Minnows' form fuels Super 14 expansion

[Burgs]

Minnows' form fuels Super 14 expansion

Wayne Smith | September 11, 2007

THE head of the Australian Rugby Union, John O'Neill, and Wallabies coach John Connolly believe the time has come for SANZAR to boldly go global with its inter-provincial championship and turn the Super 14 into a Super 20.

Strong performances by the so-called minnows, many of them amateurs competing against professionals, over the first weekend of the World Cup have convinced them that the game is now so solidly based around the world it could support a radical expansion of the Super 14.

O'Neill and Connolly discussed what could be done to assist Japan's development after the Wallabies trounced the Cherry Blossoms 91-3 in Lyon on Saturday, but not before the Asian champions had mounted a gallant fight with what was essentially a second-string team.

Japan's performance, coming hard on the heels of Argentina's stunning upset of France, the US's exposure of England as paper lion world champions, Canada's early domination of Wales, Namibia's embarrassment of Ireland and Samoa's aggressive display against the Springboks support the two Australians' belief that bringing those countries into a formal competition quickly would turn them into serious rugby contenders.

"About seven years ago, SANZAR had a consultancy firm, Accenture, look at options for the future and one of its proposals was that the competition could go to a Super 20, involving teams from Argentina, the US, Canada, Japan and the Pacific Islands," O'Neill said. "Maybe it's time we dust off those proposals and revisit them."

O'Neill said it was unlikely any expansion of the existing Super 14 could be put in place before the next broadcast deal is renegotiated in 2010.

[frontrow]

Good idea for mine, at least look at it...Will be a big money spinner, although running costs would also be huge....

[Burgs]

I think to be competitive the likes of the US, Japan and the PI's, if as individual nations, would need to have a five year window to have imported players.
As much as I want to see North American Rugby grow, I think it may be more reasonable to see them go trans Atlantic and add Japan, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and 2x Argentina to make a Super 20.
Much will rest on South Africa's shoulders when they decided if they want to go to Europe.
You could also see SA splitting with say two going to Europe (hypothetically say one Celtic and one French...) and three remaining in SH Super Rugby.
If that is the case it may even open the window for Namibia...
Ahh, I love this stuff...

[gustafsl]

Can someone explain the import player rules to me?? How do guys like Tuquiri and half the New Zealand team end up playing for other countries when they are born in Pacific Islands?

I could see the Pacific Islands putting together a decent Super 14 team, and Argentina could do it but a lot of their players are already in Europe so if they did want to sign up for Super 14 then they'd have to find a way to stop their players going to Europe. Japan and any US/Canada team would probably not be strong enough to do anything in Super 14. Maybe let the three combine. Or an outside the box idea would be to allow the Super 14 teams to bring in players from Japan/Canada/US (and any other small/developing nation) and they wouldn't count as import players. This would give these players valuable experience they could then take back when they play for their own country.

[JediKnight]

It's the old residency argument, isn't it? I know Scotland have 'benefited' from the kilted-kiwis over the last 10 years but now the majority of the squad are home-grown players.

IMHO, the only way a player should be able to play for a country other than the country of their birth, they should:

1] have been brought up since pre-school age in the 'adopted' country
2] one of their parents should have been born in the 'adopted' country

Look at the Italian team.....there's a few non-Italians in there through residency.

[shasta]

.

IMHO, the only way a player should be able to play for a country other than the country of their birth, they should:

1] have been brought up since pre-school age in the 'adopted' country
2] one of their parents should have been born in the 'adopted' country

I doubt the players involved would agree, if only in terms of potential earnings in the pro era. They have a point too, I think. Should be the individual's choice.

[Burgs]

Personally I think it should just purely come down to citizenship.
If a player is prepared to become a sole citizen of a new country then that is the country they can play for.
Clubs (at least in the NH) are about money, Nations are about heart, period.
No one is stopping the 160 Pro Australians from going to Europe or Japan to chase money, of the better players those who choose to stay they obviously place some value on the ability to represent their nation.

[AndyS]

Harsh Jedi - fulfil those requirements or don't bother playing rugby because you can't be professional.

[gustafsl]

Harsh Jedi - fulfil those requirements or don't bother playing rugby because you can't be professional.

Nothing wrong with them going to play professionaly rugby in another country but they should still be required to play for their own country in international play. Guess this mostly affects the island nations but imagine how good Fiji and Samoa would be if all their decent players didn't play for other countries.

[shasta]

Personally I think it should just purely come down to citizenship.

That would be a good fit, I suppose. But I think permanent resident status shoud be enough really.

I was mainly thinking of the Tuqiris, Rokokos, Kefus etc. Their earning potential as an AB or Wallaby is far greater than representing their country of birth, even though, ideally, I like to see them do so too. I don't think anyone should be dictating to these players.

The lesser nations also benefit from the inclusion of recently arrived
residents too. I don't see "shonkiness" in this area as being a problem anyway. It's not as if any of the contenders at RWC are rorting the system here, AFAIK.

[AndyS]

I was thinking about any kid that moved here age 6 and can't play S14 because he isn't eligible for Australia (and would need to be designated as a "foreign" player even to play ARC)

[Burgs]

If you are going for age eligibility criteria then yeah I agree the Jedi is perhaps a little tough for mine...
I would be more inclined to be either be citizenship as at 18th birthday or 16th birthday.
Much can happen through a childhood that has not occurred due to a potential Rugby career!

An interesting case to discuss is one Barry Mansfield, who I have a sneaking suspicion may be an irregular TWF Member (so be nice ).
Barry, a Scotch Old Boy, played for WA Schoolboys and this year the WA Under 19's.
But this year, as reported on TWF, he also represented Zimbabwe at the Under 19 World Championships.
My understanding is that he is being watched as a potential Force Academy player, so you assume by extension he is eligible to play for the Wallabies.
Any thoughts?

[AndyS]

I don't know about the right or wrong of the situation, but it certainly appears he could be eligible for Australia. A player is locked in once he has played for the senior national, next senior national (A team?) or senior sevens team.

[gustafsl]

I was mainly thinking of the Tuqiris, Rokokos, Kefus etc. Their earning potential as an AB or Wallaby is far greater than representing their country of birth, even though, ideally, I like to see them do so too. I don't think anyone should be dictating to these players.

What would your opinion be if all the young Aussies were picked up by the English team?? Their earning potential with England and then a possible Lions team would be a lot more then as a Wallaby.

I don't think it should be based on how much a player could earn. I think if a player is willing to get citizenship of their new country then they can play for them. Of course, they should still have to meet all the criteria that everyone else who applies for residency and citizenship does.

[shasta]

What would your opinion be if all the young Aussies were picked up by the English team?? Their earning potential with England and then a possible Lions team would be a lot more then as a Wallaby.

I don't think it should be based on how much a player could earn. I think if a player is willing to get citizenship of their new country then they can play for them. Of course, they should still have to meet all the criteria that everyone else who applies for residency and citizenship does.

I'd probably be a bit pissed off. But probably not as pissed off as the young English players who were overlooked. But I don't think what you're proposing is realistic. By and large most sportspeople still regard representing the national team of their country (read also country of choice) as the pinnacle of a career unless they were unfortunate enough to be brought up playing AFL. I was probably a bit off the mark in citing earning potential as a key factor.

Strict citizenship criteria is still too restrictive though, and AndyS' comment about young players coming through at S14 and ARC level is maybe more relevant. I don't know their personal situations but perhaps even blokes like "our own" Ratu Siganyavi, Kiti Fuluna or Sitaleki Timani would not be allowed to play for the Spirit.

If a player has a genuine choice of who he can represent why should that not be a completely personal one? Even if the decision is partly based on earnings. I don't see a need for heavy handed regulation unless there is a real problem. We get enough of that in our day to day lives already.