Hey New Zealand, stop stealing our players
Roar Rookie By Morotti, 24 Jun 2012 Morotti is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Anzac Test, Australia Kangaroos, New Zealand kiwis, NRL, Rugby League
2,647 reads
The New Zealand squad is filled with Australian born players (AAP image/Dave Hunt)
Related coverage
I am sick of this constant whinging by New Zealand Rugby League that Australia is stealing their talent.
They act as if it is a one-way street, however they have been benefiting from Australian talent for years.
Below are the squads for the 2012 ANZAC Test, with the town and country of the player’s birth.
New Zealand Squad
Josh Hoffman – Mackay, Australia
Jason Nightingale – Sydney, Australia
Shaun Kenny-Dowall – Brisbane, Australia
Simon Mannering – Napier, New Zealand
Manu Vatuvei – Auckland, New Zealand
Benji Marshall – Whakatane, New Zealand
Shaun Johnson – New Zealand
Sam McKendry – Stirling, Australia
Isaac Luke – Hawera, New Zealand
Ben Matulino – Wellington, New Zealand
Frank Pritchard – Darlinghurst, Australia
Adam Blair – Whangarei, New Zealand
Jeremy Smith – Christchurch, New Zealand
Nathan Fien – Mount Isa, Australia
Jared Waerea-Hargreaves – Rotorua, New Zealand
Jesse Bromwich – Auckland, New Zealand
Alex Glenn – Auckland, New Zealand
Gerard Beale – Brisbane, Australia
Jason Taumalolo – Auckland, New Zealand
Australian Squad
Billy Slater – Nambour, Australia
Akuila Uate – Votua, Fiji
Greg Inglis – Kempsey, Australia
Justin Hodges – Cairns, Australia
Darius Boyd – Brisbane Australia
Johnathan Thurston – Brisbane, Australia
Cooper Cronk – Brisbane, Australia
Paul Gallen – Sydney, Australia
Cameron Smith – Brisbane, Australia
David Shillington – Brisbane, Australia
David Taylor – Rockhampton, Australia
Sam Thaiday – Sydney, Australia (who would have thought)
Luke Lewis – Sydney, Australia
Daly Cherry-Evans – Wikipedia does not tell us but I believe it is somewhere in Australia
Ben Hannant – Burleigh Heads, Australia
James Tamou – Palmerston North, New Zealand
Anthony Watmough – Auburn, Australia
Matt Gillett – Australia
I count seven players born in Australia playing for the Kiwis and only one player born in New Zealand playing for Australia as well as one of Fijian descent.
So I say this to New Zealand Rugby League: “Stop stealing our players”.
If the rules said that you had to play where you were born then almost half of New Zealand’s team would be playing for Australia. And how would that be good for international league?
New Zealand should stop whinging about their players wanting to play for Australia and start giving them opportunities to play against the best of the best on a regular basis.
If more people knew this, I think it would put an end to this debate.
Passionate about your league? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily league email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Anzac Test, Australia Kangaroos, New Zealand kiwis, NRL, Rugby League
June 24th 2012 @ 7:22am
peeeko said | June 24th 2012 @ 7:22am | Report comment
I suppose it comes down to believing in a players heritage impacting on who you can play for. Different sports have different criteria , personally I don’t like how in both league and union you can represent the place where your parents or even grandparents were born
Most Australians are either 1st,2nd and 3rd generation meaning they can represent many countries rather than Australia
One rule they should definitely get rid of is the 3yr residential rule where guys like Brent Webb play for nz and rangi chase for England
June 24th 2012 @ 8:03am
oikee said | June 24th 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
NZ have to do more to keep the good players. The idea of the under 20′s match will help them alot. It really is time NZ started to put more effort into also growing the game. I know they are doing a great job now, after the Sparc report and changes, but this is no reason to not look at new types of fixtures to improve the game and intice the good ones..
A couple of games,events, Australia has included, All-stars, Qld Murri carnival, (both from scratch) and we also take alot of games to new areas as well. Mackay this weekend is a good example. NZ have taken a game to other areas, they could do more i feel.
Speaking of Mackay, i think you will find Cherry-Evans came from around there , i read it on a blog a couple days ago.
The had a list of players from this area which included Sailor, Shearer Barba Nelson and many others. Cherry was also on the list.
Anyhow, NZ are doing a fantastic job, they just need to get the under 20 game up and running, and quickly, like next year while the nsw and qld under 20′s match is on. And persevere with it, if 2 men and a dog turn up , so what, keep it going. Take it to a area that might not see much league played, even though they might support league in that area. You talk the game to the people. (we had the storm broncos even take a trail game to Hobart this year, got a decent crowd as well).
I would also try to tee up a match of the winner verse the nsw qld winner. They have to work on building the game up, it wont happen over night.
Also big fire, i see that rugby league has now got that big fire happening i asked for a while back. I love my big fire at games.
June 24th 2012 @ 11:08am
Curious said | June 24th 2012 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Why should they do more to keep their good players when they pinch/acquire 7 good players (36.8% of their 2012 squad) from our shores. NZ bleat (pardon the sheep reference) about Australia sniching their players – we have one of theirs, this time, through NSW state of origin desperation.
Elsewhere within ‘The Roar” is a proposal to implement a system that is totally unworkable (in the future – cans of worms) of having Kiwi juniors when selected and represent NZ not be allowed to transfer, ever, between the trio of league playing nations – (Aussies, Poms and Kiwis). This idea is impracticable and is a constraint of trade – what happens when a youngster emigrates becomes naturalised and is still not allowed to represent his new country. The courts will see that as being illegal and a constraint of trade. To impose a lifelong situation/sentence on anyone wishing to play where and what he wants is the problem.
It seems back to the drawing board.
The individual player, his ego, self assessed ability, timing and other constraints is the biggest hurdle to overcome, as to where he wants repeat wants to play football. Most go with their mates or chase the $$$ first and foremost.
June 24th 2012 @ 1:51pm
oikee said | June 24th 2012 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Yes, like a naughty schoolboy, they started it sir. No, Australia should be the bigger player, (pardon the pun, we are), and lead by example. I dont think stealing NZers is leading by example, it is setting a bad example, No one can argue with me on that point or we would not be talking about it no.
Well you see you seconfd point, i think we already have that coverwed with immigration, and residency.
Even if you move to England, after 3 years your a pom if you want to be.
So this is covered, we are talking about being a kiw , or playing for the juniors in that country, shifting to OZ, then want to play for Australia, or NSW QLD in this case. ?
Yes can happen if you get residency or become a citizen. I think this takes 3 years, 5 years, someone would know.
So the pouint you raise about it being unworkable is wrong,. If a 20 year old kiwi kid plays juniors, he cant play for at least 3 years, you just make it along the lines of residency or citizenship or whatever.
To sum up,
Yes its a can of worms.
June 24th 2012 @ 1:53pm
oikee said | June 24th 2012 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
I think the solution is somewhere in what yuo or i said, but i cant think to hard, its Sunday, and i am not getting paid to think.
Its in that basket, the too hard one i built for rugby league.
June 24th 2012 @ 4:08pm
SandBox said | June 24th 2012 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
agree with you Curious. Players should be allowed to choose, then stuck with that choice once they represent. Anything else is restraint of trade. Money getting involved is sad, but inevitable in a professional game. These guys aren’t amateurs, to all the people who say they should represent the country that they think the player should represent (purely based on emotion).
As someone old enough to remember the first SoO, it does mean the end of what started it. I.e. NSW could afford all the best players and Qld couldn’t. That’s what started SoO. We are heading in the opposite direction to what caused the imbalance.
Don’t see a viable solution to this. As I have previously posted an NHL team from humid subtropical Florida has 15 Canadians in it. Having watched live NHL and endured 110 min of advertising for 60 min sport (yes I did time it). I will save my passion for when ARL wants to introduce advertising breaks. I am prepared to offer all my fingers to try and shore up that dike.
June 24th 2012 @ 9:37am
Johnno said | June 24th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
-Jason Nightingales parents were from NZ.
-I will throw in 2 more
-The Cayless brothers both born in Sydney
Nathan and jason cayless.
Nathan Cayless was the 2008 world cup winning captain for NZ
June 24th 2012 @ 10:37am
Spiritfree said | June 24th 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
This contention that NZ is ‘stealing’ is rubbish. Pure and simple.
I just did some research on this, which I doubt that the author of the article bothered with, to be honest.
First up, Josh Hoffman. He is on record as saying: “I enjoyed watching Origin, watching the old greats when I was a kid but growing up I never really dreamt about playing Origin, I always wanted to play for New Zealand.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10704180
Next, Jason Nightingale. “I probably had a Kiwi accent for three years of my whole life,” he smiles. “I left there when I was five, spent two years there when I was 10 or 11. I spent three quarters of my life in Australia.” http://stevemascord.com/2012/03/28/the-a-list-jason-nightingale-st-george-illawarra-nz-maori-new-zealand/ As with Josh Hoffman, he has Maori and Pakeha (NZ-er of European origins) heritage. He is honouring that and his own feeling that he belongs more to the NZ side than he would to an Aussie side.
If I had the time I’d look at more of these situations, but I think that the outcomes would be similar.
The point is that this is vastly different to a player taking $50,000 per match to pledge himself to one or other of the Origin sides. That really isn’t all that much different to being a mercenary and has little to do with place of origin in so many cases.
June 24th 2012 @ 2:03pm
oikee said | June 24th 2012 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
It is about money. This could be the link to fixing the problem. I brought up my CokeCola thoery the other day. You need to expand, even Coke looked to expand, Diet Coke, Rum and Coke, and whatever.
What i think the ARL, NRL, (they still have not brought the game under 1 banner) should do is set aside a piece of the players money, here me out, so lets say they want 50 thousand a game, sit them down and say look, we are going to do this, show them a chart where rugby league will be played in China, (chukkle chuckle) ok maybe played in NZ with the same passion as our Origin blackbusters, but to get their we need to hold back say 10 thousand . So you get a 100% payrise which is 40 thousand a game, the other 10 goes to a new development team. Anyhow, have to go, Storm Dogs on,
June 24th 2012 @ 6:21pm
Morotti said | June 24th 2012 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
Players currently are afforded $20,000 per match and half of that as we all know goes into the loyalty fund. So they get $10k. After tax they would hardly take home anything. I personally think that the players want to play at the very top level and it has nothing to do with financial gain.
You are missing my point. My point is that many people playing for New Zealand were originally from Australia. And I do know about Jason Nightingale and those comments being a Dragons supporter.I have no problems with them choosing to represent New Zealand. But it is the players choice.
My understanding is that rugby league adopts the same stance as the Olympics with regard to qualifying to represent a nation.
And my point is that if New Zealand could give their eligible players opportunities to play at the highest level then I am sure players like James Tamou would represent New Zealand.
June 24th 2012 @ 10:55am
Easts said | June 24th 2012 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Tamou was stolen from NZ stop complaining if you want to fix it change the eligibilty rules
June 24th 2012 @ 11:27am
Johnno said | June 24th 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
-I think rugby league should move to the you pick you stick way like in rugby. No if’s no buts once you play a senior test match or sevens match you are in that jersey for life non negotiable, don’t matter who you are.
The problems ith league is the aussy kiwis so to speak like Nathan Fien or Nightingale would not of played for Australia , where as the aussies get the blue chip kiwis, karmichal hunt, James Tamou, Quade cooper.
June 24th 2012 @ 12:16pm
Big_Marn2000 said | June 24th 2012 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Josh Hoffman’s mum is Kiwi, Jason Nightingale’s parents are both Kiwi, while I’m not sure of Kenny-Dowall’s heritage he moved to NZ at a very young age and only came back to Australia as a 16 year old, Frank Pritchard has Kiwi parents and Gerard Beale has Kiwi parents. All these guys have dual eligibility and they have every right to play for NZ over Australia. Nathan Fien is the only current player that the Kiwis have stolen.
June 24th 2012 @ 1:04pm
peeeko said | June 24th 2012 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
And Brent Webb, the authors point is that parental heritage shouldn’t allow you to represent that country. Personally I can’t understand why these players want to represent nz rather than Australia. If you were born here and will always live here why would you want to represent another country and beat australia?
June 24th 2012 @ 5:03pm
Sylvester said | June 24th 2012 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
Nationaliam can be blurry when you’re raised in a household where the parents are from a different country.
Imagine Hoffman, for example, watching test matches where the family is barracking for the Kiwis and his relatives are all passionate NZers. Moreso for Maori, who have a cultural connect to NZ.
Re: Webb. Didn’t want to see him selected but unfortunately the best Kiwi fullback was wearing green and gold…
June 24th 2012 @ 6:25pm
Morotti said | June 24th 2012 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
My point is that players have the opportunity to choose. That’s great that all their parents are Kiwi and they want to play for the Kiwis. I have no problem with it. And I can’t remember Australia having a problem with it either.
My other point is that the NZRL should be creating opportunities for their players. take steps to prevent it.
June 24th 2012 @ 8:25pm
Toa said | June 24th 2012 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
Morotti,
Totally agree, I posted a mock criteria in recent blog by the Whiz Freemen. The problem needs to be resolve in the lower grades. In my plan i mention that any player/s who relocate here after the age of 15yrs & up, for a period of 3yrs should not be eligible for both State & Australian selections at schoolboy as well as club levels.
During that period considering all players have been registered with the ARL need to be log onto a athletic data base from their country of origin. Prospects during that period should be rewarded with scholarships/traineeships scouted & funded by the country of their origin.
By having a criteria at junior level that both restricts and awards a genuine representative pathway, which provides expat players to continue the relationship with their country of origin. NZRL need to find & improve the resources/revenue to fund these programmes and not leave it up to ARL.
You touch on the financial gain which once again I totally agree but here’s another angle,their representative future hinders on the performances of themselves and the incumbents. Every player has aspirations of playing representative football, immigrants who have an each way bet are at an advantage due their parental / birth status. Now take young Hoffman do you think his decisions is base on his parental heritage? or is it because Billy Slater has mortgage on the No 1 for as long as he wants it? or is it he wants to prove himself against the worlds best fullback?
Before the media spotlight shone on James Tamao apart from his size and gradual form if it wasn’t for the belief of Ricky Stuart do you think James was on everybody’s else lips for instant representative selection? In that case when opportunities present themselves guys like Tamao don’t think of the money rather the big stage.
For a selected few the representative window closes as quick as it opens. Athletes are result driven individuals the money runs a distance second for mind playing representative football is the ultimate goal there just has to be a way to control the pathway at junior level.
June 24th 2012 @ 8:47pm
Sylvester said | June 24th 2012 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
Tamou was obviously very much on NZ’s radar, hence his naming in last year’s training squad.
Re the other’s with dual eligiblity. We’ll never know the true reasons for their decisions, but trying to oust incumbents is what make young players strive to be better I would have thought.
Slater, as an example, could have a season-ending injury at any time or lose form, plus he’s not getting any younger.
June 24th 2012 @ 9:37pm
Toa said | June 24th 2012 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
“Re the other’s with dual eligibility. We’ll never know the true reasons for their decisions, but trying to oust incumbents is what make young players strive to be better I would have thought.” 1. every reason they have to decide their allegiances at junior level, 2 Both external data & fan base opinions rates someone like Hoffman as QLD 3rd or 4th choice fullback suddenly NZ becomes and option.
Agree form & injuries are the two biggest set backs for footballers / athletes.
Young players will strive to do better but I imagine with the abundance of talented players they question themselves when they don’t have vote of the selectors or confidence of a representative coach as well as the blessing of the public.
June 24th 2012 @ 12:36pm
Stalker said | June 24th 2012 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
I dont want to offend but thats bs. Where you are born, is who you should play for. None of this constraint of trade bs. End of story. I don’t know why this is so hard to fathom??? If we followed this rule we would have a broader international league scene where great players of foreign birth are idolized by younger league followers in their birth nations giving rise to the popularity of the sport.
Until we make international rugby league a bigger event than state of origin, and we ALL the rule of birth origin, ( i am a kiwi and would prefer to see native born players playing for my country) then international rugby league will never grow beyond what is essentially a 3 country sport and not even a number 1 sport in any of those countries.
When will we learn?
June 24th 2012 @ 7:32pm
sajjittarius said | June 24th 2012 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
The problem is stalker that where you’re born can often have absolutely no impact on where you grew up and who you identify with.
To use a league example Peter Sterling was born in Toowoomba, QLD but grew up in Wagga Wagga NSW. He identifies as a Blue; ironically he also supports a place of birth rule, which would have meant a Lewis/Sterling combo in Origin.
Another example is Billy Moore (he of the “QUEENSLANDER” fame). A more passionate Queenslander you obviously couldn’t find, yet he was born in Tenterfield, NSW as that hospital was closer being closer to his home town of Wallangarra than Stanthorpe’s.
Who someone identifies with is a complex mixture of heritage, birthplace, childhood and personal inspiration – suggesting one override the others will only lead to further complaints.
June 24th 2012 @ 9:40pm
Anakin said | June 24th 2012 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Hear hear sajjittarius – I have been saying this for years .. and my comments have essentially been ognored in all forums!!
Nominate where your allegiance lies (if there is any blurry line) when you sign an NRL contract and thats that. Placing a criteria such as place of birth is ridiculous – your final paragraph is spot on!!! So glad i found someone else with common sense!
June 24th 2012 @ 1:11pm
Johnno said | June 24th 2012 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Rugby league should set up a tier rule. Basically Tier 1 nations and Tier 2. Tier 1 players can represent tier 2 nations if eligible, but once they play for a tier 1 nation that is it no if’s no buts.
Tier 1 nations should be
Australia
NZ
England
France
PNG
Tier 2
Wales
Scotland
Irleand
Samoa
Fiji
Tonga
South Africa
USA
Canada
Lebanon
Jamicaca
Serbia
Czech Republic
June 24th 2012 @ 1:26pm
samsonite said | June 24th 2012 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
The golden goose that is origin is the devil here.
The difference in that list at the top is that those genuine five (Hoffman, Fien, Beale, Nightingale, Pritchard) Australian born and raised players made a choice to represent the Kiwis.
Where, as I see it in its simplest form, the fairly large carrot of origin is being dangled in front of the likes of Kasiano, Tamou etc so as a consequence of their decision to play (or yet to play) origin, their allegiance by default is with Australia. Now these guys aren’t sheep and I don’t blame them for wanting to play origin. But at the end of the day the international game will suffer if this continues to happen.
Responsibility lies with the ARLC with, lets be real, the lionshare of power money infrastructure in the southern Hemisphere to expand Rugby League, and starting with the international selection policy is a start. I look at a country like Samoa with their Rugby academy and think a Rugby League one would go alright.