Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread III

Tox56

case885 wrote: »

Strauss was a project player, stander is a project player no difference. If strauss was asked when he signed would he like to play for Ireland and said no then he shouldnt be playing for Ireland.

Andrew Goodman is technically a project player too but I don't exactly think he's in the same bracket as a Stander or Aki

case885

Tox56 wrote: »

Andrew Goodman is technically a project player too but I don't exactly think he's in the same bracket as a Stander or Aki

Don't know what gripe you have with stander but he never said he was going to fall back on SA ala Aki and samoa so they're not in the same bracket.

Swiwi.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise, if Aki continues his current trajectory, he will wear the green of Ireland, and he will be a star. He can't have been too far off the ABs EOYT squad in Autumn, he is a real prospect. If he was Irish eligible tomorrow, currently I'd only have the proven Darcy and probably Luke Marshall ahead of him, but IMO he's definitely better than Noel Reid etc. Anyway, I will be watching Crusaders v Chiefs this weekend with a bit of extra interest.

Tox56

case885 wrote: »

Don't know what gripe you have with stander but he never said he was going to fall back on SA ala Aki and samoa so they're not in the same bracket.

Ffs I don't have any gripe with Stander, I was just talking about my perception of the likes of Stander, Aki, Sykes when they came over here and how it wouldn't sit with me if they were to play for Ireland. Not that I'm particularly in favour of someone like Strauss doing that either, my perception of him was just different

MattD

So now it's favourable for the call up to go like this:

'Alri Richardt? You've been playing well for Leinster and you've been here long enough to represent Ireland internationally . I'm sure you're aware what an honour this is'

'Ha, play for Ireland?! Wasn't thinking of it but shoot, why not?! Giz a jersey there'

I'm not mad about the idea of project players, but to suggest that those who come and say that they want to play for Ireland are somehow less worthy than those who don't want to, or at least say nothing, is a bit far.

Tox56

Swiwi. wrote: »

Regardless of the merits or otherwise, if Aki continues his current trajectory, he will wear the green of Ireland, and he will be a star. He can't have been too far off the ABs EOYT squad in Autumn, he is a real prospect. If he was Irish eligible tomorrow, currently I'd only have the proven Darcy and probably Luke Marshall ahead of him, but IMO he's definitely better than Noel Reid etc. Anyway, I will be watching Crusaders v Chiefs this weekend with a bit of extra interest.

Wow, we really must have a star on our hands :eek::)

Tox56

MattD wrote: »

So now it's favourable for the call up to go like this:

'Alri Richardt? You've been playing well for Leinster and you've been here long enough to represent Ireland internationally . I'm sure you're aware what an honour this is'

'Ha, play for Ireland?! Wasn't thinking of it but shoot, why not?! Giz a jersey there'

I'm not mad about the idea of project players, but to suggest that those who come and say that they want to play for Ireland are somehow less worthy than those who don't want to, or at least say nothing, is a bit far.

No, I think in terms of selection should be all or nothing. For the 3,203rd time: I was talking about my perception of them.

case885

Tox56 wrote: »

Ffs I don't have any gripe with Stander, I was just talking about my perception of the likes of Stander, Aki, Sykes when they came over here and how it wouldn't sit with me if they were to play for Ireland. Not that I'm particularly in favour of someone like Strauss doing that either, my perception of him was just different

As i said stander is no different to strauss. Dont get why your still mentioning sykes, hes gone never will play for ireland.

Noopti

case885 wrote: »

Don't know what gripe you have with stander but he never said he was going to fall back on SA ala Aki and samoa so they're not in the same bracket.

If anything Stander has been the epitome of what you would want from a project player. He has been extremely dedicated even though he hasn't been picked as much as he would probably like, and he will probably get many more chances now. Fair play to him.
A project player could easily come over and think "I will walk into this team" and when it doesn't happen just as easily give up and want to move somewhere else.

Tox56

case885 wrote: »

As i said stander is no different to strauss. Dont get why your still mentioning sykes, hes gone never will play for ireland.

You really dont? I give up

case885

Tox56 wrote: »

You really dont? I give up

Yeah you do that, you seem to think stander is the same as sykes and Aki one of which isn't even playing in Ireland anymore so stander obviously has more dedication than him to play with ireland and the other has a fall back plan which stander has never said. Looks like stander saying he'd like to play with Ireland when he qualified was a big mistake, should have said no then he'd have more of a right to play after the 3 years. :pac:

FellasFellas

If Aki were to score the winner in the 2019 RWC final against England, don't think any of us would be complaining!

molloyjh

case885 wrote: »

Yeah you do that, you seem to think stander is the same as sykes and Aki one of which isn't even playing in Ireland anymore so stander obviously has more dedication than him to play with ireland and the other has a fall back plan which stander has never said. Looks like stander saying he'd like to play with Ireland when he qualified was a big mistake, should have said no then he'd have more of a right to play after the 3 years. :pac:

For crying out loud, he's talking motives ffs. Stander and Sykes came across as coming here because they couldn't get their [international] game anywhere else. Strauss didn't come across that way. Maybe that perception is wrong and maybe it's right but if there's any chance that you can get over it I'm sure we'd all greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Riskymove

molloyjh wrote: »

For crying out loud, he's talking motives ffs. Stander and Sykes came across as coming here because they couldn't get their [international] game anywhere else.

Stander was only 22 when he joined Munster and had been in Springbok training camps

I think it was a coup to sign him rather than some failed full international

case885

molloyjh wrote: »

For crying out loud, he's talking motives ffs. Stander and Sykes came across as coming here because they couldn't get their [international] game anywhere else. Strauss didn't come across that way. Maybe that perception is wrong and maybe it's right but if there's any chance that you can get over it I'm sure we'd all greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Ha i'v to get over it? Come off your high horse im entitled to my opinion. Whatever you think about stander he was 22 when he came to munster so of course he could of played with SA in time unlike sykes 26 when he signed, anyway i better 'get over it'.

ScissorPaperRock

Comparing the motives of different project players on the basis of an interview is a pointless exercise.

They all came under the same rules, and in the event that they play for Ireland, they will have qualified through the same rules.

None of them would be here if they weren't offered relatively lucrative contracts with their provinces.

And as elite sportsmen, I'd say each and every one of them is drawn to the idea of playing rugby at the highest level.

But there's no way that any of us can say with any credibility that one project player didn't want that as much as another did, on the basis of an interview or lack thereof to support that claim.


Personally, I think we need to be reasonable, moderate and flexible. I think an Irish team winning consistently with one or two project players is better for the overall growth of the game in Ireland than a team that loses consistently but is made up of only people with Irish citizenship.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Riskymove

ScissorPaperRock wrote: »

But there's no way that any of us can say with any credibility that one project player didn't want that as much as another did, on the basis of an interview or lack thereof to support that claim.

I think the issue here is with Sykes....given his "ah well I can't play for SA I might as well swan over and play for you lot"

Tox56

ScissorPaperRock wrote: »

Personally, I think it's about being reasonable, moderate and flexible. I think an Irish team winning consistently with one or two project players is better for the overall growth of the game in Ireland than a team that loses consistently but is made up of only people with Irish citizenship.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

We just won a Six nations with no project players! That's one extreme to the other, an Irish team with no project players is not going to be losing consistently

Tox56

Riskymove wrote: »

I think the issue here is with Sykes....given his "ah well I can't play for SA I might as well swan over and play for you lot"

My problem was not just Sykes. What I was saying is not a personal thing against any of Sykes, Stander, Aki, but my perception was they came here targeting a green jersey, which is exactly the problem i have with the project system. Maybe Strauss did too, but I didn't get that sense with him, and in any case it doesn't matter, if I could make the rules none of them would be playing for Ireland.

Eoin

.ak wrote: »

Yeah if I'm giving my honest opinion I agree too, I much rather seeing guys like Strauss getting a cap than guys like Bent, but my point is the game is professional and such emotions belong at the door.

Unfortunately it has to stay at the door, rather than it belongs there.

I hate the idea that a player weighs up where his best shot of getting international caps is, and decides to move there. It might take commitment from a personal point of view, but it just strikes me as wrong. I understand wanting to play at the highest level, but there's a difference between wanting to play international rugby for anyone and wanting to play rugby for your country.

I'd much rather have the 2nd generation player living abroad who has grown up as an Irishman - but there are no rules that can be put in place to quantify that type of connection.

Of course I'll be cheering if he scores a try for Ireland, but for me there'll always be an asterisk beside the names of that sort of player.

Swiwi.

In a parallel universe, where NZ wasn't quite so good at producing rugby players and winning rugby games, I kind of wonder how I would feel and how ye would feel if the roles were reversed: the NZRFU targets a young UCD FC lad called O'Driscoll and his Lansdown FC mate Darcy and offers them a 3-year deal as "project" players following which they both qualify for NZ, and go on to a long and memorable partnership as NZ's best ever midfield.

Would I really feel they were Kiwis, would they really feel they were Kiwis, would ye be wondering why the hell they turned their back on Ireland?

It's so incomprehensible to NZers that we would recruit from outside our shores, that I just can't imagine it happening. As Tox56 pointed out, Ireland just won a 6N with home-grown talent.

Thought for my day anyway...

desertcircus

marc96 wrote: »

I used the white/black as an example,my point is Strauss is South African and always will be.just because Ireland can't compete with the top nations isn't an excuse to go looking abroad for talent.

Strauss is South African and Irish. Just like the people all of us know who are Polish and Irish, Moldovan and Irish, Canadian and Irish...

Tox56

Swiwi. wrote: »

In a parallel universe, where NZ wasn't quite so good at producing rugby players and winning rugby games, I kind of wonder how I would feel and how ye would feel if the roles were reversed: the NZRFU targets a young UCD FC lad called O'Driscoll and his Lansdown FC mate Darcy and offers them a 3-year deal as "project" players following which they both qualify for NZ, and go on to a long and memorable partnership as NZ's best ever midfield.

Would I really feel they were Kiwis, would they really feel they were Kiwis, would ye be wondering why the hell they turned their back on Ireland?

It's so incomprehensible to NZers that we would recruit from outside our shores, that I just can't imagine it happening. As Tox56 pointed out, Ireland just won a 6N with home-grown talent.

Thought for my day anyway...

Players of that promise/quality don't leave though, definitely not that young. It's almost always the players who can't/don't get their game at home after several years of trying. Payne will be edging towards his 30's by the time he qualifies for Ireland. Strauss too had been around long enough without really getting close to a call-up in SA. Steven Sykes too, had he stuck around, would have been 30 by the time he became IQ.

The youngest i've seen is Heenan who turns 23 on Thursday. That was odd, but as far as I'm aware he wasn't picked up by a Super Rugby team. He saw a chance in Connacht and took it.

The whole thing doesn't sit right with me, but you can't compare whats happened so far to 19 year olds plucked at the height of their promise like BOD or Darce in that hypothetical scenario.

For the purposes of comparison ignore whether these players are actually bound to Ireland or not: It would be more like the Chiefs coming along and picking up a player like Darren Cave, or at the very youngest end of the spectrum, a player like Macken or Conway. Either a young player out of favour with their provinces or a more senior player who has been around long enough but is just not that highly rated with their country.

former legend

Swiwi. wrote: »

It's so incomprehensible to NZers that we would recruit from outside our shores, that I just can't imagine it happening.

I know this was debated only yesterday, but while the practice of taking players from the Pacific islands has more or less stopped and it's true that many NZ-born players now get "exported" to the islands, it's not entirely unknown for y'all to rope in guys who aren't NZ born and bred, so I'd be slow to use the word 'incomprehensible'.

Swiwi.

former legend wrote: »

I know this was debated only yesterday, but while the practice of taking players from the Pacific islands has more or less stopped and it's true that many NZ-born players now get "exported" to the islands, it's not entirely unknown for y'all to rope in guys who aren't NZ born and bred, so I'd be slow to use the word 'incomprehensible'.

Examples please. Seriously. There have been a number of ABs born in the Islands, but as far as I know none were targeted once they were established rugby players. The closest was Sitivatu who was offered a rugby scholarship by a rugby school when he was maybe 15 years old, not remotely on the AB radar at that stage.

You're usually a man for facts, so do you have any examples? I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, but I genuinely can't think of any examples.

We did have dual internationals back in the day when that was allowed: eg Frank Bunce, Stephen Bachop etc, but they were both born in NZ too.

Anyway if you can cite an example of an established rugby player being poached from the islands, serving a 3 year apprenticeship, and then playing for NZ, I'll be impressed

Edit: if the question is whether the NZRFU has put pressure on players eligible to represent both NZ and a Pacific Nation to choose NZ, that is definitely guilty as charged. But that's not the same thing as raiding the Islands for project players, which is where most people get mixed up. It's no different to Ruddock being encouraged to choose Ireland over Wales, or Heaslip Ireland over Israel :pac:

I could also see the NZRFU targeting a player overseas with a genuine NZ connection eg born in NZ or with a NZ parent or two, but not the situation whereby Aki with no connection to Ireland whatsoever, not even a distant relative, is brought over to Ireland as a project player. I would be firmly against it for NZ.

A lot of this myth I think started when it suited the narrative of the English media that NZ was successful off the back of a wad of Pacific Island ring-ins, snatched from Fiji/Tonga/Samoa. Such articles from Mr Jones and the like mysteriously disappeared once Flutey, Vainikola, Hape, Botha, Waldrom etc etc pulled on the white jersey.

former legend

Swiwi. wrote: »

Examples please. Seriously. There have been a number of ABs born in the Islands, but as far as I know none were targeted once they were established rugby players. The closest was Sitivatu who was offered a rugby scholarship by a rugby school when he was maybe 15 years old, not remotely on the AB radar at that stage.

You're usually a man for facts, so do you have any examples? I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, but I genuinely can't think of any examples.

We did have dual internationals back in the day when that was allowed: eg Frank Bunce, Stephen Bachop etc, but they were both born in NZ too.

Anyway if you can cite an example of an established rugby player being poached from the islands, serving a 3 year apprenticeship, and then playing for NZ, I'll be impressed

Edit: if the question is whether the NZRFU has put pressure on players eligible to represent both NZ and a Pacific Nation to choose NZ, that is definitely guilty as charged. But that's not the same thing as raiding the Islands for project players, which is where most people get mixed up. It's no different to Ruddock being encouraged to choose Ireland over Wales, or Heaslip Ireland over Israel :pac:

I could also see the NZRFU targeting a player overseas with a genuine NZ connection eg born in NZ or with a NZ parent or two, but not the situation whereby Aki with no connection to Ireland whatsoever, not even a distant relative, is brought over to Ireland as a project player. I would be firmly against it for NZ.

A lot of this myth I think started when it suited the narrative of the English media that NZ was successful off the back of a wad of Pacific Island ring-ins, snatched from Fiji/Tonga/Samoa. Such articles from Mr Jones and the like mysteriously disappeared once Flutey, Vainikola, Hape, Botha, Waldrom etc etc pulled on the white jersey.

Ummm, see the problem is I actually agree with you on all of the above points, but when you use words like "incomprehensible", you paint your argument in such narrow terms that it leaves no margin for error.

So your example of Sivivatu is valid; no, he wasn't a "project player" but he was a foreigner brought in purely for rugby reasons who qualified on residency grounds. But I have no problem with that; if Sivivatu didn't make it, well at least he got a chance to go to a good school in NZ for a while. And if you want facts, Sivivatu was three months shy of his 18th birthday when he arrived in NZ, not 15.

But by the logic of some of the loopier arguments on this thread, many All Blacks of Island birth who came to NZ as children wouldn't be allowed to become NZers. There are plenty of those, no?

You asked for an example of an established rugby player being poached from the islands; there are none, but how do you become an established player in a tiny country with no professional league?

NZ have the luxury of not really needing to import players and there is no real economic drive for the players to actively seek to go there, but I don't think it's an ethical or moral choice, just a reflection of the reality of the situation. If it suited NZ rugby to bring in "project players", they would.

Edit; just to clarify my own position, I'm fully in favour or players being allowed to become naturalised and play for a country other than their country of birth, the notion of being born a certain nationality and not being able to change went out with the dinosaurs. The suggestion that a 5-year residency requirement is somehow better than 3 is nonsense; you have to have an arbitrary rule and so long as everyone abides by it, then I don't see an issue. When you start getting into the motives of either the player or the recruiting union, then you're into an unwinnable argument (whichever side you're on).

hahashake

Sivivatu came on a football scholarship, not rugby.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/local-sport/2856966/Sivivatu-happy-with-his-lot

former legend

hahashake wrote: »

Sivivatu came on a football scholarship, not rugby.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/local-sport/2856966/Sivivatu-happy-with-his-lot

You sure that isn't "rugby football", as opposed to soccer?

hahashake

former legend wrote: »

You sure that isn't "rugby football", as opposed to soccer?

The same websites sports section has "rugby" and "football".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/

RobbieRuns

hahashake wrote: »

Sivivatu came on a football scholarship, not rugby.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/local-sport/2856966/Sivivatu-happy-with-his-lot

Think that you are mistaken there, lots of Kiwi's and indeed Aussies refer to rugby football as just football or at times just "footie". The same would apply to Aussie rules football. They are talking about a rugby football scholarship in that article.