I know that but it will be a lot easier for the likes of NZ and Australia to find a quality replacement for these players, and to be honest they will still probably be big names. However should Tonga try to replace them the quality would be significantly lower.

Really?
Taumololo and the others going to Tonga was the catalyst here in NZ for the Media to begin the debate about eligibility rules and whilst some defend the use of heavily stacked Heritage squads, it's hard to put up a valid argument when the likes of Issac Luke tries to get a game with Ireland once he'd been overlooked by the Kiwis.

It doesn't interfere with the enjoyment of the games and to be honest, it probably attracts more viewers and fans to games if the matches are going to be competitive, but the reality is that after a great tournament in 2013, Tongan and Samoa Domestic RL is still pretty non-existent and even Scotland's thrilling draw with NZ last year did little for the domestic game north of the border.

A quick look at Group B shows that Tonga(4) and Samoa(2) have only 6 players born in those countries, representing their countries and whilst articles like this one rlhttps://www.playersvoice.com.au/michael-jennings-tonga-world-cup-revolution/#DH3pkoXQTCwOVDKR.97rl show the passion that is involved and claim that "younger players will come through", the reality is that once the trophy is won, the domestic leagues will get little benefit. Scotlands' squad has yet to be announced but it's fair to say that they will name 2 or at best 3 Scottish born players. The last team in the Group contains 4 Aussies and a Samoan in their 24, so the reality is that 69 of the 96 players in that group are "heritage players".

I fail to see how 72% of players not actually being from the country they are representing is "great" for the game?

The USA may well get hammered by Fiji in Group D, but at least the'll have a team of USA born players whilst Fiji has a squad with 18 heritage players in it.......and I doubt the Italians will be very Italian in their make up either.


As I say, it won't stop me going to games or tuning in, but I believe that it weakens the game when people talk about Samoa and Tonga being threat to New Zealand, when Tonga and Samoa have little domestic structure and rely on heritage for the vast majority of their players.

The difference between League and Union.
Union fans will talk up their game - no matter what.
League fans will talk down their game - no matter what.

Union has a successful international game because their fans get on board and love to see it succeed.
League struggles because the fans put the boot in every chance they get.

Really?
rlhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/97625537/mark-reason-sorry-but-the-all-blacks-are-now-a-dirty-siderl



Rather a simplistic viewpoint there, especially as it is a sweeping statement rather than a response to the issue of our game at International level being awash with heritage players. As I said, it won't stop me attending or watching, but the reality is that until our governing bodies actually govern for the benefit of the game and not just the top clubs, we will continue to see international sides stacked with ANZAC players and little development at grass roots.

Ireland have picked 2 Irish Born players in their 24. It's not like they are likely to trouble the engraver at the end of the tournament, so surely it would be better to have more guys playing in their domestic comp (like the USA have done) rather than have ex-England caps like LMS running out for them?
This isn't a league fan putting the boot in, it's a League fan wanting to see real development and that means pathways fr more people to play the game, not diluting the payer pool across imaginary RL Playing nations.

I'd add that this "issue" is entirely one of our own making!
rlhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id