Three curiosities from this week in rugby

Spiro -- I was unaware that the plans to advance the interests of Island teams had advanced this far. I am glad to hear it. Their emergence and that of Argentina is the most exciting news we have had in the rugby world for a while. I also like your idea of the Islands playing against Portugal & Georgia, etc but more could be done to encourage the Continental Europeans too. No doubt those Eastern Europeans of a standard capable of playing professionally are mostly already doing so in France and Italy but more side tours when Aust, NZ & SA travel north might also be beneficial. Why not add a quick trip to Lisbon or Barcelona, etc when the boys go to London, Edinburgh & Dublin? It's only an hour or two's flight, the dirt-trackers could get a run and bring some joy to rugby people in those places. Bucharest is probably only an extra two days on a tour of 3 weeks. The European Unions should, however, take the primary responsibility of promoting rugby east of Rome.

Hugh I think we agree on the basic points about all this. What is needed for the Islanders are ways in which they can become professional players. Once this happens, those born in the Islands will want to play for their national sides. And those taken from the Islands by scouts and offered school scholarships in Australia and NZ will also be tempted, at least, to consider Fiji, Tonga or Samoa. My understanding is that the IRB has established rugby academies in these countries. Good. I met a former NZ professional rugby in France who told me that his club regularly monitors these academies and takes small groups of them back to France to prepare them for rugby there. Good, too, provided these players feel at 'home' (which seems to be happening, in these clubs. The IRB has established a regional tournament with the Islands and Australia A and the NZ Maori each year. I think the winner of this tournament should play the winner of a South American tournament, or the Churchill Cup tournament which the USA and England play. The SANZAR countries should each receive a tour by one of the Islands team each year on a rotatation basis. You might not do this in a RWC year. If possible the tour should involve a home and away test. If Australia and NZ need to learn how to win one-off matches in a pragmatic manner, playing in Fiji, Tonga and Samoa is about as good a preparation as you could hope for. These Islands team should then each have a short tour of Europe with, say, two tests each against Six Nations and/or emerging teams like Georgia and Portugal. Most of this program is already in place, but not all of it. The tours (short but tough) of the SANZAR countries and Europe are the key.

I used to be rabidly on the side of the Island nations as far as player eligibility went ie if you are Samoan born you should be able to play for Samoa. But i soon realised that the issue was a lot more complicated than that and that many of these guys were migrants and therefore had the right to play for NZ/Australia and NZ/Australia had the right to field them. But maybe, and this is probably not workable, the IRB could come up with some kind of eligibily scheme whereby players who had played for a tier 1 country (as defined by ranking or history or a combination) could play for a tier 2 country it had legitimate ties to, ie birth or parentage, once they were no longer wanted. This would mean that players like Rodney So'oialo could play for Samoa, where he was born i think, once the All Blacks didnt want him. Or maybe the cutoff could be age. So someone over, say, 32 could then go play for their ancestral homeland once their Wallabies or All Black days were done. I am actually thinking of players such Radike Samo (Fiji), Sam Tuitupou and the like: not quite good enough to be long -term ABs or Wallabies but still having more than enough quality to play international rugby. (And not forgetting Matt Dunning: I'm sure Canada could use a prop like him once Rod Snow retires!) As it is, countries like NZ and Australia legitimately entice players to shack up with them but then have the luxury of discarding them once they've tried them and found them wanting, safe in the knowldge they are out of rivals' hands. At the moment, if i were a brilliant young Samoan/Fijian/Tongan prospect, I would take my time deciding whether to put my lot in with my country or waiting for a talent scout from a much richer union to make me a legitimate offer to apply for residency/citzenship, or taking up a scholarship, knowing what that would do for my family's future. It's not illegal, it's not even immoral (because it is actually beneficial for both parties) and it will long continue. And there is nothing to stop the Six Nations unions doing exactly the same thing with all those strong talented players in Georgia, Romania, Portugal and the like.

Spiro -- if the players prefer to play for the ABs and Wallabies, so be it. (And that is good for Aust and NZ). You are being unduly modest about your own ability. Did you not open the batting for Wellington v the MCC in 1962/3? As I recall it, however, Greece has pretty feeble cricket and rugby teams whereas if the positions had been reversed and Greece had the equivalent of the ABs and the Australian cricket team might you not have felt a bit differently? If the players prefer to play for Aust and NZ who can blame them? They get to play for a top side and against the best in the world. Keith Gleeson, Dan Parks, and all those Scottish Kiwis no doubt would have preferred to play for their home countries. In any case, more ought be done to bring the Island teams into competition with the top level teams on a regular basis so that they get real competition between Cups and we get to see them play with teams at full strength. I realise that the almighty Foxtel dollar controls most of these decisions, but, for my money, the TriNations is now a very stale competition because it is too small, too repetitious, too familiar, and usually too predictable. A Pacific competition including the Polynesians, Argentina (not strictly Pacific), Canada, the US and Japan would be good for everyone, would introduce us to players we rarely see (Latu, Hernandez, etc) and might provide some of the thrills and spills we have seen in this RWC.

Taking up Hugh's point. The players generally want to play for Australia or NZ. There are few players like Brian Lima who was determined that Samoa was his primary team. First generation players especially will want to represent their country of birth and education. I know something of this being the child of migrants to NZ. If I had had any athlectic ability I would have wanted to represent NZ rather than Greece. The first generation players also have the option of representing the home country of their parents or grand parents. So in a sense they have the best of two worlds. As I noted before 12 players for Samoa, players like Loki Crichton, a good NZ provincial player, played in this RWCC tournament for Samoa, and played well. As more and more Islanders played professional rugby in Europe and in the SANZAR countries, and as ccountries like Australia and NZ play more tests against the Islands nations, including tests in Tonga, Fiji and Samoa, this problem of siphoning will resolve itself.

correction above The word fuphy IS NOT widely used today

Dublin Dave, Furphy was an Australian water cart manufacturer in the early 1900's.The carts were pulled by hand, and used to transport water to the troops in the first world war.The man pulling the cart travelled from platoon to platoon throughout the war zone. Because of his ability to move around relatively freely, he became the only outside source of news and information. However much news was simply gossip, best guesses ,false assumptions,stories and rumour, that amounted to a lot of totally unreliable information. Subsequently the word 'furphy' was used to discribe stories or opinions that were untrue,false or in todays vernacular ,bullshit.The word furphy widely used today , and most people would have no idea what it meant or its origins.. have finished reading James Joyces The Dubliners. Terrific stuff.There was a few sayings in the book I had not heard berfore. Every generation has its own.

To Dublin Dave: Not sure what the Irish equivalent is, but a "furphy" is a misleading rumour, a story without substance, a red herring. According to my Macquarie Dictionary (Australia's equivalent of the Oxford), it comes from the name John Furphy who manufactured watercarts during the First World War. These were centres of gossip. The name Furphy was painted on the wagons. Although Spiro is a Kiwi, he lives in Oz, we love him and we have given him permission to use one of our words providing he uses it carefully.

I am very happy for Australia to build up a massive side full of young men of Islander origin if it makes the Wallabies successful. Spiro is right to say that it doesn't matter if they are Australian. I would argue, however, that if the IRB is serious about promoting rugby in the Pacific it ought be trying to get Samoa, Tonga and Fiji into the top echelons. How can this happen if Australia and NZ stuff their sides with players who are eligible to play for the Island sides and if there is a constant talent drain from the Islands to NZ and Australia? Why can't the Islands at least have first call on players born in the Islands and their first generation children? The gap between the professional sides and the Island sides only emerged in the last quarter of the games in the RWC. If all those players had the chance to play professionally in the Super 14 or in Europe and had more frequent Test matches Tonga and possibly Samoa would probably have made the QFs with Fiji. Aust and NZ's contribution to the development of a great world-wide competition could be to give opportunities to Island players, to provide them with many more Test matches and to be less greedy about creaming off the best of the Island talent. Ideally the players ought to have the choice themselves, but what sort of a choice do they have? If they are world-class players, they can play for NZ or Aust and get lots of international and top-class provincial rugby or they play the odd tournament and a few second-class internationals between A teams. Frank Bunce, Michael Jones, Bryan Williams, Illie Tabua, etc, etc, etc quite understandably wanted to test themselves in top company. I think they ought to have been able to without having to play under a flag of convenience. There is a certain degree of imperialism in the approach of NZ and Australia to the Island (benign as it may be). To give up the assumed right to cream off the Polynesian talent may reduce Australia's and NZ's chances of winning but it would be fair recognition of these astonishing powerhouses of talent.

In the spirit of my great compatriot George Bernard Shaw who complained about "two peoples separated by a common language", what on earth is a "furphy"?

I think this stuff about Polynesians players in Australian and New Zealand rugby is a furphy. They are Australians and New Zealanders. There were 12 NZers playing for Samoa, for instance. Dave Gallaher, the legendary captain of NZ in 1905 was born in Northern Ireland. He wasn't seleted for the first All Blacks in 1903 because there was a policy of native born NZers only being allowed to play for NZ. In 1899 the NSWRU proposed to the NZ authorities that there should be a combined Australasian side, like the Davis Cup sides later on and the Olympic teams up to 1920. Thank god the NZers rejected this defeatist nonsense. Where a player was born, or where his early life was spent, is immaterial. Most of the players born outside of Australia or NZ learn their rugby in Australia or NZ. The Topo Rodiquez case can't happen any more. This is good, otherwise France and England would buy all the best players in the world, as they are doing with club rugby. 16 England players were born in India, something that is often overlooked in this discusssion. For me, the Polynesian players, most of them second generation players, and therefore dinky-di Australians, are as Australian a the Indian-born England players.

I don't know as much as perhaps my first post suggests, but I did go out and watch the Aussie Schoolboys test against England at Ballymore earlier this year. Suffice to say we had a "black line" except at 13 where Horne was playing. I think the backline that day was: 9 Brent Hamlin 10 Matt Toomua 11Afusipa Taumoepeau 12 Ben Tapuai 13 Robert Horne 14 Joseph Tomane 15 Aidan Toua

Thanks to Reg for that very interesting information. In putting this out there as a discussion point this is exactly the sort of information I hoped to flush out. Perhaps Reg can also tell me how accurate my description of the team as "Australian Polynesians" was? I must admit this was really only an educated guess based on the general "browning" (as Spiro Zavos terms it) of Australian rugby (something all too evident from senior, U21, U19 and schoolboy team lists over recent years). Looking at Reg's list, it looks like about half the team are Polynesians. Are they mostly backs or are they spread through the team?

Wow Reg So I wonder will the bantering of NZ taking all the PI talent stop now?

as far as this year's crop is concerned, I believe a few have signed up with rugby already: Damien Fitzpatrick = Tahs Robert Horne = Tahs Afusipa Taumoepeau = Brumbies Brent Hamlin Brisbane = Brumbies James O'Connor = Force Jake Schatz = Reds Joseph Tomane St Joseph’s College Nudgee QLD Matt Toomua = Brumbies Aidan Toua = Reds Talalelei Gray = Brumbies Kesomi Lolotonga = Brumbies and from the Aussie A's Mark Swanepoel - Reds they are the only ones I know. Joseph Tomane has apparently 'agreed to terms' with the Melbourne Storm, but supposedly wants out. Lets see if the Storm are as understanding as they expected the Titans to be over the whole Turner debacle.

I think Jake White is what Australia need, I know they have had problems with foreign coaches before but Henry is Welsh. The assistant couches should stay in place but White should be in charge and develop a 4 year plan. It would be a shocker but might just turn Australian rugby around. Jake's back ground suits this perfectly, just like Henry he comes from a rugby mad country that breeds talent from the age of 4. I would love to see him get a chance but he is a hard head and me thinks him and O'Neil wont be best of chums. The Australian coaches had their chance and blew it on a couple of occasions, its time for a new approach and White might be the answer.

greg no offence but have you lost the plot. the appointment of australia's next coach is important. but not nearly as important as increasing the revenue coming into the game and improving our selection and talent spotting ( and securing of that talent ) abilities. we need to improve our player depth. you won't get the players unless you have the money to pay them. so the potential players will simply go to league or europe. the best coach in the world won't change that. but graham henry as australian coach ! my god. a failure with wales. a failure with the lions. and now a failure with the AB's. anyone who has seen that fox documentary on the lions tour to australia will recoil in horror at the thought of henry setting foot on these shores let alone having control of an australian rugby team. a more antiquated unprofessional attitude to man management could not be imagined. let's stick to an australian. there are plenty around. the current 3 assistant coaches for a start. i wouldn't appoiunt mckenzie or fisher but there are plenty who will sing their praises. there is nucifora, reynolds, and others. and if you need to go to an overseas coach at least pick one who is sort of an aussie. john mitchell. i could then go on about this ridiculous obsession with schoolboy football. there are plenty of islanders who excel at junior level rugby simply because they are bigger and stronger. it doesn't mean they are better footballers. there are countless players at all levels who only mature in their early twenties. we are virtually ignoring them. which gets back to talent spotting. regards rob mccourt

Interesting thoughts. 1. On the referees, I really have no comment, mainly because I haven't seen one referee really stand out, like a Kerry Ftzgerald, or Derek Bevan, or Andre Watson. I love a comment by Roy Masters in today's SMH: "The IRB & its lawmakers create the impression that offences such as 'joining the ruck from the side' are criminal offences & anyone found guilty is lucky to be punished with a penalty kick & not sentenced to 3 years hard labour". Lovely! 2. History suggests one outstanding schoolboy boy outfit won't make a significant difference. You need a run of 2-3 over 4 years. And yes, what is the ARU doing about warehousing outstanding talent? The ARU did this better in the early 200s, before O'Neill was axed. Hopefully, now he is back, he will tighten things again. 3. I'm over the national coaching "who will it be" dramas at the moment. A new candidate is called every day. I'll get excited when we know the final list for interviews. But why not Graham henry indeed? The ARU has a lot of problems to deal with on many fronts. The HPU has to get back to its core job of providing pathways for players & coaches, including the indentification & support process. Then there is the matter of establishing a national scrum/forwards academy. Then there is the matter of selecting the new Wallabies coaching staff. It's not the job of Wallabies coaches to teach players when they make the national team. It's not the job of coaches to learn the ropes when thy become a provincial coach. Clearly, the pathway structures players & coaches have collapsed. This is the priority area the ARU must address. That, & working harder to identify, develop , nurture & expand the player base.