Sorry, this story is unavailable
It depends where you're looking from. Berk.
Posted 09:53 08th May 2012
Loyalty is not a national trait, except in New Zealand where the poor people are stuck there.
APV1: South Africa is not in the Antipodes.... Berk.
Posted 15:49 07th May 2012
But I don't believe the cat is out of the bag -- or if it is, it is so recently so that it can still be put back in!
Rugby hasn't sunk to the depths of soccer yet. We aren't yet watching people make pretty patterns on a playing field and imagining (erroneously) that they are doing it for us.
I think my examples are perfectly sound. What I am doing is comparing sportspeople whose only loyalty is that of the professional with sportspeople for whom place has meaning. Of course it doesn't make a jot of difference that the EPL is played in England -- the very essence of that sport is it doesn't matter where it is played. I merely cited examples that I thought all here would be familiar with.
You didn't just overcook that one, you burnt it to a cinder.
Posted 07:14 06th May 2012
Great to read that someone else has the same attitude towards football as I have. Money-grabbing scum is about the nicest thing I could come up with. If I was in charge of the police I would arrest all football players, managers and fans. I guarantee the crime stats would be down by 99%(the last 1% would be cricket players of course):-)
Posted 10:46 05th May 2012
@ Sandal..Well I see your point in that there could be a mercenary quality from a cynical perspective to hiring non-national coaches. Also are you sure you have a good candidate and not just someone hired on reputation alone..But the cat is out of the bag. There is no reason not to appoint the best available man for the job when many others are and have been doing it in recent past. Whatever organization adopts that attitude would put themselves at a distinct disadvantage. And remember, not all home-boy coaches are the right fit. If you doubt that look at the French debacle in the RWC.
Personally I wish Lancaster well. He did a good job on short notice with a pretty raw crew.
Posted 03:09 05th May 2012
@APV1 "too much" - just a touch they come for the big bucks once they reach their use by date in their own countries. That money should be going into development. Anyhow see how you feel after 2015.
Posted 01:48 05th May 2012
@ Trader2 - the RFU are developing the "juniors". Just have a look at how well we compete at Age Grade and Saxons level.
@ thewickerman - he didn't take, "the next best option", he took the best option..!
@ sandal - you're missing the point, my friend. We don't buy them, they come running to us, away from the awful places they were born. Such is the dire state of rugby development and structure in every other country; and such is the poor standard of rugby being played in every other country; and such is the corruption, cheating and crooked nature of everything in every other coutry, these players actively seek us out. Who wouldn't want to live and play in the best country in the world - ENGLAND?!
Posted 10:32 04th May 2012
@sandal - that's a terrible example - just for a start, you're comparing two different sports, one of which (football) is played by money-grabbing scum the world over; it being England doesn't make a jot of difference. Plus there's no real equivalent to State of Origin in football and never has been, excepting local club rivalries. There used to be in Super League though, when Lancashire played Yorkshire, and that was an epic clash - too bad they cancelled it.
Posted 08:32 04th May 2012
""In this age of "professionalism" wtf is the difference who coaches what? ""
The difference, pagra, is that in international sport "England" is supposed to mean England -- not whomever England can buy.
Because that still applies, by and large, national rugby teams don't all play the same style of rugby. England and New Zealand, for instance, play entirely different brands of rugby. And as New Zealand's national character has changed, so has the rugby played by the All Blacks. World rugby is all the richer for it.
But if you want to see what you get when the only loyalty is professional loyalty, watch the football of the English Premiership. And ask yourself, has it one half of the passion of, for instance, Australia's State of Origin rugby league?
Posted 06:16 04th May 2012
MC was born and bred in SA, he is a South African with Engligh heritage. If that means he can play for another country then so be it if the laws allow it and lets face it, he moved to England while there was apartheid. He probably thought he would never play for his native country so took the next best option. He could have moved back and been in the '95 or '07 winning sides but decided not to leave the country that took him in. Countries play by the laws, what's the issue. If they are eligible, pick them.
Back to the topic, good on WS. Like MC, he has loyalties and I hope he stays by them.
GO THE MIGHTY ALL BLACKS :0)
Posted 03:29 04th May 2012
@Cass402 Yes that is another way to look at it but I feel in Englands case, with the money I presume the RFU have, would be better spend it on developing their own talent be it players or coaches. It is interesting that the English FA are now desperate to appoint an English coach, isn't there a lesson there? Anyway you guys obviously think a little different as per @pagra comments but if Mike Catt ever wins an AB coaching role (I don't care how good he is and he seems a nice guy) then it will be time for me to mothball the black jersey (not earned just purchased I hasten to add).
Posted 23:38 03rd May 2012
In this age of "professionalism" wtf is the difference who coaches what?
I might see somebody`s point about loyalty to their native land but if a coach aspires to be as good he can be he will only be limited by his ambition. It sure did`nt hurt Graham Henry any.
After years of espousing a professional approach to the game surely you can`t cry foul about one of your own running the England program?
You might see it as a double entendre. (As in "It took a Kiwi, Saffer, Ozzy to show the poor lads the way.) Win win!!
Posted 19:50 03rd May 2012
@ Trader, i'm not from New Zealand so i cant comment on the burning ambition of kiwi kids but i do have massive respect for the way in which the country as a whole embraces rugby as THE sport for the youth to aspire to...unfortunately the same is not true in England so this in turn affects how we view the sport. As rugby in NZ borders on near religion it is viewed by many with the same fervour which possibly leads to a misunderstanding of the dynamics here in which rugby has to struggle against football primarily and also the raft of other sports which have grown in the last 10-15 years. I'm not trying to pick a fight here old mate, just trying to offer a different slant on the persective.
I didnt mean that players "buy" into the black shirt in a fiscal sense, more that they have to understand the huge responsibility which comes with selection as has been described by several players especially after a loss.
Posted 17:37 03rd May 2012
@lawynd sorry but your inference regarding the "antipodean peanut gallery" would indicate that you are "judging an entire nation on the misguided views of a few" anyway will leave that there. I understand the rules are there to be used (or abused as the case may be) and thats fine but are we not just a step away from active recruitment of o/s players because they have a dubious ancestry link or two. I am sorry but when I watch my national team play I want to know I am supporting my countrymen not a team of mercenaries (probably a bit strong a word but I cannot think of another). I suspect our ideas are pretty similar you just seem to accept it more easily than I ever could. Now John Gallagher there is a player to remember I had the privilege of watch 4 tests he was involved in, including this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ZBq8CEJg8. JG is probably not a great example for you to use to support this discussion, he was from memory in his late teens when he travelled to NZ just to widen his experience and play club rugby he was never courted by any club or province. Suffice to say he was a great fullback, hell most Kiwi's never knew he was a Pom until he went back.
@Cass402 I feel confident in saying this but no one "buys into the Black shirt" it is something that many Kiwi kids strive for from the time their Dad's lace their boots. It is a deisire to represent ones country as an All Black, it goes further than just playing international rugby, can Englands (or any other country) o/s players truly say they have that same burning ambition to represent another country - I very much doubt it.
Posted 15:21 03rd May 2012
@ APV1 - Yes he is! - Berk. He was born and bred in South Africa. He came to England after leaving school and qualified for England as he has an English mother.
@ jonesy2 - Still at it? I'm actually not really sure why you post on here as you never have anything intelligent or constructive to say.
Folks, don't ask to be educated by the village idiot. You know where that gets you. However, if you want to learn how to maintain a huge chip on your shoulder then ask jonesy2 as he is certainly your man for that!
I think it is a shame re Wayne Smith but I understand his position. He hasn't snubbed anybody by all accounts. Just weighed it all up and thought 'no'. That's fair enough. He was certainly interested though or else he wouldn't have gone through the process.
Posted 11:45 03rd May 2012
@ lawynd - thank you for using the word "berk". I have been trying to re-introduce it into everyday parlance with limited success. Yet it is such a good word. Similar to "wally", but a little more staccato, giving it more bite.
Posted 10:23 03rd May 2012
@Trader, think you've misread my point regarding Pacific Island born players...what i meant was that in my view there isnt a problem from me with the issue, if they're good enough and the end product is good on the field and they've bought into what wearing the black shirt means then groovy. I am baffled as to why there is an issue with who England select to play for them...from what i've seen it means as much to them in the white shirt. Rugby is ulimately about entertainment and winning...if we tick both of those boxes then happy days.
Posted 09:37 03rd May 2012
@Trader - the shoe isn't on the other foot because I've never been fool enough to clamber aboard the 'New Zealand steal Pacific Islander's babies' bandwagon, or whatever incredibly silly statement people are using to attack the All Blacks these days. Those people, wherever they're from, are berks, and I've no wish to associate with that sort of attitude. You are however judging an entire nation on the misguided views of a few, which seems rather short-sighted.
The facts are though that every nation that plays rugby has used the IRB's eligibility criteria for their own benefit at some point, and are continuing to do so. I'm fine with people not liking the system, but don't pretend that England are the only ones who do it. Or are Ireland going to drop Tom Court and Brett Wilkinson? Are France going to drop Thierry Dusatoir and Yannick Nyanga? What about Tendai Mtawarira and Brian Mujati, or Stephen Moore and Radike Samo? Should Tim Visser not be allowed to play for Scotland? Hell, there was an Englishman (John Gallagher) who lifted the World Cup in 1987!
My point, such as it was, is that the very people who are quick to lambast England, aside from being idiots, are supporting teams who've also used the same rules to their benefit. And, unless they support an Australian team composed solely of Aborigines, or similar, the concept of a homogeneous national team sailed a long time ago (around about 200 years ago, as you pointed out). I would much rather see England utilise players who have been raised here for far more pragmatic reasons; players from elsewhere usually haven't received international recognition because they aren't good enough, so if they're not good enough for their home nation then they shouldn't be good enough for England. But I don't pick the team, nor do I make the rules, so I just try to get on with supporting my team.
Posted 19:30 02nd May 2012
Ah @lawynd the boots on the other foot is - don't like it do we? Mind you it's a bit hard to swallow your line that because many of ancesters came from the UK and Ireland 200 years ago that we should now be very happy to go back and represent "our" countries. I presume that is your point, then again I only speak from the antipodean peanut gallery.
And Cass402 it was the NH "peanut gallery" that started the pacific island thing in an attempted slight of NZ's rugby success the difference has always been that 90% of NZ's Pacific Islanders have gone there as children with their families, you could not say that about some of Englands recent imports - and I don't include Catt in that.
Posted 15:52 02nd May 2012
@ lawynd - "...the antipodean peanut gallery..." Brilliant!
@ sandal - according to some fools, it would appear not. We have decided to go with a Saffa instead. Such is the woeful talent up here, we have to trawl the antipodes for their cast-offs and make do.
Posted 11:01 02nd May 2012
|All times are local|
|Friday , May 24|
|Chiefs 28 - 19 Crusaders|
|Friday , May 17|
|Hurricanes 12 - 17 Chiefs|
|Friday , May 10|
|Chiefs 22 - 21 Western Force|
|Friday , May 3|
|Melbourne Rebels 33 - 39 Chiefs|
|Saturday , April 27|
|Chiefs 37 - 29 Sharks|
|Friday , April 19|
|Waratahs 25 - 20 Chiefs|
|Saturday , April 13|
|Chiefs 23 - 31 Reds|
|More Super Rugby results|