Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread

Risteard

1. Born in Ireland
2. Parent is Irish and spent some time here.
3. Been a resident here for 7 years

The ways to be IQ IMO. (Apart from the obvious born and raised here.)

Cpt_Blackbeard

Well if you have to qualify on residency grounds, neither your parents, or their parents are Irish. Then you, more than likely, aren't Irish.

If you came to Ireland with the singular purpose of becoming a resident and playing international rugby you're not Irish.

These project players are being payed money to visit our country and we are hoping that they like it enough that they will put in a decent effort for the international team if asked.

The best thing for me to say to you emmett is: Do you consider yourself Irish?



We don't want to go down the road of the All Blacks and start poaching players...

LeeroyJones

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Well if you have to qualify on residency grounds, neither your parents, or their parents are Irish. Then you, more than likely, aren't Irish.

If you came to Ireland with the singular purpose of becoming a resident and playing international rugby you're not Irish.

Fair enough, but where do you draw the line for other scenarios? How can you differentiate between
(a)the player who one of the provinces sign at the age of 21 and wants to play for Ireland for the sake of playing any international rugby at the age of 25

and

(b) the 16 year old son of immigrants who set up their lives in Ireland who after integrating in Irish society finds that the son genuinely wants to represent Ireland on the basis of considering himself Irish and being entitled to so.

Technically they both qualify through residency but you can't do a 'Is your heart in it' test unfortunately!

ambid

profitius wrote: »

The chances of losing both Sexton and ROG are very slim.

New Zealand lost both their first choice fly halfs at the last world cup. Mind you, that didn't work out so well for them.

GerM

Fair points, Leeroy. For what it's worth, I wouldn't be against taking a genuine third outhalf if it was at the expense of Wallace. Humphreys is a an actual out half who could be ideal against Russia to carve them open and give the 2 boys a breather. If Wallace didn't show well in the warm up games, I'd have no problem if he was jettisoned for someone Humph. Fitz, Bowe, Earls and Timble have all played played for Ireland or the Lions in the centre and can cover if required. I don't think Wallace realistically offers anything aside from inside centre these days. Watching him play 10 or 15 in the Magners League can be rough; the World Cup isn't somewhere I would like to throw him in if he had to cover 10 against Italy.

Cpt_Blackbeard

LeeroyJones wrote: »

Fair enough, but where do you draw the line for other scenarios? How can you differentiate between
(a)the player who one of the provinces sign at the age of 21 and wants to play for Ireland for the sake of playing any international rugby at the age of 25

and

(b) the 16 year old son of immigrants who set up their lives in Ireland who after integrating in Irish society finds that the son genuinely wants to represent Ireland on the basis of considering himself Irish and being entitled to so.

Technically they both qualify through residency but you can't do a 'Is your heart in it' test unfortunately!

b) stands out for me as the person in question didn't come here as a professional player

Its an extremely hard issue to evaluate though. One way to possibly do it is ensure that a player who qualifies on residency grounds/through grand parents holds only an Irish passport and must also be playing in the country to be considered for the national team. That could weed out some of the mercenaries.

A player such as Strauss should only be considered if Flannery, Best, Cronin, Varley and any other decent player retire/can not play for the country.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

A player such as Strauss should only be considered if Flannery, Best, Cronin, Varley and any other decent player retire/can not play for the country.

Thing is though, once the gray area / loophole is opened, it never closes.

Already you're saying that we could include Strauss if there was nobody else good enough to play the position.

All it takes is a coach to choose that nobody else is good enough, even Best, Flannery or Cronin, and then Strauss is in.

Kaka10

I don't care if Richardt Strauss secretly detests Ireland and is currently plotting to destroy the country from the inside, hes one of the best hookers in the world right now and if hes eligible for Ireland then were playing him.

Anyway, Strauss has already said he'd turn down an S.A cap so to me it looks like he genuinely wants to play and live in Ireland.

LeeroyJones

I do admit that if we lost both ROG and Sexton we would be up sh1t creek without a Paddle, but so long as we have a Paddy we're OK (I'm so sorry I couldn't help it)

But in all seriousness...
Worst case scenario, we're goosed but we can get emergency cover if they're long term as already pointed out.
Just a bad scenario - but relatively realistic - is that we lose one of ROG/Sexton for a week or 2 (2-3 matches) and we're left with one player amongst the squad who can play 10. In other words, we'd be a sin-binning or slight knock away from really being stuck. A versatile 11-15 isn't going to help us here, we must have someone who can plug this hole and keep the campaign afloat until full fitness is restored.
Put the blame on Deccie if you must for not giving iHumph or Keatley a run but if we're to be honest with ourselves and look at what we have at our disposal, Wallace is the only other option who has experience at 10 and is best placed in keeping a campaign afloat if that's what's required.

We're sending 3 hookers and 3 scrum halves because they're specialised positions and they need that cover, so does fly-half.

profitius

LeeroyJones wrote: »

F
(b) the 16 year old son of immigrants who set up their lives in Ireland who after integrating in Irish society finds that the son genuinely wants to represent Ireland on the basis of considering himself Irish and being entitled to so.

Technically they both qualify through residency but you can't do a 'Is your heart in it' test unfortunately!

It doesn't matter what they consider themselves to be it matters what they are.

If Ireland go down the road England are going it could turn me off watching them because I want to see Irish men playing for Ireland. I don't want to see mercenaries play for Ireland.

The likes of Ricky Flutey chasing personal glory and the money. Would he be more passionate about playing for England or New Zealand? We all know the answer to that.

damianmcr

Whats the deal with Ireland RWC jersey? When will see it?

Hope its nice.

irishbucsfan

profitius wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they consider themselves to be it matters what they are.

To you, it matters what they are. But what matters to you doesn't matter to anyone else. It's completely irrelevant.

There's is some rubbish being posted here. Since when do you have to be Irish to play for Ireland? One of the best Kiwis of all time was Irish.

In November 2012 Richardt Strauss will (hopefully) still be playing hooker for Leinster and will have represented the best team in Irish rugby on the European stage for 3 years at the very highest level. Playing a position that he learned to play almost exclusively in this country as well.

He lives here, he has friends here, and if he wants to play for this country then he should be allowed to. The 3-year rule is in place to stop mercenaries and it works perfectly well.

Similarly, you can't say that Riki Flutely doesn't care about English rugby. Its rubbish that you can't justify. Just because he's not English he cares about english rugby less than someone who is?! Grand so. Cipriani obviously cares more than him. Henson obviously cares more about Welsh rugby as well.

PhatPiggins

irishbucsfan wrote: »

To you, it matters what they are. But what matters to you doesn't matter to anyone else. It's completely irrelevant.

There's is some rubbish being posted here. Since when do you have to be Irish to play for Ireland? One of the best Kiwis of all time was Irish.

In November 2012 Richardt Strauss will (hopefully) still be playing hooker for Leinster and will have represented the best team in Irish rugby on the European stage for 3 years at the very highest level. Playing a position that he learned to play almost exclusively in this country as well.

He lives here, he has friends here, and if he wants to play for this country then he should be allowed to. The 3-year rule is in place to stop mercenaries and it works perfectly well.

Similarly, you can't say that Riki Flutely doesn't care about English rugby. Its rubbish that you can't justify. Just because he's not English he cares about english rugby less than someone who is?! Grand so. Cipriani obviously cares more than him. Henson obviously cares more about Welsh rugby as well.

Thats called his opinion and you could try and express your opinion without being so condescending.

Your opinion could be as equally irrelevant to everyone else

ambid

damianmcr wrote: »

Whats the deal with Ireland RWC jersey? When will see it?

Hope its nice.

There is a clip on the BBC of Irish players playing the Brian Moore challenge in which Jamie Heaslip is wearing an Irish jersey that's quite different to the current one. I assume that maybe it's the new jersey. It's at about 1.12 on this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/9420123.stm

By the way lads, I think Emmet is right and the issue of who should count as Irish qualified should have it's own thread. It's extremely sensitive and controversial and could take over this thread.

tolosenc

OK so what if an Irish guy is treated by the IRFU the same way Mike Ross was treated at Munster, goes to Wales (for example) and is actually appreciated (gets games, due praise, good money). After 3 years, they ask him to play internationally for them. He's grateful for what they've done for his career, and has no time for his home union. What's wrong with him playing for Wales? Nothing, imo.

irishbucsfan

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Thats called his opinion and you could try and express your opinion without being so condescending.

Your opinion could be as equally irrelevant to everyone else

:eek:

That was kind've the point...

profitius

irishbucsfan wrote: »

To you, it matters what they are. But what matters to you doesn't matter to anyone else. It's completely irrelevant.

I bet my opinion is shared by a large percentage of the population.

irishbucsfan wrote:

There's is some rubbish being posted here. Since when do you have to be Irish to play for Ireland? One of the best Kiwis of all time was Irish.

In November 2012 Richardt Strauss will (hopefully) still be playing hooker for Leinster and will have represented the best team in Irish rugby on the European stage for 3 years at the very highest level. Playing a position that he learned to play almost exclusively in this country as well.

He lives here, he has friends here, and if he wants to play for this country then he should be allowed to. The 3-year rule is in place to stop mercenaries and it works perfectly well.

Similarly, you can't say that Riki Flutely doesn't care about English rugby. Its rubbish that you can't justify. Just because he's not English he cares about english rugby less than someone who is?! Grand so. Cipriani obviously cares more than him. Henson obviously cares more about Welsh rugby as well.

So you think there should be no limits and if a player wants to play for a country thats fine. Strange logic you're using there. Why not have a transfer system introduced next.

I know Flutey would be more passionate about playing for NZ because thats where hes from and its 99.9% likely he dreamed of playing for the All Blacks. It is worth more money for him to play for England than no country at all.

As for Strauss, hes a mercenary. Lets not kid ourselves. A good player with a good attitude who I'm sure wouldn't let Ireland down if he plays for Ireland but hes not Irish!

Risteard

tolosenc wrote: »

OK so what if an Irish guy is treated by the IRFU the same way Mike Ross was treated at Munster, goes to Wales (for example) and is actually appreciated (gets games, due praise, good money). After 3 years, they ask him to play internationally for them. He's grateful for what they've done for his career, and has no time for his home union. What's wrong with him playing for Wales? Nothing, imo.

The fact that he's not Welsh and has no connection to Wales save living there for three years. It's international rugby for a reason.

CatFromHue

ambid wrote: »

There is a clip on the BBC of Irish players playing the Brian Moore challenge http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/9420123.stm

earls got 2, healy got 3, and luke fitz got 5.

not a good showing from earls

Earls is a winger, I don't give a **** how well he can pass. His job is to skin people, and make the ball available for a quick ruck.

He's rarely / ever required to make a pass more than 5m in a game.

Healy getting 3 is pure fluke :pac:

Kaka10

Deleted User wrote: »

Earls is a winger, I don't give a **** how well he can pass. His job is to skin people, and make the ball available for a quick ruck.

He's rarely / ever required to make a pass more than 5m in a game.

Healy getting 3 is pure fluke :pac:

Isnt he a 13 as well :eek:

No.

He's an 11.

I hate seeing him at 13

irishbucsfan

profitius wrote: »

I bet my opinion is shared by a large percentage of the population.

Do you mean a large percentage of the rugby-watching population? Because most of them that I've spoken to are excited to see Strauss. Or do you mean the general population? Because the general population have had no problem supporting Cascarinos, Aldridges, Morrisons, Kilbanes or Carsleys.

profitius wrote: »

So you think there should be no limits and if a player wants to play for a country thats fine. Strange logic you're using there. Why not have a transfer system introduced next.

That isn't even close to what I said?

The 3-year rule is in place to stop mercenaries coming to countries for the money. That is enough in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of others as well.

profitius wrote: »

I know Flutey would be more passionate about playing for NZ

No you don't

profitius wrote: »

because thats where hes from and its 99.9% likely he dreamed of playing for the All Blacks. It is worth more money for him to play for England than no country at all.

That may be. But given that Flutey has spent years playing in England at the highest level and has friends throughout the continent which he has made representing England I think that it is surely up to him to decide whether or not he's comfortable with representing English rugby.

profitius wrote: »

As for Strauss, hes a mercenary. Lets not kid ourselves. A good player with a good attitude who I'm sure wouldn't let Ireland down if he plays for Ireland but hes not Irish!

In what way is he a mercenary? Did he stand up and offer to play for whichever country paid him the most money?

Not at all. He wasn't even being used in South Africa. Leinster offered him a new home and it was their coaching that helped him develop into one of the best hookers in the world.


Is he Irish? No. Does that mean he shouldn't be able to represent Irish rugby? No.

Irish nationality and eligibility for the IRFU should be and are two different things. And thank god they are, because it produces higher standards.

CatFromHue

Deleted User wrote: »

Earls is a winger, I don't give a **** how well he can pass. His job is to skin people, and make the ball available for a quick ruck.

He's rarely / ever required to make a pass more than 5m in a game.

Healy getting 3 is pure fluke :pac:

he should be doing better than healy.

all 3 are young players so have been playing roughly the same amount of time. one is a forward and two are backs. the backs should be doing better than the forwards as they generally pass the ball more or crop up in the back line in broken play in various positions so may need to pass to a high standard.

earls at least should be matching luke fitz.

Ha, nobody's going to lose any sleep over the results of the Brian Moore challenge in fairness though.

I doubt they took it too seriously.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Could the whole NIQ rule can be abolished provided that all the southern hemisphere players that come to play for the provinces sign 3 year deals? Sure doesn't this ensure that they aren't mercenaries? They will make loads of friends in Ireland and will be Irish citizens by the end of their contracts, so therefore they are Irish. :rolleyes:

That is, pretty much, the general point that is being spouted by some posters here defending Strauss and I for one call BS. Only Irish people should represent our national team, ie. Players that learned their rugby here and consider themselves Irish.

I have no interest supporting a team of Irish Qualified players who aren't good enough to get on their own national team. It takes more than 3 years to completely abandon your own identity, it should anyway.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Only Irish people should represent our national team, ie. Players that learned their rugby here and consider themselves Irish..

But the thing is, using Strauss as an example for instance;
Strauss was a back row player when he came to Ireland, (Utility Forward, how ridiculous btw!?), so the case could easily be made that he "has learned his rugby here".

How are you me or anyone to decide or measure how someone considers themselves Irish? Does he have to learn the language? (Des Bishop). Does he have to embrace the culture? (Attend Ceilís and the like.) Does he have to know the words of the National Anthem? Does he have to be able to name every county in Ireland?
(Fwiw, I reckon there's at least 1/4 of the National Squad who would not be able to do even one of the above list)

The problem here is the quantification and qualification of the term "Irish".

We can quantify the term as

Risteard wrote:

1. Born in Ireland
2. Parent is Irish and spent some time here.
3. Been a resident here for 7 years

And set these as rigid rules - but only in the context of the sporting environment.

But the term "Irish" can be qualified various other ways too.

And the problem is that plenty who fail the "Irish" test on the quantitative grounds, would be "more Irish" by a qualified opinion than the guy who's eligible to play!

It's a subjective term, and finding a balanced ground to stand on is fairly tough to be honest. There's plenty of people who say that Simon Easterby isn't Irish. Plenty of others who would say that James McCarthy is Irish. Both of them have played for Ireland!

It's an opinion-heavy matter, one person's view can easily be wildly different from another's.

CatFromHue

im not a fan of the residency rule for adult players. i think 3 years is too short it should be made longer to 6 or thereabouts.

6 years is a proper commitment to a country whereas 3, well it takes longer to get a college degree!

ambid

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha, nobody's going to lose any sleep over the results of the Brian Moore challenge in fairness though.

I doubt they took it too seriously.

If you listen closely you can hear Heaslip trying to put off Fitzgerald as he passes the ball ("picture me naked..." etc) so yeah I doubt that took it very seriously!

Still if Heaslip was wearing the new Ireland jersey it's pretty nice.

Risteard

Deleted User wrote: »

But the thing is, using Strauss as an example for instance;
Strauss was a back row player when he came to Ireland, (Utility Forward, how ridiculous btw!?), so the case could easily be made that he "has learned his rugby here".

How are you me or anyone to decide or measure how someone considers themselves Irish? Does he have to learn the language? (Des Bishop). Does he have to embrace the culture? (Attend Ceilís and the like.) Does he have to know the words of the National Anthem? Does he have to be able to name every county in Ireland?
(Fwiw, I reckon there's at least 1/4 of the National Squad who would not be able to do even one of the above list)

The problem here is the quantification and qualification of the term "Irish".

We can quantify the term as

And set these as rigid rules - but only in the context of the sporting environment.

But the term "Irish" can be qualified various other ways too.

And the problem is that plenty who fail the "Irish" test on the quantitative grounds, would be "more Irish" by a qualified opinion than the guy who's eligible to play!

It's a subjective term, and finding a balanced ground to stand on is fairly tough to be honest. There's plenty of people who say that Simon Easterby isn't Irish. Plenty of others who would say that James McCarthy is Irish. Both of them have played for Ireland!

It's an opinion-heavy matter, one person's view can easily be wildly different from another's.

I do think the 'rules' I quoted above are rigid and it does vary from case to case but I think that someone should have spent a significant amount of time here before they qualify, and I don't think 3 years is that. Even the granny rule is a bit loose IMO.

Look at Waldrom in England, spent his entire life in New Zealand and signed for Leicester because he wouldn't get into the WC squad for the All Blacks but then discoverrs he has an Englush granny and wants to play for England all of a sudden.