Whilst South Africans might admire the fact that New Zealand Rugby has successfully retained Dan Carter, Richie McCaw and soon to be confirmed, Sonny Bill Williams – post Rugby World Cup 2011, there are some who believe the All Blacks have ‘sold their soul’.
It has been interesting following comments on the social media network, Twitter, following the confirmation that the All Blacks have successfully re-signed stars, Carter and McCaw, for 2012 and onwards.
The significance of these signings and what it will mean to All Black rugby cannot be overstated enough. With so many names from all three SANZAR countries already confirmed to move to Europe following the World Cup, the future of the game in the Southern Hemisphere and its ability to hold onto the big names will again become the focus point in 2012.
The third name expected to be announced by New Zealand Rugby to continue his career in New Zealand post RWC 2011, is Sonny Bill Williams.
Williams has taken the rugby world by storm since his return to union and his native country New Zealand, with his impact on the game of union being compared to that of Jonah Lomu in 1995. Such is the nature of his, and Carter, McCaw’s appeal in union, that they can basically pick their club and price anywhere in the world should they want to.
It is because of this very fact that the coup New Zealand rugby scored convincing these players to stay in New Zealand rather than chase the dollars, that is at the center of the controversy.
Unable to compete financially with European clubs, the NZRU had to make ‘special’ amendments to the contracts of these top players. It is known that Carter, as part of the conditions of his contract, may take a sabbatical of 1 year at any time of his 4-year contract with the NZRU. It is a condition that will no doubt find its way into McCaw’s contract and given recent comments from Crusaders coach, Todd Blackadder, should also be extended to Sonny Bill Williams.
“I think he’s just as important (as Carter and McCaw) to be honest. He’s just been inspirational. He’s played some fantastic rugby for the Crusaders and when you look at just how important he is for the World Cup and beyond I just think he’s one of those players that is just getting better and better, strength to strength and he’s a role model,” Blackadder told a press conference recently.
But there are some people who believe that these ‘special conditions’ or ‘flexibility’ afforded to these players should never even have been considered.
Essentially what this means for New Zealand rugby and the All Blacks, is that these players can head off to Europe for a year, earn top dollar for doing so, and still be eligible to play for the All Blacks. Concerns of a possible division within the All Black camp due to special treatment of some players have been raised, as-well as those questioning the financial impact this could have on New Zealand rugby.
The one thing New Zealand and South African rugby has always been able to do, is produce brilliant rugby talent, and the fear in New Zealand rugby is because of the length of Carter’s contract (4 years), it might discourage young flyhalf talent to remain in New Zealand and that the money spent to retain these players, should rather be used at grass-roots level to develop new Carter’s or McCaw’s.
New Zealand Rugby has been unshakeable in their stance of not allowing any overseas based player to represent the All Blacks, a belief that the ‘brand’ All Blacks, is enough to retain quality players. It is of course a stance that ensures that the game locally and at lower levels remains at a high standard and supported by the public who wants to see their heroes play for clubs and franchises in competitions like the Air New Zealand Cup (NZ equivalent of the Currie Cup) and of course, Super Rugby.
That is up and till now.
It has created a division within New Zealand rugby ranks as-well as the media and supporters.
The question is; ‘Has New Zealand finally sold its soul, or are they showing the rest of the SANZAR partners the way forward?’
Difficult question…
Do you go to EXTRAORDINARY lenghts to retain 3 players that are singularly unique and possibly still the best in their positions in the World, by any means?
or
Do you invest in young upcoming players who might one day possibly be of some value to the National cause… maybe?
New Zealand has followed the route I would have followed, invest in the known factors rather than the wishy-washy hope of some youngsters possibly coming through!
Let me advance the counter-argument more…
How many youngsters in New Zealand now retain the opportunity to model their aspirations on 3 players who they will continue to see playing IN FRONT OF THEIR OWN EYES, emulating skills these players clearly have over other players, aspiring to their levels of excellence… whereas if these special players had been simply thrown by the wayside, the message might have been “You know what, no matter how special you are, it’s not enough for those in charge, making rugby a personal future has no benefits”.
The division in NZ rugby is temporary and maybe even a motivating point to also become unmissable.
Another thing is the dwindling spectator numbers in New Zealand… these STARS cause a lot of spectators to attend matches, take them away and it becomes watered down, Vodacom Cuppish… all the ooooompffffff out of the game.
We see the same here in SA, during the Currie Cup, spectator numbers are not the same without frontline Bokke in the lineups.
Just a question Morne: are all the contracted All Black and Bokke currently on the same remuneration/reward scale. If this is the case, should the divisions referred to not already manifested?
I would keep my most influential players by offering them better contracts. Is this not a free market principle anyway?
Nouja, Handbriekie just arrived and today is her birthday, today is one of those biggies, she hit the BIG FOUR.
So let me go and be attentive and a good hubby!
Cheers
I think this is good business.
If you let them go, then youngsters get a chance to come through earlier, but without the experience NZ’s performances will drop. By paying these guys to stay and also giving them the flexibility to earn some money you ensure continued strength more than the alternative. The downside of this in fact ends up being an upside as we have seen in South Africa. Young players will now leave New Zealand and go and play in Europe and get experience and money….when they return they are blooded and salted and have a hell of a lot more to offer NZ rugby. I speak in particular of forwards from SA who have gone to play overseas, invariably they come back as better players. The backs is a different story and excellent back in European and British rugby does not cut the mustard when it comes to playing against their Antipodean counterparts. Steyn was half baked when he came back, Butch too, I can name a number more, however, there is a counter argument when you look at guys like Stefan Terblanche, Peter Grant and Percy for example….but different strokes for different folks, these gentlemen learned to ply their trade properly in a free and easy league and weren’t in the pressure cooker of rugby at home. We have a propensity to play guys out of position too, some just don’t like this. Percy was never a centre, but he was the best fullback in the world….given half a chance.
I think the NZ administrators have done the right thing for NZ rugby….essentially they end up getting their younger guys to play at a higher level earlier.
Users Online
Total 359 users including 0 member, 359 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm