All Whites' Dead End Road To Russia 2018

That was actually the point I was trying to make, where you were born has nothing to do with your connection to the country - so if that's the criteria it's wrong.

Ultimately, it's the nature of the beast for a number of countries including the US, Australia, and us.

has he really been here nearly 10 years? Or are you playing with the truth?

If you are referring to Durante, then he arrived in 2008.

He joined us in season two, we're now in season ten. So he's in the tail end of his nineth season with the club.

Hudson devalued the shirt ages ago.  I'm happy to see Dane come on at 90 minutes just to tie him to NZ.  More deserving then most of Hudsons kids.

So in reverse, me as an immigrant are not allowed to cheer for the All Whites? This discussion is slightly backwards and naive. I tell you you can switch pretty quick to like a country and make it you own. It's actually a good thing.

I think Durante has very good reason to play for the All Whites, he had the choice. Many players who just have one passport have no choice. How many All Whites players would prefer to play for Italy, Germany or France if they where good enough and had the choice. They all want to play with the best players on the biggest stage, all the national proud is secondary, I have no problem with this.

Exactly. NZ is a nation of immigrants, anyone who moves here to live is a Kiwi in my book.

Did you not see the part where I said "my", no mention of anyone else.

I did see this

"They have never done anything to prove that they see this country as their home. Actions speak louder than words.

Anyone that leaves without the intention to come back has a stronger connection to the place that they've moved to than the place that they've left. That is just fact.

Someone that moves here and builds their life here has a much stronger connection because it is their choice.

They may say that NZ is their home, but they are lying to themselves and to others.

You can only take actions and not what people say into consideration"

Well said sthn jeff but why don't we just say you can only play for the country where you were born !!!!

If selection was based only on players born and raised in New Zealand, then the national team would be very weak, some of our strongest players werent born or raised here, lets give the national team half a chance !!

Alright everyone, we have had fun talking about what makes someone more Kiwi than others but can we please get back to talking about the actual team and the selections/up coming games.

If rugby worked by the play-where-you're-born rule, the All Blacks would probably be regularly beaten by Samoa.

Damn you I have to comment even if off track.. Actually this was proven wrong recently and English are actually the worst for it. A lot of players are assumed to be born in the Islands but are actually just born in say Auckland to Island parents. We could still have a very good team just made up of people born in NZ including most of the players in the current side.

"But with 84.1 per cent of debutants born in New Zealand, the All Blacks are better than several international sides."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/8...

There were worries about Winston Reid's fitness after he came off after 63 minutes vs. Chelsea eight days ago but it turned out it was only cramp:

http://greenstreethammers.com/2017/03/09/winston-r...

Thankfully he played the full ninety in Saturday's 3-2 away loss at Bournemouth, the Hammers first away defeat of 2017.

Winston's lengthy injury history at West Ham, a lot of ham string problems since January 2015:

http://www.physioroom.com/news/english_premier_lea...

Usually I think that there have been genuine reasons (injury) he hasn't always been available for the AW's.

Ryan Nelsen missed about one-third of Blackburn's games when he was at the club, due to injury, so he often had genuine reasons not to be available for the AW's too.

'injury'

Jason Pine's "All Whites Power Rankings" February: Oh, dear....

6. (5) Kosta Barbarouses (Wellington Phoenix, New Zealand)
Hasn't had the A-League season he would have hoped for, but has started to recapture the form which saw him come to Wellington with such fanfare. His position in the New Zealand team will never be in doubt.

I feel like this is more about Gleason wouldn't be the starter for the team and his season is about to kick off in the US

why would you rank Gleeson number 1?

agree he would be above Williams but the third cab off the rank behind the other two goal keepers.

Roux on the other hand should be our first choice right back and definitely above the new 17 year old

Because he's a starter in a MLS side maybe? I think he is by no doubt our best GK, there's no way Moss, Marinovic and Williams are better than him

He's more than a starter in the MLS, he's regarded as one of the best keepers in the league. Top of the MLS comes in a little higher than mediocre A-League, top of German 4th division or Dutch 2nd division imo.

Portland were happy to release him for the game so either he's turned it down out of fear of losing his starting spot or Hudson has a reason, in his infinite wisdom, to exclude him.

MLS is alot better than A league.

Tyler Boyd is rapidly approaching the same "not going to happen so STFU about him" bag as Clapham and Chris James.

He turned down the AWs in the past so maybe he's the one who's not interested.

My theory on Hudson's baffling selections is that he thinks he's super smart and picking random players or not picking obvious guys just shows he's smarter than everyone else. And once he's committed to a baffling selection he won't go back on it because that would be admitting he wasn't that smart to pick them in the first place. So we won't see Gleeson again while he's in charge and we'll keep seeing Dyer, Lewis etc too

I think your theory makes sense. Why on earth would he stick with a player who does not stand out at ASB level, and in the same team Tim Payne has shown his value, and is a young 23 year old seasoned player, gets omitted or not looked at? I also thought Sam Burfoot looked really good until he went off to Aussie. No counter argument will change my mind on a young 17 year old getting picked when players like Roux who is also a defender of note, gets omitted. At the end of the day every coach makes choices, but this one has made too many weird ones for my personal liking.

Im not disagreeing with anyone here, I think this theory makes a lot of sense.

I am a football coach as well, last year I coached at Glenfield Rovers, and we had a whole load of youth trialing at the club. We had this one player, I could tell he was a brilliant player, he was coached properly in a sense, but he just couldn't adjust to the style of play we had. I am not saying this is the main reason to why Hudson picks players like Dyer and leaves out Boyd and a few others. Maybe thats something to do in their camp or their own personal rejections, I don't know at all. Only he does, but there is a sense where, maybe they just don't fit into Hudson's plans? Like I said, this player could have easily been one of the best players in my team had we played a different style, but we have a style that was suited for the team, and he just couldn't adjust. 

You see that with a lot of professional clubs, for instance, Sir Alex Ferguson had his son play for United for 4 years, making only 27 appearances. He was sold to Wolves after that 4 year spell and he just didn't fit in to Ferguson's plans. 

Just being a starter in the MLS does not make a great or good player. The extremes in this league are significant. Remember a number of  kiwis have played in this league who are currently playing in so so leagues throughout the world.