Rugby Sevens in the Olympics

[Blaze]

And marc71178 I just looked at the overall standings this year and it made quite interesting reading. To date NZ have won all but 1 of the tournaments on the circuit (not including the World Cup) this year

[Blaze]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

It'd be good from a spreading the gospel of Rugby point of view, countries where there is a sizable minority into Rugby but who've been left behind by professionalism (USA, Canada, Romania) might invest in it a bit more if it became an Olympic sport.

And don't forget the pacific nations.. although they don't have much money to invest in it, it would still be a great opportunity for their naturally gifted athletes to shine on the world stage.

It would enhance Rugbys image IMO and expand the game. Emerging nations like Kenya would be right into it

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Blaze

And don't forget the pacific nations.. although they don't have much money to invest in it, it would still be a great opportunity for their naturally gifted athletes to shine on the world stage.

It would enhance Rugbys image IMO and expand the game. Emerging nations like Kenya would be right into it

I think Oz & NZ not harvesting off the Pacific Islands' best players might help them to be more competitive too....

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Blaze

I don't know when the World Sevens tour was introduced.. maybe five years ago possibly more. Winning it every year means you are fairly dominant marc71178

And what have been the margins of victory - not dominant by a long stretch of the imagination, in effect by the winning of just 1 game for each of the last 2 series - to then suggest dominance on that basis and that you'd walk off with Gold is wrong.

[Blaze]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I think Oz & NZ not harvesting off the Pacific Islands' best players might help them to be more competitive too....

Haha true but at the end of the day it is their decisions and Aus and NZ would have given those players a great life and therefore they want to play for them to repay the country.

I don't blame the young pacific boys for wanting to become All Blacks. If they live here and they make that choice then it is fine by me.

Different story if it is blatent poaching and they don't live here

[Blaze]

Originally Posted by marc71178

And what have been the margins of victory - not dominant by a long stretch of the imagination, in effect by the winning of just 1 game for each of the last 2 series - to then suggest dominance on that basis and that you'd walk off with Gold is wrong.

No it is not wrong. It would be wrong if NZ was losing but they continualy win. They have never been matched since the world series was introduced and i don't care what you say winning a tournament five years a row (about to become 6) is dominance.

Any person with half a rugby brain knows that since profesionalism NZ have been the masters at sevens and that with a full strength team would carve up at the Olympics as has been the case when we send stronger teams to the Commenwealth games.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Blaze

Haha true but at the end of the day it is their decisions and Aus and NZ would have given those players a great life and therefore they want to play for them to repay the country.

I don't blame the young pacific boys for wanting to become All Blacks. If they live here and they make that choice then it is fine by me.

Different story if it is blatent poaching and they don't live here

I know the IRB has now changed the rules to prevent players playing full internationals for more than one country, but NZ used to be terrible for poaching players. IIRC Michael Jones debuted for (as was) Western Samoa before becoming ABs legend. Ieremia & Frank Bunce were others.

& Jamie Salmon played for us & you!

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Blaze

No it is not wrong. It would be wrong if NZ was losing but they continualy win. They have never been matched since the world series was introduced and i don't care what you say winning a tournament five years a row (about to become 6) is dominance.

Yes, if you win every Tournament in every series - but the margins of victory over the last 2 series is literally 1 game on each occasion - that is not dominance.

[KennyD]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I think Oz & NZ not harvesting off the Pacific Islands' best players might help them to be more competitive too....

Well, they all wannabe a wallaby.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I think Oz & NZ not harvesting off the Pacific Islands' best players might help them to be more competitive too....

I do hope you're joking, BoyBrumby - I always had the impression you were an intelligent poster.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I know the IRB has now changed the rules to prevent players playing full internationals for more than one country, but NZ used to be terrible for poaching players. IIRC Michael Jones debuted for (as was) Western Samoa before becoming ABs legend. Ieremia & Frank Bunce were others.

& Jamie Salmon played for us & you!

Michael Jones - born in Auckland. He was already acknowledged as a rising star for Auckland, and a future All Black when he played for Western Samoa in 1996. To suggest Jones was poached by the All Blacks is so laughable I almost forgot to laugh.


Frank Bunce - born in Auckland. He hadn't had his chances at higher levels due to warming the bench for Auckland. Once he got the chance to shine for North Harbour and for Western Samoa, his abilities were brought to the attention of incoming ABs coach, Laurie Mains. Do you think Bunce was forced to pay for the All Blacks?

Ieremia - born in Apia, Samoa, but came to the fore playing rep rugby for Wellington, before playing for Western Samoa.

Here's a stat you may not be aware of - there were more New Zealand-born players in the Samoan team at the RWC in 2003 than Samoan-born players. Now who's poaching?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Voltman

I do hope you're joking, BoyBrumby - I always had the impression you were an intelligent poster.

Yep, hence the

Before the IRB tightened up the qualifying criteria there was a lot of to-ing & fro-ing between countries. Stephen Bachop played for Samoa before & after his stint with the ABs & even once played against his bro, who was playing for Japan in the 99 WC.

I do think that the larger Unions need to look after the smaller ones or Union at international level will become as shallow as League. A Super 14 place to the Islands, Japan or Argentina would've been a start. Instead SA now have 5 teams when they really struggle to field 4 competitive teams.

[Blaze]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Yes, if you win every Tournament in every series - but the margins of victory over the last 2 series is literally 1 game on each occasion - that is not dominance.

That is not dominance that would be freakish given the nature of 7's rugby.

At the end of the day NZ have never lost the world sevens circuit and have won gold in both of the commenwealth games.

THAT IS DOMINANCE.

It would be like a football team winning a priemership five times in a row. Does it matter by how much they won it? No at the end of the day they are champions for 5 consecutive years.

How can you honestly say that NZ aren't the dominant force in sevens rugby?

[KennyD]

Originally Posted by Voltman

Do you think Bunce was forced to pay for the All Blacks?

Geez I hope not, because now that they're professional and all, it could get bloody expensive!

[marc71178]

All I am saying is that some people are going on like they'd only have to turn up to win it, which is not true.