Back >>

Eligible young men

The biggest question New Zealand rugby must ask is whether it is time to open All Black eligibility to those players based offshore. GREGOR PAUL reports.

Monday, 03 May 2010

Gregor Paul

The modern parlance is to talk of rugby as a game of inches. Win the tiny battles, get the minute detail right and pixel by pixel, the required picture will eventually form.

Detail is everything in professional rugby, particularly at test level. The amount of analysis is overwhelming. The hours on the training ground are painstaking. Nothing is left to chance. Fate, once such a cruel and fickle mistress, so rarely intervenes in the test arena. She can’t get her foot in the door because the preparation is so intense; every scenario is thought about and prepared for.

It’s meticulous. It’s clinical. It’s possibly even soulless but that’s the game and that’s what the All Blacks believe they have to do if they are to maintain what is a truly exceptionally winning record.

But there is this glaring anomaly that sits so at odds with their fastidious preparation. The All Blacks pore over hours of video footage to the extent they can recite their opposite man’s eye colour, boot size, preferred toothpaste and the name of his first teddy, yet at the same time they deny themselves access to, potentially, some of the best New Zealand eligible players on the planet.

There has long been a body of opinion that says it is plain daft to have a self-imposed ban on selecting players based offshore. It is a bit like a top sprinter spending every waking hour making himself faster only to come to the track on race day with one shoe. Why battle so hard for the inches and then concede a yard?

To date, those arguing for a change to All Black eligibility have failed to grasp the reality of the logistics. Rugby doesn’t have a unified global season. The Tri Nations, the test football that really matters in this part of the world, runs concurrently with key European club competitions.

Even if the New Zealand Rugby Union decided to change its stance overnight, they still wouldn’t be able to gain access to European-based players for the Tri Nations. The clubs over there are not obliged to release southern hemisphere players for the Tri Nations. There is no official window and club owners in that part of the world are not renowned for spontaneous acts of goodwill towards the international game.

Player release has been at the core of the decade-long battle between clubs and national unions in the northern hemisphere. The war has been bitter, relentless and entirely detrimental to the international stature of both England and France. When clubs and national bodies in the same country can’t sort out player release issues with an official window it’s more than a little optimistic to believe that highly paid All Blacks will be able to swan back home to play in the Tri Nations in the midst of the very campaigns for which they have been employed to help win.

So until now, however frustrating, however much it might seem nonsensical to enforce a policy that says only domestic players are eligible for the All Blacks, it has made sense.

To sanction a regime where some players can flit into the team for the June and November tests when there is an official release window but then not be available for the Tri Nations goes against the very ethos of the All Black culture.

All this could be about to change, though. This month, the IRB will vote on a proposal to change Regulation 9 - the clause that applies to player release for test football. The Sanzar nations have tabled the motion to extend the window so it covers Tri Nations - which will then enforce European clubs to release southern hemisphere players for the showpiece event.

The driver is the need to support Argentina’s provisional entry into what will be a Four Nations in 2012. The amendment is designed for the Pumas but not restricted to them, meaning that if the vote were to get its 75 per cent backing, New Zealand could access offshore players for the Tri Nations, too.
 
“Yes, technically it would change things logistically,” says NZRU chief executive Steve Tew. “I think it would be good practice for the board to have a discussion and take a deep breath to assess the consequences, as they would following any change in regulations.

“But I would reiterate that our desire is to have the best players here in New Zealand and we want to protect our competitions. That has always been our view and Regulation 9 has not been a dominant thought in our minds.”
What the NZRU fears is that if the eligibility stance was changed, existing and aspiring All Blacks would soon be leaving on mass believing they had entered the magical world where there is cake and they can eat it. They would be able to take the bigger money on offer in Europe and still have All Black careers.

The impact on domestic rugby would be significant if there was an exodus. “You would lose a lot of your culture,” says All Black defence coach Wayne Smith. “You have to think about the input from senior players not just in the All Blacks but the influence they have at training, in setting the right example, in guiding others at all levels of the game.

“I have always been in favour of the existing policy. I want to see the best players stay here. I think there is a sacrifice involved and that helps makes the All Black jersey what it is.”

Smith also wonders about the logistics of tracking players offshore. In New Zealand it is relatively simple. The coaches receive detailed statistical analysis from each Super 14 game on each player. They have close and aligned relationships with each franchise coach, can travel to most games in New Zealand and can watch the rest on TV. But what if they had to track players in Europe? How could they be sure they were comparing like with like? A player standing out in the Guinness Premiership might not have the aerobic fitness or speed of thought to cope with the pace of football in the southern hemisphere.

These are all valid concerns, particularly the value of the sacrifice. No other team in world rugby has a record even close to the All Blacks’. In looking for reasons why, the emotional value of the jersey has to be considered and the depth of commitment those wearing it feel must be a significant factor.

Yet, while Smith and Tew make a compelling argument, it still has to be challenged as there are plenty of stakeholders in the game who feel the fear of player exodus is exaggerated.

Bruce Sharrock, whose agency World in Motion places players all over the world, is sceptical about the likelihood of a clean out. He knows that he and other skilled professionals do much to educate and advise professional players.

No player acts on a whim and most of the best talent is exposed to detailed career planning and goal setting. It’s unrealistic to believe that those young men burning to be All Blacks are going to take off to Harlequins or Toulon or wherever simply because the eligibility status changes.

Not every player is driven exclusively by money at every stage of their career and most players have enough understanding to realise they will virtually kill their All Black dream by playing offshore. It’s like Smith says, the logistics would be difficult to overcome and commonsense points towards the domestic players being first in the selection queue should everything change.

“My view is that won’t be the case,” says Sharrock about a supposed rush to get out. “I don’t believe there will be a mass exodus. Young players on the up are always asked what they want to achieve and they still all say they want to be All Blacks. We have to give some of them a wake-up call on that front and spell it out that they are not going to make it. We have to ask how many players will be picked being that far away?

“France is looking to cut the number of foreign players and New Zealand has this view that we are so special that any overseas spots available in Europe will go to New Zealanders.”

Sharrock believes the real consequence of opening eligibility would be to see greater movement of players from New Zealand to Australia. That’s an increasingly common migration path outside of rugby as New Zealanders young and old head across the Tasman in search of greater economic and career opportunity.

That path could become familiar to the rugby world as Australia, with a fifth Super Rugby team coming on-line next year, is in dire need of more players. If New Zealanders could head over the Tasman and retain their All Black eligibility, inevitably, the traffic flow will increase.

But what if it does? Would that be so bad? There would be no player release issues for the tests and tracking the form of players would be just as easy as if they were playing for New Zealand teams. The coaches would be able to trust the quality of the competition and keep in touch with the player.
 
With no provincial championship in Australia, Kiwi players contracted to Australian franchises could even be released to play in the ITM Cup.

The objection seems to be on the grounds of control – that the NZRU simply doesn’t want to have to deal with any external bodies in the development and management of players. They have to own the players in their entirety.

There are twists and turns to every step of this debate. For every theory there is a counter theory. It can’t be discounted either that if New Zealanders were to remain All Black eligible while off-shore, they could lose much of their attractiveness to the big clubs. The big money – and All Blacks really do get offered big money to play in Europe – could suddenly drop if owners fear they will have to share their prize asset with the NZRU.

The only grounds for agreement are that the issue of eligibility is a question of risk – as in how much the national body is prepared to take – against reward – as in what is the upside to the All Blacks.

Maybe Sharrock and all those who agree with him would be proven correct. Is it worth the risk of finding out, though? That’s where Carl Hayman comes into the equation.

Clearly the All Black coaches wanted him to be available for the 2011 World Cup. Hayman is a player they know, trust and respect. All Black coach Graham Henry believes Hayman is still the best tight-head prop in the world.
 
While there is confidence in the emerging talents of Owen Franks, the All Black master-plan had Hayman in it – playing a destructive, scrummaging role and giving the national team an edge it has not had since 2005.

That plan was foiled when Hayman signed for Toulon. Right now, under the current NZRU rules, Hayman will not be part of the 2011 World Cup. What if Regulation 9 is amended though and the potential for the NZRU to make a long-term shift in eligibility is opened? Is Hayman worth the risk?

Is it crazy for the NZRU to dig their heels in on eligibility? Or should they say Hayman could be the critical difference to the 2011 World Cup campaign and is worth the risk that other players might leave as a consequence of changing eligibility criteria?

They also have to think beyond 2011. It’s probable, highly likely even there will be a clean out after the World Cup. That’s been the way in the past. Dan Carter, Richie McCaw, Andrew Hore, Tony Woodcock, Keven Mealamu, Mils Muliaina, Ma’a Nonu, Brad Thorn and Jerome Kaino are all off contract next year.

Just as they were in 2008, the All Blacks will be bereft of experience and senior players in 2012. The loss of Carter and McCaw would hit them particularly hard. But what if the NZRU amended eligibility now to allow the option of using those two key players – should they head offshore after the World Cup – to stabilise the All Blacks in 2012?

How much is a World Cup win worth? How far should the NZRU go to protect the All Black brand at the potential expense of other levels of the game?

If all roads appear to be pointing towards taking the risk, then Tew provides a sobering reminder that that the attached consequences are real.

“The pressure on the players, particularly the top end players to transfer overseas has not diminished at all,” he says. “In fact we have seen an uplift.
 You had Mils [Muliaina] come out a while back and say that from a players’ point of view it [changing eligibility] would make a big difference. That him and a lot of players he knows well would think differently about going offshore.
“The risk is so great. The question to ask is how would everyone feel if there were 30-40 eligible All Blacks playing offshore? And what would that do to the learning of the other players still here. All that experience is lost.

“Nothing has changed. The French have been saying for some time they want to have fewer foreign players. The salary cap in England has had no bearing on how much money clubs pay players. The demand is still high and even if I’m wrong and the demand is only there for 10 leading players…it’s still 10 players not here.

“It’s such an important decision for us. But at the moment we believe retaining our best talent in this country, to play in our competitions, in front of our fans is the right decision.”

The final word on this belongs to Jerome Kaino. The Blues and All Black blindside is not in any doubt about how he would feel should the current eligibility laws be changed. “It would make a big difference. Definitely I would be interested in playing offshore if I could still be an All Black. Why not? You have such a short career that if you could go to Europe and earn more money and still play for your country, I would be interested.”

Back >>