RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:Good work.

It would be interesting to see how many of those players were simply born elsewhere but whose parents were the nationality of their affiliation and they never really played for anyone else nor wanted to.

Well, get on with the research then! That would probably apply to a lot of the “English” Welsh and Scots players.

Lizard wrote:

Stom wrote:Good work.

It would be interesting to see how many of those players were simply born elsewhere but whose parents were the nationality of their affiliation and they never really played for anyone else nor wanted to.

Well, get on with the research then! That would probably apply to a lot of the “English” Welsh and Scots players.

And the "Kiwi" Pacific Islanders.

I reckon more of the NZ-born Islanders would have considered playing for NZ than the English-born Welsh would have considered playing for England.

From what I’ve seen in both countries, feeling like a Samoan and a Kiwi is more culturally acceptable than feeling Welsh and English.

Lizard wrote:I reckon more of the NZ-born Islanders would have considered playing for NZ than the English-born Welsh would have considered playing for England.

From what I’ve seen in both countries, feeling like a Samoan and a Kiwi is more culturally acceptable than feeling Welsh and English.

Fair enough that few players will feel both English and Welsh --- e.g. I doubt Welsh-speaking Jonathan Davies feels English
And there will almost certainly be more NZ-born folks who'd like to play for NZ

But there are still players like Francis (his gran was welsh) or even Jake Ball (his Dad welsh, but he grew up playing rugby in England then Aus) who I doubt would have said they were really Welsh until they got the call

Lizard wrote:Ireland: 5 poached players (16.1% you say potato I say kumura)

2 New Zealanders (Bundee Aki, Joey Carbery)
2 South Africans (Jean Kleyn, CJ Stander)
1 Canadian (Luke McGrath)

I make that 3 actual poaches, all of the very worst "project player" sort. I'm afraid I don't have full histories for the other 2 but,

McGrath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_McGrath
Carbery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Carbery

Carbery did spend almost half his life in NZ, but both parents are essentially Irish and even Ireland haven't been poaching 11 year olds from NZ.

You could probably set up a sliding 10 point scale, where 1 is someone with both parents from the country he represents, and was born overseas only because they had been posted for a job or something and moved home while a preschooler. 10 would be an experienced pro with no former connection to the country being offered a contract with a clear view to qualify them by residency.

Lizard wrote:You could probably set up a sliding 10 point scale, where 1 is someone with both parents from the country he represents, and was born overseas only because they had been posted for a job or something and moved home while a preschooler. 10 would be an experienced pro with no former connection to the country being offered a contract with a clear view to qualify them by residency.

And 11 would be Tim Visser?

Stom wrote:

Lizard wrote:You could probably set up a sliding 10 point scale, where 1 is someone with both parents from the country he represents, and was born overseas only because they had been posted for a job or something and moved home while a preschooler. 10 would be an experienced pro with no former connection to the country being offered a contract with a clear view to qualify them by residency.

And 11 would be Tim Visser?

I would be in favour of calling it the Visser scale. Although to be precise Visser was less of a poach and more of a whore.

Puja

That’s a little harsh on Tim. You have to have some sympathy for players who want to play at the highest level but whose national side will never get there.

Lizard wrote:That’s a little harsh on Tim. You have to have some sympathy for players who want to play at the highest level but whose national side will never get there.

Not really - that's the rub of international rugby. It's not a right or something every top player can expect and there will be plenty of better players who never see an international shirt.

The thing that annoyed me about Visser was that, at the time of his emergence, the Netherlands were a reasonable side. Not close to the 6N or anything, but they were amongst the best of the rest in Europe. If Visser had played for them, he could have been a legend and helped inspire something in his home country. Instead, he tried to get capped for England on residency, and when he got nowhere here, he dropped down a level to go qualify for Scotland.

Puja

I’ve had a look and I didn’t realise how high up in Europe the Netherlands were. I had assumed they were down in the lower divisions. I also didn’t know he had pushed for English selection, either. So, yeah, maybe that is fair.

The Brad Shields Scale has a nice ring to it though.

I’ve also heard (but not checked) that there are 9 former NZ U20 players in the Tonga RWC squad but only 4 Tonga U20 players. I’m not quite sure what that means.

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/0 ... -rwc-2019/

May not be all correct but a good start. Japan with by far the most residence based qualifiers.

Scotland win the grandparent category. Which makes sense given the amount of Scots that move "abroad" (mostly down south).

Big D wrote:http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/0 ... -rwc-2019/

May not be all correct but a good start. Japan with by far the most residence based qualifiers.

Scotland win the grandparent category. Which makes sense given the amount of Scots that move "abroad" (mostly down south).

That's a good one. Shows the majority of the players "poached" from NZ are in fact just economic migrants from the Pacific Islands who just happened to be born there.

I don't think parent based poaches should be considered poaching, tbh. Underhill isn't a poach. Moriarty isn't a poach. Parisse isn't a poach. And so on.

But some are. Like half the Scottish team.

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/0 ... -rwc-2019/

May not be all correct but a good start. Japan with by far the most residence based qualifiers.

Scotland win the grandparent category. Which makes sense given the amount of Scots that move "abroad" (mostly down south).

That's a good one. Shows the majority of the players "poached" from NZ are in fact just economic migrants from the Pacific Islands who just happened to be born there.

I don't think parent based poaches should be considered poaching, tbh. Underhill isn't a poach. Moriarty isn't a poach. Parisse isn't a poach. And so on.

But some are. Like half the Scottish team.

If yon big bad English corporations, men and women didn't steal our fine men and women down south we wouldn't need the grandparent rule

Big D wrote:

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/0 ... -rwc-2019/

May not be all correct but a good start. Japan with by far the most residence based qualifiers.

Scotland win the grandparent category. Which makes sense given the amount of Scots that move "abroad" (mostly down south).

That's a good one. Shows the majority of the players "poached" from NZ are in fact just economic migrants from the Pacific Islands who just happened to be born there.

I don't think parent based poaches should be considered poaching, tbh. Underhill isn't a poach. Moriarty isn't a poach. Parisse isn't a poach. And so on.

But some are. Like half the Scottish team.

If yon big bad English corporations, men and women didn't steal our fine men and women down south we wouldn't need the grandparent rule

Big D wrote:

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/0 ... -rwc-2019/

May not be all correct but a good start. Japan with by far the most residence based qualifiers.

Scotland win the grandparent category. Which makes sense given the amount of Scots that move "abroad" (mostly down south).

That's a good one. Shows the majority of the players "poached" from NZ are in fact just economic migrants from the Pacific Islands who just happened to be born there.

I don't think parent based poaches should be considered poaching, tbh. Underhill isn't a poach. Moriarty isn't a poach. Parisse isn't a poach. And so on.

But some are. Like half the Scottish team.

If yon big bad English corporations, men and women didn't steal our fine men and women down south we wouldn't need the grandparent rule

Have you considered having a country that people are less desperate to get away from?

Puja

Big D wrote:http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/0 ... -rwc-2019/

May not be all correct but a good start. Japan with by far the most residence based qualifiers.

Scotland win the grandparent category. Which makes sense given the amount of Scots that move "abroad" (mostly down south).

This looks super thorough - thanks for posting. It has some different numbers to me but I relied pretty heavily on Wikipedia and Google. I don't know but I think I might prefer my research.

For example, for Tonga the article lists Otumaka Mausia, but he isn't even in the squad (see https://www.rugbyworld.com/tournaments/ ... ures-94102 or Wikipedia). Latu Talakai has no Wikipedia entry but this article calls him Tongan born http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/sp ... t-for-prop, the article says he was born in NZ.

The Samoa list says they have 18 foreign-born and 14 foreigners - that's total of 32 in a squad of 31..

Ah shit. Just realised Samoa have added a player due to injury so 32 is right.

Puja wrote:

Big D wrote:

Stom wrote:
That's a good one. Shows the majority of the players "poached" from NZ are in fact just economic migrants from the Pacific Islands who just happened to be born there.

I don't think parent based poaches should be considered poaching, tbh. Underhill isn't a poach. Moriarty isn't a poach. Parisse isn't a poach. And so on.

But some are. Like half the Scottish team.

If yon big bad English corporations, men and women didn't steal our fine men and women down south we wouldn't need the grandparent rule

Have you considered having a country that people are less desperate to get away from?

Puja

Nah, it is good to export our people down south and beyond and then use their sporting development pathways

There is still the odd residency based player on the horizon too. Kebble and Duhan Van Der Merwe qualify next November.

Let's just cut to the chase, England's attempt to buy this world cup is quite frankly disgusting. Biggest rugby playing population in the world, more money than any other union by a country mile, yet they still feel the need to poach foreign talent rather than developing the grass roots game. Shame on you England, shame ... on ... you.

J Dory wrote:Let's just cut to the chase, England's attempt to buy this world cup is quite frankly disgusting. Biggest rugby playing population in the world, more money than any other union by a country mile, yet they still feel the need to poach foreign talent rather than developing the grass roots game. Shame on you England, shame ... on ... you.

I tell you what, we'll give Willi Heinz back on the proviso that he has to play every minute of the RWC for you.

Puja

J Dory wrote:Let's just cut to the chase, England's attempt to buy this world cup is quite frankly disgusting. Biggest rugby playing population in the world, more money than any other union by a country mile, yet they still feel the need to poach foreign talent rather than developing the grass roots game. Shame on you England, shame ... on ... you.

I think you mean more shit players than any other nation and better at wasting money than anyone else!