SPIRO: European sides hell-bent on buying Six Nations, World Cup glory

Birdy, Martin Johnson was put into a NZ representative shirt on the advice of Colin Meads who knows a bit about locking. Johnson elected to come to NZ on the basis that his now wife was from there, and he aanted to have a look around, and decided to play a bit of rugby there. He was not recruited. I saw him walking around Mt. Maunganui about 13 months ago with his kids. They're half kiwi, and eligible for NZ selection.......................go on, take the bait you big ball of emotional energy.

Katipo - I was simply stating that facts include getting the terms you use to describe the countries correct. The ones you use are inaccurate, misleading or confusing - particularly to someone who lives in these islands. Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales. It is not a country. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is a recognised country internationally. It is the Republic of Ireland or simply Ireland. Eire is rarely used and no one says Republic of Eire for reasons that are too complex and irrelevant to the topic. Thus you stated earlier that Great Britain has eight votes at the IRB/World Rugby table. It doesn't. Rugby was founded in Ireland c. 1880 before independence and before the partition of Northern Ireland. Most sports have always been played on a provincial basis using the entire island of Ireland. One of those provinces spans both states - e.g. Tommy Bowe was born in the county of Monaghan which is one of the three counties of Ulster that is in the Republic of Ireland. Any player born on the island of Ireland is eligible to play for Ireland - that's very simple. If you wanted to use citizenship/passports as a criteria, then you could possibly say that any player that is eligible for an Irish passport/be an Irish citizen could play. This is because the constitution of Ireland allows for anyone born on the island of Ireland to hold an Irish passport if they wish. However, I think this would just get up the nose of Northern Irish players who have identity and pride in holding a British passport, but still see themselves as being born and living in Northern Ireland. Saying that any player holding a British passport could play for Ireland simply would not work. The majority of Irish players are born and live in the Republic of Ireland. But they also accommodate those players born in Northern Ireland and who hold a British passport by right and by choice. In your latest post, you use the term - Home Nations - this is a traditional reference to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In rugby it is generally used to describe the entire island of Ireland. Do you mean by Home Nations - England, Wales and Scotland - must hold a GB passport and can only represent one of these unions in their career? Or are you saying that players from Northern Ireland who hold a British passport can play for one of E, W & S? The main criteria for playing for Ireland would be players must be born on the island of Ireland. Same as it is currently. Getting into using citizenship could well be more complex than currently. As an example, here's just some of the eligibility criteria for being a citizen of the Republic of Ireland: If you were born in Ireland and your parent(s) were Irish citizens, then you are also an Irish citizen. A child born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship if they have a British parent or a parent who is entitled to live in Northern Ireland or the Irish State without restriction on their residency. A child born in Ireland to a parent who has been granted refugee status is also automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. Children born of other foreign national parents in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 are not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. These parents must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This will be evidenced by their having 3 out of the previous 4 years reckonable residence in the island of Ireland immediately before the birth of the child. If either of your parents was an Irish citizen who was born in Ireland, then you are automatically an Irish citizen, irrespective of your place of birth. If you were born outside Ireland to an Irish citizen who was himself or herself born outside Ireland, then you are entitled to become an Irish citizen. If your parent derived Irish citizenship in another manner, for example, through marriage, adoption or naturalisation, you can become an Irish citizen. If one of your grandparents is an Irish citizen who was born in Ireland, but none of your parents was born in Ireland, you may become an Irish citizen. I'd just change the residency rules - it's a lot simpler. :)

See my comment below to your latest post.

Well one things for sure, South Africa is a mass exporter of sporting talent. We don't even need to mention the numerous numbers of cricketers and rugby players who've played for other countries. There are far too many! Here are a couple others off the top of my head Tennis- that Aussie Matt Ebden from South Africa (I know his sister in my late teens, they lived in our area) Cycling- bloke who won Tour de France And many others...... Oh well Dale Steyn and AB will still win the cricket World Cup for us :-) !!!! And next to win the Rugga WC later this year :-)

Sorry guys, last comment from me on this topic. Let me restate my proposed solution to rugby's eligibility mess which I have amended to accommodate Pot Hales comment about Ireland. World Rugby eligibility criteria 1) Normal member Country - citizenship test (just like the Olympics) 2) Home Nations - must hold a GB passport (and can only represent one home nation in a career and can not play for Ireland). 3) Ireland - must hold a GB passport AND be born in Ireland or hold an Eire passport (and can not also play for England, Scotland or Wales during their career). Would that solve the problem?

Let me explain that another way. It's because Unions like Ireland and Scotland don't conform to accepted geo-political boundaries that Citizenship can't be used in international rugby. The strange eligibility criteria are in place to accommodate the Home Unions. Now every Union, including Ireland, abuses the Citizenship-bypass-loophole to select foreign nationals. That is the root cause of the problem that we face today.

Correct. +1

The Ireland Rugby Union spans two countries (Great Britain and Republic of Eire: Northern Ireland is not a country). The Irish situation proves my point. International rugby has become a contest between Rugby Unions (making up their own nationality rules) and not between countries. I have no issue with Unions like England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland competing as if they are countries in international rugby. The point I'm making is that its worse if the eligibility criteria doesn't involve ANY citizenship test. The lack of a Citizenship test is what opens the door for the current debacle. Henry Speight is a fine example. Great player. Not an Australian citizen. Should play for Fiji unless issued with Australian citizenship. Either that or admit that international rugby js now no better than a franchise type situation and allow NSW to enter the World Cup. Why not? NSW has its own government just like Scotland and there is an historical precedent. NSW has played tests before. (BTW I'm being sarcastic. I'm not actually propose that. Just illustrating a point).

@Pot Hole it would be useful if you read my comments properly before replying. I'm well aware of the facts. I actually wrote 'British (or Republic Of Eire) passport' to accommodate the Ireland Rugby Union.

It would be useful if you were aware of facts. The Republic of Ireland is a separate country. It is not part of Great Britain, nor the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain comprises England, Wales and Scotland. Ireland plays rugby on an all-island basis around its four provinces, and has done since day one. The eligibility rules apply on an island-basis, thus someone born on the island of Ireland is eligible to play for Ireland. Someone born in Scotland is not. Nor Wales. Nor England. Changing the eligibility rules to say that anyone with a British passport can play for Ireland would simply not work. Nor vice versa.

Dublin Dave, I kind of agree with you - the only player I can think of who might have had a chance in your list is Jared Payne. You've also discounted a lot of Kiwis who have left to play club rugby in France and have thereby given up any chance of national representation whatsoever. Some do it to extend their playing careers - and I note that Hosea Gear has just returned to NZ to give himself one more chance to make the All Blacks. As far as SANZAR being best placed to help the Pacific Islands rugby, that is easier said than done, but NZ is playing its part by either hosting games in NZ with Pacific Islands nations and giving the gate-takings to that union (Samoa requested this). Or indeed playing games in the islands - at the expense of the NZ Rugby Union. I believe they should not have agreed in this last case, because the Samoan Rugby Union is beset with well publicised problems relating to player welfare, corruption and/or ineptitude. The SANZAR countries, and particularly NZ, have supplied coaches, trainers and gear to the Pacific Islands (which I've seen firsthand) but are doing this without it seems, any help from the IRB. I don't think its fair for one or two countries to shoulder the burden of rugby development in the islands when that responsibility rests squarely with the IRB. To be fair I do think the IRB are funding things related to various development programmes, but the governance structures of the unions in these island countries are not doing their best for the players either. Bottom line: there is a lot of work needed here in the islands at all levels of the game (especially at the top) to keep young players in the game. Both soccer and league are also making huge inroads at junior levels, which is impacting on rugby at senior levels down the line. It is a complicated issue, but I do think collectively that international rugby and the administrators generally have taken Pacific Islands rugby for granted, and that is most unfortunate.

Ah, so they (NZ expat Coaches) make 'mistakes' in other countries... hmmm, nice one JimmyB. BTW, I stuck that last comment in there just for your benefit, because I know how chippy you Poms can get. And hey, you believe whatever you like, I don't think Henry's record in Wales was average, and I don't think you'll find a Welshman saying that either. As much as this may annoy you - and I believe it does, because the ONLY reason you and that other guy are ever on this forum is to have a whinge and a moan about anything Kiwi, unlike 99.9% of the other posters from SA, Oz. Arg, France and NZ here who actually contribute to discussions about rugby - NZ coaches are in demand in all of the so called 'home unions' because they're good. Not because these unions want to engage in some sort of training capacity building programme for NZ coaches, as you'd have us believe. There is nothing I've said in my post that doesn't have some factual basis to it, the NZ'ers do have a brand of rugby that is worth watching, and more importantly it is a winning brand - so its plainly obvious to everyone but you it seems, that the home unions, with the exception of England, have decided that to beat the best you've got to learn from them. Pretty sensible policy I would have thought.

30 years indeed. I first recall an anti-England rant in 1987.

So basically it was just inuendo then, got it. One thing though.... "Now what I’m NOT saying is that NZ is any worse than any other country." Except, you did say that. "New Zealand used to be one of the worst countries for cynicism in ‘poaching’"

There are basically two scenarios: smaller countries (in rugby terms) recruiting players from larger countries, and larger countries taking players from smaller countries. Examples of the first type are Scotland's notorious "kilted Kiwi"policy, and Ireland's "project players" program, each an example of a traditionally second tier country trying to plug holes in its player pool by extending their recruitment net to countries like New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. How big a deal is this for the southern hemisphere countries? Look down the list of all the Kiwis who have played for Ireland, at least since professionalism: Rodney Ah You, Isaac Boss, Kurt McQuilkin, Mike Mullins, Ross Nesdale. Jared Payne About many of whom you will no doubt say "Who?" Would any of them have come within an ass's roar of making the full All Black side? I hardly think so. If the IRFU wanted a Kiwi to play scrum half for Ireland why didn't they go for someone with a magnificent Irish surname like Byron Kelliher instead of the altogether more dubious Isaac Boss? Because whatever about his Irish qualifications, Mr Kelliher would probably have told them politely to get stuffed As did the Irish born but English raised scrum half Kyran Bracken back in the 1990s. Both players had the talent to make it with the bigger side, that's where they chose to play their games, as they had every right to do given their circumstances. Not casting any aspersions on the loyalty or integrity of either man but it's funny how the best sportsmen with Irish ancestry tend to play for the countries of their birth rather than their ancestry. (Especially so in soccer) The moral is that smaller countries poaching from bigger countries will only get those countries' rejects. How many kilted Kiwis would have made the All Black side? Think about it. How many Australian born players who ended up playing for other sides have you found yourselves agonising over and thinking "If only we still had him?" Answers on the back of a postage stamp please. Matt Mostyn? Tom Court? Now we get to the more dubious side: players from smaller countries being poached by larger ones. This tends to be the reverse: the likes of the Tuilagi brothers would surely have been regulars on the Samoan side but given that country's miniscule international presence they will make a far bigger impact with England. And if they can qualify for that country, why would you want to try and stop them? If you want to keep the best Samoan talent playing for Samoa then increase the opportunities for international rugby for the Pacific islands. And that's something that SANZAR is best placed to do. But I won't hold my breath.

Perhaps my phraseology was wrong, putting aside the financial expense, what I was trying to get at was that they made mistakes on other countries time so to speak, they will return to NZ (possibly) as experienced international coaches, something that wouldn't have been possible if they had just stayed coaching domestically in NZ. There's no doubt that they will or have offered something to their current teams, and it's entirely true that they will learn a good deal whilst they are there too. I think your last sentence is a bit much frankly, but it's not an uncommon sentiment to hear from a Kiwi. I wonder whether it could be argued that Gatland is spreading the gospel according to NZ?! Btw, Henry and Hansen both had exceedingly average records in Wales so maybe there was a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line.

Given other posts I've seen, I'm leaning towards that conclusion myself.

Just read your post further up. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you'd been drinking.

Another insightful, well measured, reasonable and intelligent piece. Thank you, Spiro. It really is so refreshing to see a "journalist" so clued up about events half the way around the globe. I can't wait until that all Australian backline fires you through the group stages this year...

Sorry Jerry, didn't see your comments. Without going through every non-NZ born AB I'll make a few points. You've got Martin Johnson who arrived for a bit of back-packing and some casual rugby with no Kiwi connections at all who suddenly finds himself in the NZ U21 side and coming under serious pressure to 'sign-up' for NZ. There was Gallagher who suddenly appeared in your World Cup winning side; there's the comments on the Roar in the last couple of days from the guy who's relative works in Kiwi immigration and suggests different 'informal' rules apply to those identified with rugby potential; there's the comments from Graham Henry, of all people, in 1999 that NZ would 'pick an Eskimo if they thought it would make the team better'; and there's the 'rugby scholarships' available to people like Fekitoa. Now what I'm NOT saying is that NZ is any worse than any other country. However, NZ has had a huge boon to their rugby in that they have had successive waves of immigration and now have 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation communities of people who God/genetics, take your pick, has made physically the most capable rugby players on the planet. If Kiwi fans simply said, quite rightly, that these are NZ citizens, often born and bred, aren't we lucky, no-one would, or should, argue. There's usually the added implication though that there is some moral choice NZ rugby has made regarding the origins of players that other, less 'moral' rugby boards haven't. This is what gets up people's noses. A country like England never 'poaches' players for international rugby. Not out of 'morality' but because they don't have central contracts. They pick whoever is playing in the English league who is eligible under IRB rules to play for England. They don't 'encourage' people to move to England because they can't as they won't be their employer. Let's take a hypothetical example. The new Richie McCaw has been identified in Samoa. He hasn't played for any Samoan representative teams and therefore is not ineligible for anyone. He expresses a desire to play in NZ and gets a SR contract with the Crusaders. In 3 years he's eligible for NZ on residency grounds and has torn up SR with his brilliance. Do the ABs pick him? If hand on heart you can say 'no, because he's not a Kiwi' I'll concede the superior morality of NZ rugby.