...
Edit: Oh, and the example of an under-20 women's team, where an Auckland club picks up non-Aucklander adults moving to the city where the U-20 national team is trying to put a regular training programme together, is incomparable. Not that there are any "sensationalistic bollocks" anywhere here, but that's why there was no outrage about that.
That is EXACTLY comparable, because that is EXACTLY what is happening with the boys, (with the semantic exception that it's not about putting a NZ age group team together it's about player development) just at a younger age, because:
a) there are the facilities for the boys to go at a younger age and
b) parents are less reluctant about sending boys off at a younger age.
That's not a semantic exception – it is literally an acknowledgment that the two types of moves were for entirely different purposes (not to mention among two different age-groups and genders).
In 2014, we have players identified by NZF moving to Auckland for the age-group programme, then joining a strong local club to play for besides.
In 2019, we have players identified by the Phoenix moving to Wellington to join its academy. Then the age-group programme takes place on top of that – with the academy head as an assistant coach.
2002-born players recruited by WPFA obviously had a certain level of talent to be identified and recruited. For players based in places like New Plymouth, it's a no-brainer. WPFA is indeed absolutely hoovering up non-Auckland players.
But they are not the only good 2002-born players in New Zealand, nor necessarily the best.
Looking at how and where players were playing in 2019, there was therefore plenty of skepticism about the final makeup of the World Cup squad.
There were players standing out in Northern League and Central League action who missed out to WPFA players who barely played Central League.
We're talking about 2 or 3 instances here, maybe 4. Some of this is in the eye of the beholder. Throw in the unprecedented situation of taking a next-cycle keeper, and you end up with a 10-strong Phoenix contingent when 6 or 7 might have been a more accurate reflection of performances and talent to date.
So let's see if I understand what you are saying..
1: "NZF" identified a number of female players and invited them to join the FFDP to further their development.
2: "NZF" identified a number of male players and invited them to join the AWDP, which they don't have, so others invited those players to join an academy to further their development.
That is somehow different? Riiiiight.
Not convinced the ones at FFDP are always the "only good players nor necessarily the best". Then like you say, eye of the beholder. Some beholders would say other organisations were over-represented by as much as 50%
The fact that you have to contort yourself with "which they don't have, so others..." in that second sentence proves the point that they are different. One is about a governing body wanting players in a city for a national team, one is a club recruiting for its academy.
Even if certain players had stayed put after coming down during the U-17 cycle, ie Max and Harry, there would still be 3-4 WPFA players whose inclusion was worthy of skepticism, it would just be 3-4 out of 8, not 3-4 out of 10.
Most people are well aware (or should be) that the WPFA is home to players from all over the country.
The issue here, I repeat, is that "there were players standing out in Northern League and Central League action who missed out to WPFA players who barely played Central League".
At the end of the day, as NelFoos kind of points out, it's a situation where many interested parties outside of WPFA thinks they had an oversized contribution to the squad of 21, because of that, and many people at or associated with WPFA want to pat themselves on the back. We shall see which players make the cut when the winter season gets going, and the next U-20 cycle fires up, and so on and so on.