www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 73a5a240f1

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 73a5a240f1

I think it's a real shame. He must be one of Fiji's biggest sporting stars; I'n sure he must be a household name there. The Aussies shouldn't (and don't) him, they have plenty to choose from. But we've seen it before with Uate (and doubtless others too). Worst thing is, it's self-perpetuating: future talented youngsters from the Pacific nations will think, if he did it, I should go down the same route.

That really does seem like bullsquirt doesn't it. He dreamt of playing for Australia ever since he moved to the country... Just 3 years ago? Yeah that's a lifelong dream... Bit I like the most is where he calls himself the best Fijian winger, So he is Fijian until it comes to wanting to acknowledge it on an international level, hmm... Lol

This says more about international sport, than it does about the player.
Thankfully, I don't read The Telegraph but, I assume this is from their on line paper, rather than a giant headline in the actual broadsheet.
There is no hierocracy in "smearing" RL, when the England cricket team is loaded with overseas stars and the Union boys include the Vunipola brothers and Tuilangi.
It's the qualification rules that need to change and it's certainly time that the "south seas" players were prevented from changing their nationality at the same time as they change their socks.
IMO any player that plays for a country (at any level) should then have to represent that country for life, no if's, no but's.

Modern day sport is all about the money and without principle.

Er, it's the Australian Daily Telegraph, not the Torygraph...

I don't agree with having played for one country that's it but do think it should be far far harder to swap and change.
It should be at least after 7 years permanent residency or 3 years after citizenship and a permanent change in Nationality, no dual bullcarp.

Agree that the qualification needs seriously looking at, especially to protect the smaller nations. Don't have a problem with guys who were born in one Country then moved with their parents as kids to another like what's happened with England cricketers like Stokes , Roy and the RU guys you mention. Or if you qualify because you're Mum or Dad are English say. Moving to Australia at 20 like Semi Radradra's done and not even having any parents born there is something else.

Funny thing is since you brought up Cricket, the Aussies are the absolute worst at whinging about foreign born cricketers especially after they lose The Ashes. Even guys like Kevin Pieterson has an English mother and had a British passport all his life and leaned just about all his Pro cricket in England and he still had to go through years of qualification.

I'm not sure you could say England cricket is loaded with overseas stars tbh. Even the ones you could question like Gary Ballance or Nick Compton even went to school here and are in and out of the side.

Where you say, if a player plays for one Country that should be it, it's why I've never agreed with Eion Morgan playing for England.

I'd go for the simple rule that, once you have represented ANY nation, that's it.

There shouldn't be any move from your original choice, end of story.

Agree with you there mate.

The problem with this and RL is that all the young kids over in Aus who have some form of heritage etc with another nation are just going to hold out and hope they get to represent Australia which severely weakens the other nations

your problem with that is, most countries barely play.

The real issue to address is why Radradra the Aussie gets 25k and plays the biggest nations every year, whereas Radradra the fijian gets a mars bar and half time oranges and plays a game if someone remembers to organise one.

Change that and we can insist on one nation.

It should be, if both of your parents are from one country you have to play for that country. UNLESS, you've had at least seven years residence in another country. If your parents are from two different countries, you can choose to play for either.

I don't think it should be set in stone that you have to play for one country your whole life though. If you've been resident in a country for seven years or more, I think you should be able to change to play for them even if you've already played for someone else. Or if your parents are from different countries, you can choose to play for your Father's country even if you've already played for your Mother's country first.

But you should not just pick to play for a country after being there three years and have no parents from there. That's simply wrong!

Well said. The big problem around international RL is still getting a set international calendar. We still can't get one for the "big" nations never mind anyone else and it's really holding us back. At least we've got a set World Cup now but sadly we've (or will) squandered another oppotunity because we'll have another World Cup without knowing what internationals will take place, if any, or literally where in the world they'll be the following year.

The cost of this is reduced profile for the game as a whole but as you say the cost of this in the 2nd tier nations is that this reduced profile leads to both lack of basic funding and profile and so leads to the Radrada situation.

We obviously need the World Cup but we need the 2nd tier nations much more involved the other 3 years too. Yes they've increased from 3 to 4 Nations but that doesn't really help much because the 4th Nation changes every time. So they still can't plan.

I think you are wrong.

This wouldn't preclude any player earning decent cash in domestic competition in any country but, IF the represent any national side, this has to be "their" country.
To represent a nation should mean something more that just playing for the largest amount of cash.
Footballer's used to say to represent their country was an honour and that they "would play for nothing" to be able to play for their country.
Nowadays, people change allegiance purely for the money, it's just not right and far from diminishing the emergence of smaller nations, it may actually help ?

But then you'd just get nobody who is any good bothered about playing for smaller teams. No decent player is gonna play in a random Fiji v Samoa or Scotland v Wales game in front of 500 people when doing so means they'll lose any chance they might have had at playing for England/Australia/New Zealand in a World Cup final. You'll just get players declaring for the lower tier nations at the back end of their careers once they've realised there's no chance that they're ever gonna get selected by a top tier nation.

Of course the best way would be to standardise international payments and pay them from a central RLIF fund. So that then there is no difference in playing for Australia or Samoa in terms of cash.
If we can then involve the nations with most potential more often and in a set schedule I think we could make some progress.

So much Cynicism in this thread. Maybe it is about his love for Australia

Kind Regards

King James

Lote Tuqiri and Petero Civoneceva were both Fijian born, with Fijian parents. The difference between the two is that Lote was 15 when he came to Oz, Petero was One. Australian born Willie Mason, was raised in NZ and had a NZ Passport when he debuted for Australia. He didn't even have an Aussie one at the time.


It's all a bit cloudy isn't it, and needs serious looking at.


Oh and if an aussie talks about foreign cricketers, just see if they remember "Dinky Di" Kepler Wessels. Never mind the sports people from around the world they got to be Aussies for the Sydney Olympics. My favourite being the chinese table tennis player that couldn't even speak English properly after she moved from Poland whom she represented previously.

Was she called Ping Pong? I'll get my coat....