is Townsend very much backs the loose and lucky style, and that could be our undoing in Japan.

Win against Ireland and that pool is thrown open. I have a feeling that if we were to beat Ireland we would undo the hard work by losing to Japan. It's tough on the blood pressure being a Scotland supporter...

Don’t worry - if Scotland beat Ireland it will be a big upset and leave Schmidt staring down a barrel as their next match is Japan who’ll be licking their lips with a likely 4 points already in the bag.

If Japan beat Scotland as well they’ll probably get to meet Boks in the quarters. Can you imagine the stadium?

Pot Hale wrote:

NeilyBroon wrote:I find the prospect of facing Japan after losing to Ireland unnerving to say the least. Samoa in 2015 was bad enough. I'm amazed we nearly reached the semis to be honest.

My concern is Townsend very much backs the loose and lucky style, and that could be our undoing in Japan.

Win against Ireland and that pool is thrown open. I have a feeling that if we were to beat Ireland we would undo the hard work by losing to Japan. It's tough on the blood pressure being a Scotland supporter...

Don’t worry - if Scotland beat Ireland it will be a big upset and leave Schmidt staring down a barrel as their next match is Japan who’ll be licking their lips with a likely 4 points already in the bag.

If Japan beat Scotland as well they’ll probably get to meet Boks in the quarters. Can you imagine the stadium?

If Scotland beat Ireland, be a NZ Ireland quarter bar no more upsets.

Perfect.

Oooh Scots v Japan....they will give this everything and at home could be a shocker. I'd say that would be a Hastings at 10 day not Russell.

Game 3. New Zealand v South Africa. Almost always an intense game. Lose will probably play Ireland in the Quarters. Winner gets to play Scotland (or potentially Samoa or Japan)

Yes good to get Ireland early and nervy either way. If Ireland make final theyll probably be tougher having conquered another milestone. Scotland are a side that could be the one that upsets this time, and for certain, someone will. Happens every tournament and this one looks to have more boilovers than ever.

Pie wrote:Oooh Scots v Japan....they will give this everything and at home could be a shocker. I'd say that would be a Hastings at 10 day not Russell.

Hastings at 10?? I mean the lad's got potential but he still isn't the same class as Russell.

Though yes I am very nervous about Japan, moreso than Ireland as I've already as good as ruled that one out. This being said looking at the fixtures list I'm happy we have Ireland first as there's potential to catch them cold, that and the boys will be very up for getting one over on our celtic cousins.

Samoa could be another banana skin. They were in poor form going into the last WC and they still nearly jumped us.

Going by the typical Townsend run of games, we'll play out of our skins to beat Ireland and Japan, scrape past Russia and lose to Samoa.

This is the reality of the World cup. Although some may think that the situation is reversed 'significantly' in the last three years heres what happened last world cup.

16 matches were played between the NH and SH sides during pool play.

9 were won by the NH. The only side to beat a tier one SH side in the entire tournament was Japan, who beat South Africa in probably THE greatest upset of ALL time.

Obviously none were won in knockout play with all four SH sides making the semis.

So key matches for me, for the NH tier one sides is ANY match where a NH side plays a tier one SH side.

The key to a World cup is that despite SH resources being depleted by the north in hugely increasing numbers, the SH sides 'find a way' to book every possible resource available that isnt ordinarily available in the 3 years prior. So the SH sides will be stronger than usual.

The NH sides will be as they are now as they wont be having any significant numbers return in any big way for the tournament proper.

So the key matches on pool:

Ireland and Scotland vs Samoa and Japan
Italy versus NZ and SA
England and France vs Arg and Tonga
Wales and Georgia vs Oz and Fiji

Upset matches of that lot are Scotland vs japan, Eng and/ or France vs Argie, Wales and France and Fiji.

The rest will go as per the rankings.

Christ, this guy’s still going on about hemispheres?!

The Oracle wrote:Christ, this guy’s still going on about hemispheres?!

Summarised the last world cup perfectly so yeah, its 'still' topical, whether you like it or not chump.

Taylorman wrote:So key matches for me, for the NH tier one sides is ANY match where a NH side plays a tier one SH side.

Think that goes without saying, doesn't it? For the most part, NZ, SA and AUS have been 1, 2 and 3 in the world. Aus and SA have declined from within in different ways, but they're still very good rugby teams - and as you say, will be peaking come RWC.

The interest comes in the fact that Ireland and England have both been very successful against the SANZAR sides since 2015. Both have won series overseas, England very nearly did what Ireland have done and complete a full house in beating all 3 of those teams this autumn. The gap has closed (and it's not just due to migration) between the North and the South.

AUS were 'beaten' by both Wales and Scotland last RWC - a combination of consistently SHOCKING mental strength from Wales to not score when camped on the tryling with a 2 man advantage for 10 minutes, and a SHOCKING decision by a SH-favouring referee put paid to those plans. I can see why you'd dismiss Wales in this instance - scoring points is part of the game, even if they dominated it. But Scotland 'won' that game, no doubt. Joubert knew what he'd done when he blew the final whistle, hence running away.

I would be surprised if all 3 SANZAR repeat what they did in 2015 in Japan. I would expect 1, if not 2, to be gone by the SFs. Wales 'should' beat Australia in their pool, but the difference in mental strength between those two teams is so vast, Wales could very easily bottle it. NZ 'should' beat South Africa, but this is a RWC, and if the ABs are pacing themselves in the group, they could get done.

What makes SA and NZ arguably favourites going into the knockout stages is how they're likely to coast the other group games. They seem to have by far the easiest 'weaker' teams to face:

ITALY (Japan, Argentina, Georgia) - only Georgia arguably weaker overall, but certainly physically tougher than Italy.
NAMIBIA (Russia, USA, Fiji) - the weakest team of the 4. Russia not great but still better than Namibia (47-20 in Nov 2018) and Fiji could easily make SFs if they get the bounce of the ball.
CANADA (Samoa, Tonga, Uruguay) - the last repechage spot went to Canada. Uruguay poor as well but beat Canada to qualify. The Pacfic Islanders will be tough.

With Ireland likely to play SA in the QFs, and France likely to face Australia in the same round (although could easily be England), we could see SANZAR in the semi finals again but I can't see it myself. Australia could get knocked out by Fiji in the group stages (as could Wales).

It's not just a North v South issue. This seems to have become the hill you want to die on Taylorman - don't really understand why?

The Ireland v Scotland final seems to me to be the cruncher game. If enough of our main battle tanks survive to that date then we should win. Here's hoping anyway

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Christ, this guy’s still going on about hemispheres?!

Summarised the last world cup perfectly so yeah, its 'still' topical, whether you like it or not chump.

I just down get the point of grouping international sides together by the direction their water goes down the plug hole. It’s ridiculous. No different to splitting the world map and grouping by ‘left’ and ‘right’.

I particularly like Taylorman's remark about how SH players have been depleted by NH. For years we've seen NZ exploit that particular resource while paying scant disregard to developing rugby in the PI region as it suited them very nicely thank you. But now other sides have cottoned on and the market has dictated that players can make a better living in the NH, its apparently not fair. Therein may explain his fixation with NH v SH as it is easy to group PI players into NZ sphere of influence in that way.

Cheeky, very cheeky.

Pie wrote:I particularly like Taylorman's remark about how SH players have been depleted by NH. For years we've seen NZ exploit that particular resource while paying scant disregard to developing rugby in the PI region as it suited them very nicely thank you. But now other sides have cottoned on and the market has dictated that players can make a better living in the NH, its apparently not fair. Therein may explain his fixation with NH v SH as it is easy to group PI players into NZ sphere of influence in that way.

Cheeky, very cheeky.

Yep, same old dumb argument. Which 100-200 off the shelf premier title winning professionals did NZ plunder? And the PI region? We developed the largest majority of their test players, and, your lot have taken them as well. What else should we do?

By the way, what has the four home unions done for developing spanish, german, russian rugby lately? Plundered the best of them Im guessing as well.

Reason I make it north versus south us because its now only at world cup time that the SH is more likely to put out its best sides, largely because its masses are playing in the north. There is a distinct difference between the SH and NH tier one nations in that the flow is one way. Completely.

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Christ, this guy’s still going on about hemispheres?!

Summarised the last world cup perfectly so yeah, its 'still' topical, whether you like it or not chump.

I just down get the point of grouping international sides together by the direction their water goes down the plug hole. It’s ridiculous. No different to splitting the world map and grouping by ‘left’ and ‘right’.

Yeah there is, yet unlike the water down the plughole going either way, players only go one way. Unnatural dont ya think, so your analogy is what is ridiculous. Laughable in fact.

Mind you, seems we do get a new trainee coach in the waiting in Schmidt when hes ready to try the main job. Send out a deputy, welcome back a sheriff from the outer plains.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So key matches for me, for the NH tier one sides is ANY match where a NH side plays a tier one SH side.

Think that goes without saying, doesn't it? For the most part, NZ, SA and AUS have been 1, 2 and 3 in the world. Aus and SA have declined from within in different ways, but they're still very good rugby teams - and as you say, will be peaking come RWC.

The interest comes in the fact that Ireland and England have both been very successful against the SANZAR sides since 2015. Both have won series overseas, England very nearly did what Ireland have done and complete a full house in beating all 3 of those teams this autumn. The gap has closed (and it's not just due to migration) between the North and the South.

AUS were 'beaten' by both Wales and Scotland last RWC - a combination of consistently SHOCKING mental strength from Wales to not score when camped on the tryling with a 2 man advantage for 10 minutes, and a SHOCKING decision by a SH-favouring referee put paid to those plans. I can see why you'd dismiss Wales in this instance - scoring points is part of the game, even if they dominated it. But Scotland 'won' that game, no doubt. Joubert knew what he'd done when he blew the final whistle, hence running away.

I would be surprised if all 3 SANZAR repeat what they did in 2015 in Japan. I would expect 1, if not 2, to be gone by the SFs. Wales 'should' beat Australia in their pool, but the difference in mental strength between those two teams is so vast, Wales could very easily bottle it. NZ 'should' beat South Africa, but this is a RWC, and if the ABs are pacing themselves in the group, they could get done.

What makes SA and NZ arguably favourites going into the knockout stages is how they're likely to coast the other group games. They seem to have by far the easiest 'weaker' teams to face:

ITALY (Japan, Argentina, Georgia) - only Georgia arguably weaker overall, but certainly physically tougher than Italy.
NAMIBIA (Russia, USA, Fiji) - the weakest team of the 4. Russia not great but still better than Namibia (47-20 in Nov 2018) and Fiji could easily make SFs if they get the bounce of the ball.
CANADA (Samoa, Tonga, Uruguay) - the last repechage spot went to Canada. Uruguay poor as well but beat Canada to qualify. The Pacfic Islanders will be tough.

With Ireland likely to play SA in the QFs, and France likely to face Australia in the same round (although could easily be England), we could see SANZAR in the semi finals again but I can't see it myself. Australia could get knocked out by Fiji in the group stages (as could Wales).

It's not just a North v South issue. This seems to have become the hill you want to die on Taylorman - don't really understand why?

Oz? Simply at their worst ever. That explains the wins against them. Terrible coach, terrible locks, 10, wings, no. 8. And worse, no players coming through, and total reliance on Pocock, Folau and sometimes Beake and Genia to get results.

Their issue isnt so much the drift north but a falloff in interest in the sport, with competition from the NRL, Oz rules, football etc. Their demise is more the reason for the NH wins than an improving NH standard. If oz were strong, Id agree, but theyre at all time record lows, so no cherries there.

SA are definitely due the the drift north, and partially poor coaching before now, and the quota. Again, claiming NH improvement on the back of that is again a poor argument. The NH sides didnt drastically change after 2015, the Southern did. Many, particularly NZ, retired and many took up NH contracts, and coaching regressed terribly in SA and Oz. There is some NH improvement, but its also helped by Huge drop off by the two. Both have the odd one off versus NZ but we are putting huge margins on both in the general scheme of things, when they were formally a lot more competitive.

Agree with your pool comment but thats always the case for the ABs anyway. Theyll have to again create ways to be competitive in pool, because as with other cups foor weeks vs rubbish, bar SA is the worst way to prep for a knockout.

NZ are 28 from 28 in pool at all Wcups at 68-12, 9 tries to 1 average. And this is probably the easiest ever. Go figure. Theyd be better playing their reserves in the carpark.

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:I particularly like Taylorman's remark about how SH players have been depleted by NH. For years we've seen NZ exploit that particular resource while paying scant disregard to developing rugby in the PI region as it suited them very nicely thank you. But now other sides have cottoned on and the market has dictated that players can make a better living in the NH, its apparently not fair. Therein may explain his fixation with NH v SH as it is easy to group PI players into NZ sphere of influence in that way.

Cheeky, very cheeky.

Yep, same old dumb argument. Which 100-200 off the shelf premier title winning professionals did NZ plunder? And the PI region? We developed the largest majority of their test players, and, your lot have taken them as well. What else should we do?

By the way, what has the four home unions done for developing spanish, german, russian rugby lately? Plundered the best of them Im guessing as well.

Reason I make it north versus south us because its now only at world cup time that the SH is more likely to put out its best sides, largely because its masses are playing in the north. There is a distinct difference between the SH and NH tier one nations in that the flow is one way. Completely.

so not. dumb if you expound it - SH depleted by NH (or in real terms, NZ don't have all the pieces of the cake anymore)....and yes NZ sure have developed the largest majority of their test players ....for the black jersey

But its a dumb argument if its to illustrate how PI nations Fiji, Samoa and Tonga have been depleted by NZ rugby for years who haven't invested anything in them at all of note, I mean how many NZ/SA/AUS tests have even been played in what is the beating heart of SH rugby?

That's really dumb.

And the comparisons with Spain Germany and Russia are nonsense; their national game is football....I expect rugby figures somewhere way down the list of national sporting priorities below pigeon fancying, no contact paper folding and colluding with foreign Presidential nominees. In Tonga, Samoa and Fiji it is literally their life.

What is literally their life? Rugby? Youre kidding right? Its a sport. Theyre not big or populous enough to have anything like a pro league. NZ struggles itself and there are more PIs living here than in the Islands themselves.

NZ has depleted them? Look at the Samoan team. Approx half were born in NZ, though most are playing pro rugby in the north, no need to play Super rugby when you arent vying for the ABs and can get a bigger salary. So you need to do your homework. WE are supplying half their squads, and your lot are nabbing them once WE have weaned them, trained them and ‘tested’ them professionally. We do the work, your lot get your wallets out.

Dream on pie.

Your actually hilarious Taylorman.

What do you think brought PI guys to NZ.....the weather? the wine? (maybe) the 2nd rate cricket team or the beaches? Certainly not the girls.

No it was the $$$$$$. And now you guys cant compete with the top levels of the pro game you're sore because the resources have followed the market to where the big bucks are.

Coaches likewise, in fact can the last NZ rugby player please turn off the lights? Ta much.

Pie wrote:Your actually hilarious Taylorman.

What do you think brought PI guys to NZ.....the weather? the wine? (maybe) the 2nd rate cricket team or the beaches? Certainly not the girls.

No it was the $$$$$$. And now you guys cant compete with the top levels of the pro game you're sore because the resources have followed the market to where the big bucks are.

Coaches likewise, in fact can the last NZ rugby player please turn off the lights? Ta much.

Really? There are 300,000 pacific islanders living in NZ. And you think they all came here for professional rugby careers? Can you be any more naive?

I dint say they all had. Whats naive - and rather amusing -is that you don't think many PI players came to NZ as the first step on the rung to a brighter future playing NH rugby. I guess they use the NZ system as a nursery and then head up to the big school and proper club rugby.

TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Well, for starters France is a much nicer place to live than NZ. From my experience. No surprise France is able to attract the top NZ players.

And on your first point, yes of course I was talking about NZ rugby players and not general public New Zelanders. The point is people from the other Pacific islands migrated to NZ for financial reasons and you were able to tap into that from a rugby perspective over the years and from their offspring. Just so happens they make damn fine rugby players so you lucked out there. More recently NZ rugby players are migrating to Europe for similar reasons. Don’t worry though, Brexit will mean that the value of the pound will plummet soon so it will only be France and Ireland (but the Irish don’t actually take many NZ players) as possible destinations for NZ players in Europe. Opportunities will dry up so they may be more inclined to stay at home. Or will they......

Taylorman wrote: If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

I'd keep that bit quiet if I were you, Tman.  The way things are going down up here, there might be a larger than usual influx of European tourists coming to see where all the Lord of the Rings filming took place.... and no return tickets in their bags....

Lock your doors!  Keep 'em out!  They ain't no good!  They ruin everywhere they get to!

.... but leave a window open for me please......................................

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Well, for starters France is a much nicer place to live than NZ. From my experience. No surprise France is able to attract the top NZ players.

And on your first point, yes of course I was talking about NZ rugby players and not general public New Zelanders. The point is people from the other Pacific islands migrated to NZ for financial reasons and you were able to tap into that from a rugby perspective over the years and from their offspring. Just so happens they make damn fine rugby players so you lucked out there. More recently NZ rugby players are migrating to Europe for similar reasons. Don’t worry though, Brexit will mean that the value of the pound will plummet soon so it will only be France and Ireland (but the Irish don’t actually take many NZ players) as possible destinations for NZ players in Europe. Opportunities will dry up so they may be more inclined to stay at home.   Or will they......

Oh, so where in NZ did you live though granted its just your opinion and certainly not everyones.

And yes we do well from the immigration the key difference being we dont buy in massive numbers off the shelf pro rugby players and coaches as a primary reason to support our competitions. It is a very unique situation where the best players from the strongest comps are paid less unless they move.

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Well, for starters France is a much nicer place to live than NZ. From my experience. No surprise France is able to attract the top NZ players.

And on your first point, yes of course I was talking about NZ rugby players and not general public New Zelanders. The point is people from the other Pacific islands migrated to NZ for financial reasons and you were able to tap into that from a rugby perspective over the years and from their offspring. Just so happens they make damn fine rugby players so you lucked out there. More recently NZ rugby players are migrating to Europe for similar reasons. Don’t worry though, Brexit will mean that the value of the pound will plummet soon so it will only be France and Ireland (but the Irish don’t actually take many NZ players) as possible destinations for NZ players in Europe. Opportunities will dry up so they may be more inclined to stay at home.   Or will they......

Oh, so where in NZ did you live though granted its just your opinion and certainly not everyones.

And yes we do well from the immigration the key difference being we dont buy in massive numbers off the shelf pro rugby players and coaches as a primary reason to support our competitions. It is a very unique situation where the best players from the strongest comps are paid less unless they move.

‘Primary reason to support out competitions’?! Get over yourself! I live in Wales, pal. Tell me all of the superstar NZ players propping up our teams? Any NZ World Cup winners in Wales? Genuine question. I do not know, but I can’t think of any.

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Well, for starters France is a much nicer place to live than NZ. From my experience. No surprise France is able to attract the top NZ players.

And on your first point, yes of course I was talking about NZ rugby players and not general public New Zelanders. The point is people from the other Pacific islands migrated to NZ for financial reasons and you were able to tap into that from a rugby perspective over the years and from their offspring. Just so happens they make damn fine rugby players so you lucked out there. More recently NZ rugby players are migrating to Europe for similar reasons. Don’t worry though, Brexit will mean that the value of the pound will plummet soon so it will only be France and Ireland (but the Irish don’t actually take many NZ players) as possible destinations for NZ players in Europe. Opportunities will dry up so they may be more inclined to stay at home.   Or will they......

Oh, so where in NZ did you live though granted its just your opinion and certainly not everyones.

And yes we do well from the immigration the key difference being we dont buy in massive numbers off the shelf pro rugby players and coaches as a primary reason to support our competitions. It is a very unique situation where the best players from the strongest comps are paid less unless they move.

‘Primary reason to support out competitions’?! Get over yourself! I live in Wales, pal. Tell me all of the superstar NZ players propping up our teams? Any NZ World Cup winners in Wales? Genuine question. I do not know, but I can’t think of any.

Remove all SH contracted players, coaches from your comp immediately and you face serious problems in internal recruiting, quality of rugby and return to shareholders and fans as well as being able to fulfil both club and international requirements. I didnt say stars, I said one of the primary reasons the comps are succeeding, now you tell me thats completely false. And still waiting on your ‘experience’ of france being a nicer place to live than NZ. In the news lately France dont look the place to be AT ALL.

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Well, for starters France is a much nicer place to live than NZ. From my experience. No surprise France is able to attract the top NZ players.

And on your first point, yes of course I was talking about NZ rugby players and not general public New Zelanders. The point is people from the other Pacific islands migrated to NZ for financial reasons and you were able to tap into that from a rugby perspective over the years and from their offspring. Just so happens they make damn fine rugby players so you lucked out there. More recently NZ rugby players are migrating to Europe for similar reasons. Don’t worry though, Brexit will mean that the value of the pound will plummet soon so it will only be France and Ireland (but the Irish don’t actually take many NZ players) as possible destinations for NZ players in Europe. Opportunities will dry up so they may be more inclined to stay at home.   Or will they......

Oh, so where in NZ did you live though granted its just your opinion and certainly not everyones.

And yes we do well from the immigration the key difference being we dont buy in massive numbers off the shelf pro rugby players and coaches as a primary reason to support our competitions. It is a very unique situation where the best players from the strongest comps are paid less unless they move.

‘Primary reason to support out competitions’?! Get over yourself! I live in Wales, pal. Tell me all of the superstar NZ players propping up our teams? Any NZ World Cup winners in Wales? Genuine question. I do not know, but I can’t think of any.

Remove all SH contracted players, coaches from your comp immediately and you face serious problems in internal recruiting, quality of rugby and return to shareholders and fans as well as being able to fulfil both club and international requirements. I didnt say stars, I said one of the primary reasons the comps are succeeding, now you tell me thats completely false. And still waiting on your ‘experience’ of france being a nicer place to live than NZ. In the news lately France dont look the place to be AT ALL.

That’s Paris my friend. It’s a big ole country, is France. I’ve travelled in NZ for 6 months. I’ve been visiting France for years since a child. I can see why people want to emigrate to, move to, retire to, play rugby in, smuggled themselves into... France. Especially the South. Beautiful. And the food. Divine. Remember, it’s not just NZ superstars on France on massive salaries. You’ve got NZ players uprooting themselves to go and play in the 2nd tier in France for far less money. Must be some sort of attraction, otherwise they’d stay in NZ right?

.

Yeah, but the South of France is only beautiful coz it stole our sun quota. Nobody ever speaks of that. Bigger issue than Brexit. One day it'll all come out

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Well, for starters France is a much nicer place to live than NZ. From my experience. No surprise France is able to attract the top NZ players.

And on your first point, yes of course I was talking about NZ rugby players and not general public New Zelanders. The point is people from the other Pacific islands migrated to NZ for financial reasons and you were able to tap into that from a rugby perspective over the years and from their offspring. Just so happens they make damn fine rugby players so you lucked out there. More recently NZ rugby players are migrating to Europe for similar reasons. Don’t worry though, Brexit will mean that the value of the pound will plummet soon so it will only be France and Ireland (but the Irish don’t actually take many NZ players) as possible destinations for NZ players in Europe. Opportunities will dry up so they may be more inclined to stay at home.   Or will they......

Oh, so where in NZ did you live though granted its just your opinion and certainly not everyones.

And yes we do well from the immigration the key difference being we dont buy in massive numbers off the shelf pro rugby players and coaches as a primary reason to support our competitions. It is a very unique situation where the best players from the strongest comps are paid less unless they move.

‘Primary reason to support out competitions’?! Get over yourself! I live in Wales, pal. Tell me all of the superstar NZ players propping up our teams? Any NZ World Cup winners in Wales? Genuine question. I do not know, but I can’t think of any.

Remove all SH contracted players, coaches from your comp immediately and you face serious problems in internal recruiting, quality of rugby and return to shareholders and fans as well as being able to fulfil both club and international requirements. I didnt say stars, I said one of the primary reasons the comps are succeeding, now you tell me thats completely false. And still waiting on your ‘experience’ of france being a nicer place to live than NZ. In the news lately France dont look the place to be AT ALL.

That’s Paris my friend. It’s a big ole country, is France. I’ve travelled in NZ for 6 months. I’ve been visiting France for years since a child. I can see why people want to emigrate to, move to, retire to, play rugby in, smuggled themselves into... France. Especially the South. Beautiful. And the food. Divine. Remember, it’s not just NZ superstars on France on massive salaries. You’ve got NZ players uprooting themselves to go and play in the 2nd tier in France for far less money. Must be some sort of attraction, otherwise they’d stay in NZ right?

.

Oh, Paris, where more choose to live than anywhere else, that Paris.Yes, one reason, the money. And the more likelihood of getting it in France than NZ where our test players earn far less than those in french clubs. Lower div 2 france will pay far more. No money, no move. Period.

Oh we have football players here too. Oddly, not many of them opt to live in a better lifestyle in the south of France. Cant fathom why it its only rugby players that want to go there in droves. Can you?And travelling for six months is zero experience in living here, especially when comparing it to ones glazed happy child hood memories. Please. And pretty sure ive heard the odd compliment about southern NZ as well. Not tgat your opinion is representative of anyone bar yourself so weve that to be thankful.

Of course my opinion is only my own. Just as yours is only yours, particularly your glazed happy child memories and how you dismiss living in Europe as being a good experience.

For what it’s worth New Zealand is very nice. That’s why I went (obviously researched it before going). Very similar to Wales in many respects, I’m sure you’ll hate to hear. But lots of ‘better’ bits in NZ too

Paris don't have anything on Cork! It's official.

Isn't the top tax band 70% in France? Might have changed since Macron came in, and no doubt there are ways around taxation, but money isn't the only reason rugby players are going to France.

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Have you seen the south of France?

mikey_dragon wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Oracle wrote:TMan, he’s saying they came to NZ for financial reasons. You know, chance to find work (not necessarily rugby), provide for the family, better standard of living, etc. Same as NZ players going to Europe.

‘NZers’ dont go to Europe for a better standard of living, because they dont get one there. If anything its Europeans that migrated south to Oz and NZ for that.

Only ‘Rugby players’ go for higher salaries. Pacific Islanders started migrating to NZ for a better standard of living and job prospects in the late 60’s, a good thirty years before making money from rugby became an option for ALL players. Huge difference. Rugby had nothing to do with it, meaning third and forth generation NZ born pacific islanders are now making money from rugby and are playing for their country of ethnic origin, many that havent even been there. A far greater percentage of Pacific Islanders are in the NH than NZ purely for rugby reasons. I mean, why else woykd they go there?

Have you seen the south of France?

Nope, heard about it, but it is not me making the having lived there when i havent comparison. Id prefer the assessment of those that have...if i did want to know, as its a bit off topic for me. Only thing is i do know is, kiwis dont flock there unless theyre pro rugby players. But they also go to Japan and other non south of france places as well. Home is home, theres usually nowhere better as far as im concerned.

Toto agrees thankfully.

Yes he should have eaten that wicked witch of the north. And as for that Oz wizard...can't fool anyone with gimmicks even today...

NZers dont come to NH for a better standard of living? True, they come to the UK for WORK..... in the biggest HQ multinationals, the best restaurants in the world, the most cutting edge tech companies, the greatest sports teams, the world's most magnificent museums, the heart of the Financial industry, the film and theatre business, the most famous Police force in the world, the Armed Forces etc etc. Need I go on? Oh and the best entertainment in the world in its greatest cities.

Someone clearly has their head stuck up a sheep's derriere.

Pie wrote: in the biggest HQ multinationals, the best restaurants in the world, the most cutting edge tech companies, the greatest sports teams, the world's most magnificent museums, the heart of the Financial industry, the film and theatre business, the most famous Police force in the world, the Armed Forces etc etc. Need I go on? Oh and the best entertainment in the world in its greatest cities.

Yeah but the US isn't part of this discussion though.

SecretFly wrote:

Pie wrote: in the biggest HQ multinationals, the best restaurants in the world, the most cutting edge tech companies, the greatest sports teams, the world's most magnificent museums, the heart of the Financial industry, the film and theatre business, the most famous Police force in the world, the Armed Forces etc etc. Need I go on? Oh and the best entertainment in the world in its greatest cities.

Yeah but the US isn't part of this discussion though.

Pie wrote:NZers dont come to NH for a better standard of living? True, they come to the UK for WORK..... in the biggest HQ multinationals, the best restaurants in the world, the most cutting edge tech companies, the greatest sports teams, the world's most magnificent museums, the heart of the Financial industry, the film and theatre business, the most famous Police force in the world, the Armed Forces etc etc. Need I go on? Oh and the best entertainment in the world in its greatest cities.

Someone clearly has their head stuck up a sheep's derriere.

Really?
Show me the numbers then.

New Zealand's annual net migration gain has fallen again - continuing a downward trend, albeit at a gentle pace.

"The trend decline in net migration remains firmly in place," said Westpac economist Satish Ranchhod in his analysis of the latest Stats NZ data.

"The annual inflow of people into the country has now fallen from a peak of 72,400 in 2017 to 63,280 now. While that's still high, it's the lowest level since October 2015."

Migrant arrivals were 129,100 and migrant departures were 65,800 for the latest year."

Twice as many coming in pal. And ours going out aint going to the UK, theyre going to Oz.

"Britain's decision to leave the EU occurred in June; in May, June and July, 5385 British citizens expatriated to New Zealand, while in August, September and October the figure reached 6882."

More are coming here chump. The delusion continues.

Haha I wouldn’t get excited about remoaners coming your way Tman... in fact I’d be quite the opposite

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:NZers dont come to NH for a better standard of living? True, they come to the UK for WORK..... in the biggest HQ multinationals, the best restaurants in the world, the most cutting edge tech companies, the greatest sports teams, the world's most magnificent museums, the heart of the Financial industry, the film and theatre business, the most famous Police force in the world, the Armed Forces etc etc. Need I go on? Oh and the best entertainment in the world in its greatest cities.

Someone clearly has their head stuck up a sheep's derriere.

Really?
Show me the numbers then.

New Zealand's annual net migration gain has fallen again - continuing a downward trend, albeit at a gentle pace.

"The trend decline in net migration remains firmly in place," said Westpac economist Satish Ranchhod in his analysis of the latest Stats NZ data.

"The annual inflow of people into the country has now fallen from a peak of 72,400 in 2017 to 63,280 now. While that's still high, it's the lowest level since October 2015."

Migrant arrivals were 129,100 and migrant departures were 65,800 for the latest year."

Twice as many coming in pal. And ours going out aint going to the UK, theyre going to Oz.

"Britain's decision to leave the EU occurred in June; in May, June and July, 5385 British citizens expatriated to New Zealand, while in August, September and October the figure reached 6882."

More are coming here chump. The delusion continues.

You clearly have lots of time on your hands to mine wiki facts, that source of knowledge most ignorant people reference but, you aren't actually capable of expressing an opinion without personal remarks which marks you out as a lower form of intelligence. Its the surest sign of someone who is driven by ego not by reason.

From now on ignore my posts as I am not interested in your opinion on anything, especially rugby since it is invariably wrong.

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:NZers dont come to NH for a better standard of living? True, they come to the UK for WORK..... in the biggest HQ multinationals, the best restaurants in the world, the most cutting edge tech companies, the greatest sports teams, the world's most magnificent museums, the heart of the Financial industry, the film and theatre business, the most famous Police force in the world, the Armed Forces etc etc. Need I go on? Oh and the best entertainment in the world in its greatest cities.

Someone clearly has their head stuck up a sheep's derriere.

Really?
Show me the numbers then.

New Zealand's annual net migration gain has fallen again - continuing a downward trend, albeit at a gentle pace.

"The trend decline in net migration remains firmly in place," said Westpac economist Satish Ranchhod in his analysis of the latest Stats NZ data.

"The annual inflow of people into the country has now fallen from a peak of 72,400 in 2017 to 63,280 now. While that's still high, it's the lowest level since October 2015."

Migrant arrivals were 129,100 and migrant departures were 65,800 for the latest year."

Twice as many coming in pal. And ours going out aint going to the UK, theyre going to Oz.

"Britain's decision to leave the EU occurred in June; in May, June and July, 5385 British citizens expatriated to New Zealand, while in August, September and October the figure reached 6882."

More are coming here chump. The delusion continues.

You clearly have lots of time on your hands to mine wiki facts, that source of knowledge most ignorant people reference but, you aren't actually capable of expressing an opinion without personal remarks which marks you out as a lower form of intelligence. Its the surest sign of someone who is driven by ego not by reason.

From now on ignore my posts as I am not interested in your opinion on anything, especially rugby since it is invariably wrong.

Do you not read what you write?:

'Someone clearly has their head stuck up a sheep's derriere.' after an entire paragraph over unproven overstated non facts.

I say chump...and Im the one not able t comment without personal remarks.

I mean you cant even get that right... invariably wrong...umm, no. I dont think so.