Pasifika - how do we fix this?
-
-
@rapido said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
I have found in my life that everything can be fixed by a dashboard.
My dashboard to fix PI rugby .....What is the problem, who could solve it, how.
Green if is not a problem or is solvable by themselves.
Red where they are deficient or if the solutions are things for which they are just flotsam in an ocean (or AB midget-passive tactics-counter attackers in a semifinal, for a rugby metaphor)
Good effort!
RE: removing central contracting, is this purely a suggestion based on the needs of PI rugby, without any consideration of consequences for other parties (e.g. NZ Rugby)?
As I feel central contracting is one of the major positives in our current setup.
-
@bobily2 said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
RE: removing central contracting, is this purely a suggestion based on the needs of PI rugby, without any consideration of consequences for other parties (e.g. NZ Rugby)?
As I feel central contracting is one of the major positives in our current setup.Yeah that might help the Tier 2 PI's but not this Tier 1 PI!
-
@rapido said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
@victor-meldrew said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
Seems to me it all comes down to money
One big problem for the national unions of Tonga, Fiji, etc is fielding their best players on a regular basis. A lot of that is down the struggle between the national unions and the clubs (mainly in the Nth hemisphere) - and poss. the competence of the Pasifika Unions, or lack of.
Also some of the richer unions make a packet out of ticket sales and TV fees when the Islands play them but the Pasifika players and unions don't get much of that (IIRC, the NZRFU & Oz do this to some extent). I read one Pasifika team (Fiji?) were unable to get a ground to practice on and slept in sleeping bags during the Autumn Internationals, which is appalling.
The IRB/World Rugby could get their act together and make some rules on sharing gate receipts and TV money and put some rules in place that clubs must release their players for Test matches. Can only think it's vested interests or a lack of confidence in the Pasifika Unions to use the money wisely.
I don't think allowing players to switch eligibility will make much difference - the money angle needs fixing first.
This is not true. You are mis-remembering something else I would guess.
The host nation is responsible for and pays for the internal travel, hotels, training facilities etc.
There is no way in a million years that Fiji would be sleeping rough in France or England etc during the Autumn window.
What I suspect you are mixing this up with is the Zimbabwe team who left their hotel in protest in Tunisia during the the last RWC qualifying and twittered themselves sleeping in a bus station in protest at how bad their hotel was.
Tunisia hit back after Zimbabwe rugby team sleep on streets before qualifier
Tunisia rugby chiefs have accused Zimbabwe’s delegation of “unethical actions” after players slept on streets prior to a World Cup qualifier
Thanks. I def. mis-remembered the sleeping bags bit. They stayed in less that £50 a night hotel rooms, flew economy class and used a free training ground. They got £400 each for playing against England whose players got £22k each. link
Not blaming England for that situation and credit to them for giving the Fiji Union £75k, but it highlights the problem with revenue sharing and the Pasifika countries being unable to host big games profitably.
-
Good try. I could suggest an IKUCU* chart would be a better option, but I retired years ago and this is a Rugby thread.....
It does seem to boil down to revenue-sharing in the absence of profitable venues in the Islands and player availability due to the financial clout of clubs. Poss. one may fix the other?
(*don't even ask)
-
Stand down periods for players who have been capped for other nations if they only get under ?? caps for that nation.
e.g. young guy might play Tonga U20s and then goes off shore to make the ABs at 22. Only gets 2 caps before an injury and never gets selected again.
At 25, he becomes eligible for Tonga again.
-
-
@ploughboy you mean the kid coming for a high school scholarship?
What happens if thier family move them here when they are 10, or 12, or even 15?
At the end of the day, they can choose whatever path they want, I mean look at the KIwis that have spent the required time playing club footy up north to become eligible for the country where they are, are you saying we deny them, because in a way, some are worse than a kid a school took a gamble on, the NH team entice an established player up there with the shot at INternational rugby.
-
A lot of the PI players are supporting the wider family back in the islands so they will always choose the option providing the greatest income. That's why so many play in Europe, even in the lower divisions, rather than play only NPC in NZ. Playing for a NZ or Aust SR team will also offer a salary far in excess of what they can earn at home. So it's no surprise if the choice is between being eligible for your country of birth or declaring eligibility to NZ or Aust, they will choose the latter if they want to stay in the SH.
-
@taniwharugby i was meaning more the guys on rugby scholarships . most of these kids are imported here for the schools benefit then we pick the best. my rule might not always be fair but the way it is now it benefit nzrugby to much.
as for our players heading north not a fan of them changing nations but most of those player arnt good enough to play for ABs and if they want our rejects -
@ploughboy how do you police this though? I can understand making them ineligible for age grade NZ selection but as an adult? If they are naturalised , have a home or have started a family here etc and have for all intents and purposes but down roots. How do you deem them ineligible?
My point is you can't tar all players with the same mercenary brush. I know I started this thread about fixing island rugby etc. But if a player develops an intrinsic pull for all things NZ and genuinely wants to stay and become a great AB it seems a little heavy handed to block that dedication.
If players brought here on scholarships are only here for the merc life then we should have a eligibility period. They have to have lived here for however long before selection etc. It was a bit of a farce at the time but Sivivatu* comes to mind as the most high profile player to have been selected after a scholarship type situation. I remember Fiji putting a protest in and want him to be sat out of AB selection for a period as he had only been in the country for school and here we were trying to get him to the 2003 world cup.
*Can't believe he's 39 now. Doesnt seem like that long ago he was in the team.
-
@raznomore said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
Pasifika - how do we fix this?
Get them matches against tonight’s Wallabies or French team’s, that could do their confidence wonders!
-
@ploughboy said in Pasifika - how do we fix this?:
@taniwharugby i was meaning more the guys on rugby scholarships . most of these kids are imported here for the schools benefit then we pick the best. my rule might not always be fair but the way it is now it benefit nzrugby to much.
as for our players heading north not a fan of them changing nations but most of those player arnt good enough to play for ABs and if they want our rejectsThe problem is that this applies to some players on scholarships, but not all. Fakatava is a typical example of a player who was not scouted.* He attempted 3 times to get a scholarship in NZ, failed twice and only the third year he was offered - I think - 3 scholarships and chose Hastings Boys. He isn't playing in NZ because NZR, schools or clubs were trying to get him here. He's playing in NZ because he actively pursued a spot at a NZ school. IMO it would be wrong to make it impossible for him to play for the ABs if that's what he really wants.
*Waisake Naholo is another. He came to NZ to live with his uncle. Edited to add that it doesn't look like he even got a scholarship.
-
Let's not forget that Italy was due to play 2 tests here but cried off, leaving NZR scrambling to get someone to play. The game at the weekend was clearly an unusual situation as Tonga had to find 13 uncapped players to put a side together and quarantine requirements would have been a huge issue for players as well. it is no surprise that they had to get a scratch side together.
This was the main problem for the side at the weekend - lack of prep time to get a team together and covid related issues - yet people are using it as something more to match an agenda they want to push. Its not really the game to do it.
There are many obstacles to 'fixing' PI rugby and making them competitive. not least the fact that most of their potential players don't live in the islands or were even born there.
I saw some fantasy team on Twitter that got quoted in some articles on rugbypass or elsewhere, it had Richie Mounga, plus a couple of others in the side that were NZ born and playing for the All Blacks.
Just because you have Tongan heritage doesn't mean you have to represent them or even want to.. It is ignoring the fact that the player is a NZer first and foremost.
The issue with the PI's is they have no power or voice. clubs love them in their sides, they are cheap and durable, and unions worldwide tap into them for their national sides.
as long as World rugby is controlled by self-serving unions, who vote on everything, and not an independent body, then changes for the good of the game - will just not happen.
-
First and foremost, a scholarship is a fantastic opportunity for the individual.
It is driven by schools and not by NZR (although, I am sure they are not against them!)
There is no guarantee of a pathway in NZ pro rugby but we are seeing more players emerging into the All Blacks from scholarships than we used to.
-
yeah as i said it wont always be fair but feel that we are getting a unfair advantage from this at the moment. take this all black team we have reese, Taukei'aho and would have had fakatava if not for injury , there are more and more of these players coming through.
-
The scholarship thing is starting to get a bit ridiculous now.
The irony is NZ earned the poaching reputation 25 to 30 years ago when there was no poaching going on.
Now, there are more poaches that have played for NZ in the last 5 years than in the entire previous 30 years put together. It's just a bit sad, really.
-
As for 'fixing' PI rugby.
Club level.
• NH have too many games. Playing through the windows and long seasons.
• SH (NZ and Aus) have too few teams resulting in central contracting hoarding)The NH part will never be solved, never, ever, NEVER.
The have 12 or 14 teams comps committed to home and away (22 games or 26 games) pus Euro comps (6 to 9 games). Instead of having fewer teams and home and away they’d be ‘better’ off having e.g. a 17 team comp playing the other 16 in 1 game each (8 home and 8 away). Then fit in Euros.
The SH part has more glimmer of hope, but that is only due to SH weakness and possible eventual implosion of current model.
If Australia give up on week to week SR, then the only 5 teams each model dies, if each nation have more teams then the central contracting hoarding probably also dies.
The other future possibility is that NZ and Aus implode so completely that any attempt at high level local pro rugby finishes, with that is the end of central contracting hoarding.
International level.
• The problem is Tier 1s play 11 to 14 test per year. That is around 1 third or 1 half of a season.
• Tier 2's play 6 to 8 tests per year.
• 50% of the Tier 1 tests are part of competitions with good broadcasting and sponsorship revenue that is shared amongst the 'owners'.
• 100% of the Tier 2 test are 'friendlies', or part of 'second rate' continental ‘tier-2-only’ comps.The only way to ‘fix’ PI rugby at international level is to make it financially attractive at an international level. That is the only way. They need to be part of competitions that centralise some money so they can pay good match fees to make it worth the while of the pros to want to play.
There is a possibility here, even with current structures not imploding. But it is picking winners and losers. Japan likely to be included in the THC in some format. It is possible that Fiji may be picked to come along with them. No change for Tonga and Samoa.
A tinkering at the edges possibility is if anyone ever bothered to try for a Pan-Pacifics.
Another tinkering, is if world cup qualifying became for everyone. Fiji or Samoa hosting games with DHL, Emirates, Heineken etc as sideline advertisers etc, NZ or Aus actually having to visit and ability to sell those TV rights.
A big bang zombie apocalypse possibility is if as mentioned above SR totally goes the way of the Dodo and all pro domestic rugby is in the NH. There is less test rugby altogether, NZ also only play about 8 tests per year as well as T2s. Even in this apocalyptic vision, I reckon there’d be enough lobbying power from the affected former T1s to have a better cleaner window to fit those fewer tests in.
SO, IMO, Excecutive Summary - the only way it will get 'fixed' would be part of an unintended consequence of an implosion of current structures. OR, we pick a winner in Fiji to ride on Japan’s coat tails to save us all (down here).
-
"fixing pasifika rugby" is romantic rubbish that will never happen.
Rugby is a professional sport. You know who don't win professional sports? Tiny places with no money. NZ is way bigger, with way more money, and we are still getting hammered in the player retention stakes. We make juuuuust enough to keep ourselves at or near the top. There is no way that happens to Fiji, let alone Samoa or Tonga (who combined have less than half the people that live in Hamilton).
They will always be reliant on other places to develop their players. And taht comes at a cost, as it should.
The one concession i am willing to make is something i have said on here for ages. The World Cup Qualifying should be far broader than it is now. The previous winner and the host should qualify automatically, the rest should play qualifying tests in small places. It is the only way self serving unions will take the game on tour.
