Honestly it is the most important age in terms of development.

As compelling as that argument is, again, I disagree. You can't spend 17 years entrenched in schoolboy rugby in NZ and not have been mostly developed in NZ. He had raw talent and he had ridiculous running and ball skills that he learnt in NZ. Northampton (or any club he may have ended up at) took that and built on it. They did not create a Test-level player out of an average to above-average teenager. RBHS is no fucking joke when it comes to rugby.

Saying nothing happened to him from u16 to now is just stupid.

Lucky I never said that then.

He was not developed largely in NZ.

Again, I disagree and I think you're attempting to rewrite history to suit your version of the story. He was in NZ until he was 17 years old. How was he "not largely developed in NZ"? His ball-skills alone impressed enough people to get him contracted to Northampton. If you are Captain of a 1st XV like RBHS, then you're already one of the best athletes in NZ. To suggest that Northampton did that, then perhaps you're the one with the bias, not me.

Honestly man your blind hate of England seems to cloud your judgment on this.

I could say your defensiveness clouds your judgement. Because so what if he is largely a product of the NZ rugby school-system? He qualifies for the England team and more importantly, he wants to play for England. Northampton saw and opportunity and took it. Most clubs would.

And you shouldn't really judge him for things that you know nothing about.

When did I judge him exactly? If you read what I've written instead of being so defensive, then you'll see that I think he made a good decision to leave NZ. The only person I judge is you for misrepresenting my words to justify you ill-conceived argument. You could build a bonfire with all those strawmen you've created.