Jump to content

RLWC - Brian To'o swear allegiance to Australia over Samoa


Abicus

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, RLnorthener said:

I think it's hard for people to understand unless they have genuine dual heritage, or are particularly part of the cultures of the pacific island nations, and even more so those with native heritage.

I think it's easy to say it's about money, and I'm sure that it's a consideration, as is the chances of sporting success, but the deep personal meaning is really hard to truly empathise with, unless you can directly relate. 

50% of the population of Australia are either immigrants themselves or have at least one parent that is an immigrant. The vast majority of the rest of the population (easily upwards of 95%) have immigrant heritage, and most of that immigration happened in the last 100 years, largely post WWII.

So we, as a nation and a people, totally understand the attraction that some have to identifying with their cultural/ethnic heritage, and it's absolute nonsense to suggest that that is particularly unique to the pacific cultures.

However most of us also understand that it's false, as you cannot truly be a member of multiple cultures as all cultures and nations have different goals and values that fundamentally contradict each other. We also know that in most cases the ancestral culture won't accept you as an actual member either. Trust me, there's nothing cringier than an ocker bloke whom goes around claiming they are (e.g.) Irish or Scottish.

The sad thing is that this tendency for it to be culturally acceptable for certain groups to identify with their cultural heritage and not others is born out of racism and the stereotype of "Australian" being either indigenous or a person of Western European heritage, and has many negative impacts on society with the two major ones being-

1. It tacitly implies to any Australian that doesn't fit in the above stereotypes that no matter what they do they will never truly be an Australian, which is fundamentally untrue and a cultural cancer.

2. It steals opportunities from people whom are born and raised in the nations of those cultural heritages when more often than not those people needed them much more than the Australian born and raised individual needed them.

The second impact is particularly apparent in the case of sport where every (e.g.) Brian To'o whom pulls on a Samoan jersey takes a spot that a Samoan resident could have had, and makes it that much harder for a Samoan to make it in RL unless they can afford to immigrate to Australia/NZ, and that much less likely that RL will take off as a sport and potential career path in Samoa it's self.

Though having very loose eligibility rules produces more competitive internationals in the short term, the long term impacts are already starting to hurt RL in the southern hemisphere, and in the future it could be a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Semi Radradra apart,who are all these non Australians Meninga & Australia have selected ?

You are getting closer. Fiji had copped it in the past. 

"There has never been a Challenge Cup semifinal of 65,000 either individually or combined" - Damien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate they are all individual cases in terms of culture etc. but Meninga/Australia have used Mansour, Frizell, Radradra, Kaufusi, Fifita (A), Maguire (J), Haas since he started in 2016. Not a great record. 

"There has never been a Challenge Cup semifinal of 65,000 either individually or combined" - Damien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RL Sonja said:

I appreciate they are all individual cases in terms of culture etc. but Meninga/Australia have used Mansour, Frizell, Radradra, Kaufusi, Fifita (A), Maguire (J), Haas since he started in 2016. Not a great record. 

Radradra playing for the Roos was a joke, but no more so than most of those other guys playing for any nation other than Australia is a joke (with the possible exception of Kaufusi).

Mansour, Frizell, Fifita, Maguire, and Haas were all born and raised in Australia, and Kaufusi moved to Australia at the age of 7 and has lived the majority of his life here.

So if we're being ethically consistent it's not Australia that has a bad record. Then again you seem to think that any Australian that is eligible for another nation should play for that other nation, which is just nonsense, and I doubt that you'd hold England/your nation to that standard either.

BTW, what do you think of players like Mansour, Frizell, or Haas whom are eligible for multiple nations (Australia, Lebanon, Portugal, and I believe Cuba in Mansour's case for example). Should they be able to decide which they represent, or should they be pressured to turn out for the weakest nation in the interests of the greater good? Genuine question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Dane said:

Radradra playing for the Roos was a joke, but no more so than most of those other guys playing for any nation other than Australia is a joke (with the possible exception of Kaufusi).

Mansour, Frizell, Fifita, Maguire, and Haas were all born and raised in Australia, and Kaufusi moved to Australia at the age of 7 and has lived the majority of his life here.

So if we're being ethically consistent it's not Australia that has a bad record. Then again you seem to think that any Australian that is eligible for another nation should play for that other nation, which is just nonsense, and I doubt that you'd hold England/your nation to that standard either.

BTW, what do you think of players like Mansour, Frizell, or Haas whom are eligible for multiple nations (Australia, Lebanon, Portugal, and I believe Cuba in Mansour's case for example). Should they be able to decide which they represent, or should they be pressured to turn out for the weakest nation in the interests of the greater good? Genuine question.

It’s not a joke. Our international eligibility rules are fine. Rugby Union have actually changed their International eligibility rules to be more in line with Rugby League, players can now represent multiple nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RL Sonja said:

7 players in 17 games since 2016.

Recidivist. 

What does this refer to?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RL Sonja said:

They pretty much all played for another nation first. 

I agree that players shouldn't be allowed to switch nations. It cheapens both the jersey and the concept of international sport and encourages mercenary behaviour that has no place in such a concept, all of which does more damage than good in the long run and will devalue the concept over all.

However that doesn't address the point I was making. With the exceptions of Radradra and debatably Kaufusi, by rights each of those guys are Australian, have every right to play for Australia, and most probably should be playing for Australia in a sensible system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

It’s not a joke. Our international eligibility rules are fine. Rugby Union have actually changed their International eligibility rules to be more in line with Rugby League, players can now represent multiple nations.

Radradra being allowed to pull on a Kangaroos jersey because of a loophole was absolutely a joke, and RU adopting eligibility rules closer to RL's doesn't mean that they aren't misguided...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

I agree that players shouldn't be allowed to switch nations. It cheapens both the jersey and the concept of international sport and encourages mercenary behaviour that has no place in such a concept, all of which does more damage than good in the long run and will devalue the concept over all.

It really doesn’t, lots of people have more than one nationality, there is no reason they should have to pick only 1 Nation to represent. If you qualify for 2 countries you should be able to represent both Nations. Our International eligibility rules are absolutely fine.

As for doing more damage than good for International sport. Are you really trying to claim the 2017 World Cup and 2021/2 World Cup would be better if countries such as Tonga were without the likes of Taumalolo and Taukeiaho?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fa`asuaumaleaui commits to the Kangaroos.

There`s no questioning his love for Samoa:

"I actually used to sit there with my dad and my brother and write up a potential Samoan team. I've always done that since I was young."

But as he says:

But I grew up watching Darren Lockyer and Greg Inglis and they all played for Australia and when I retire I want to say I have played for Australia too.

And the sting in the tail:

"I can actually play for England too, my pop's English and my nan's Danish too."

The full story here:

Fa'asuamaleaui commits to Kangaroos dream | The West Australian

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the source, Perth Now? A quick google search shows it isn't being widely reported on the east coast of Australia. Why would that be?

"There has never been a Challenge Cup semifinal of 65,000 either individually or combined" - Damien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RL Sonja said:

So that will be 9 players by the time the Kangaroos next play a match. 

I didn`t put that up so you could clog this thread with your nonsense, read the article, it explains very clearly the thinking behind the decisions that some of these young players who have dual international eligibility have to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is a difficult decision for them. However until there is more incentive to stick with small nations it will continue this way.

"There has never been a Challenge Cup semifinal of 65,000 either individually or combined" - Damien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I didn`t put that up so you could clog this thread with your nonsense, read the article, it explains very clearly the thinking behind the decisions that some of these young players who have dual international eligibility have to make.

Fa'asuamaleaui was born in Australia and has lived his entire life in Australia. 

As he says, he has grown up watching the best players in the sport pull on the Kangaroo jersey and he wants to emulate that.  We should be celebrating the fact that he wants to play internationals and not getting angry at the fact he wants to represent the only country he has ever lived in.

I have no doubt Fa'asuamaleaui is hugely proud of his Samoan heritage and he will be equally proud of his Australian identity.  The only people who can and do make decisions on who they want to represent is the players.  The idea that these decisions are being made for anything other than sporting ambition and the honour of playing for their country is ridiculous. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I didn`t put that up so you could clog this thread with your nonsense, read the article, it explains very clearly the thinking behind the decisions that some of these young players who have dual international eligibility have to make.

I've made the point. I'll leave it at that. 

As I've also said, it is of course up to the individual players to make these difficult decisions.

The administrators are the ones who need to be held to account for making it so difficult for the players to choose the small nations over the large ones (read Tier 1).

"There has never been a Challenge Cup semifinal of 65,000 either individually or combined" - Damien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RL Sonja said:

I've made the point. I'll leave it at that. 

As I've also said, it is of course up to the individual players to make these difficult decisions.

The administrators are the ones who need to be held to account for making it so difficult for the players to choose the small nations over the large ones (read Tier 1).

How are they making it difficult ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Fa`asuaumaleaui commits to the Kangaroos.

There`s no questioning his love for Samoa:

"I actually used to sit there with my dad and my brother and write up a potential Samoan team. I've always done that since I was young."

But as he says:

But I grew up watching Darren Lockyer and Greg Inglis and they all played for Australia and when I retire I want to say I have played for Australia too.

And the sting in the tail:

"I can actually play for England too, my pop's English and my nan's Danish too."

The full story here:

Fa'asuamaleaui commits to Kangaroos dream | The West Australian

 

 

I don't have a problem with this and the same with Kaufusi at Melbourne.

Australia can only pick 24 players. When you've added Trbojevic x2, Mitchell, Cleary, Keary, DCE, Ado-Carr, Tedesco, Cambell-Gillard, Cook, Wighton, Murray, Radley, Munster, Haas, Fifitita, Arrow etc. there are not that many spots to call on.

Samoa and Tonga now have 40-50 players to call on potentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.