another concerning issue for the WRU over Steven shingler

First topic message reminder :


All, I've split a lot of the Shingler debate off the Scottish squad thread and merged it into this one. Unfortunately the board software puts the oldest post as the thread OP, so welsh-matfield's original OP is buried a ways down now. Hence I've quoted his OP post below:

welsh-matfield wrote:
another concerning issue for the WRU over Steven shingler
by welsh-matfield Yesterday at 15:18


Over the past six months Wales have lost three young players under the age of 22 to Ireland and Scotland respectively with James loxton, Matthew Jarvis and now Steven Shingler pledging there international loyaltly elsewhere. why it was only a couple of months ago steven shingler was stating his desire to break into the welsh squad http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15773032.stm. this is a concerning issue, especially as wales pool of depth is often so small and although the acadamies are thriving other nations seem to be taking advantage of this fact

Below here is my original post on the Scottish squad thread

rugbydreamer wrote:He played for the U20's Wales team in the 6N's last year. Now I always get confused with Welsh Qualification, but doesn't that mean he's WQ and can't play for anyone else?

Does anyone know if Wales are still designating the U20s as their "A" side?

Actually, from memory after the Connacht pair's eligilbity debate last year, wan't it decided that "A" games had to be against other country's "A" or full international side to count? I could be totally wrong though

Argentina Jaguars?

Argentina Jaguars, Emerging Springbok, Junior All Blacks, Australia A have had a team out recently too, Japan A played Scotland at murrayfield recently. Scotland A played USA a in november 2011 at gala and that is just the ones from the top of my head so there are many more 'A' teams playing than you believe. The majority of the top nations actually have 'A' teams that maybe don't play regularly but still play a few games a year. Therefore it seems to be Wales and France that are in the minority although France did have an 'a' team in the irb nations cup in 2009 that scotland also took part in.

Only Scots, Saxons, Wolfhounds and Italy play in a regular competition, the others are effectively invitational teams.

I knew this guy was speaking out of his arse

They are still run by the Unions though, so they are legit. Playing a Tri Nations A series wouldn't exactly make much logistical sense unless they played it in one country. Plus the NZRU and ARU continually make losses and then add on the current economic climate. Im sure if they could afford it every single country would like to have it.

The WRU doesn't pay Rush' wages, or any of the other players - the Blues do, although the WRU can suggest/influence how the Blues spend their money (ie by putting a quota in place for NWQ players) they can't stop the Blues signing a player like Rush (who has been very good a few seasons ago) as it's the Blues and mostly Peter Thomas' money which pays for it.

Also regardless of how much players like Rush are on it wouldn't affect one iota of the WRU's budget/spending/balance sheet.

It doesn't matter if they play in one off games or in competitions, there are still many 'A' teams that compete around the world from tier one nations right down to the tier three nations.
The main rule that needs to be addressed which is the first point i made is that the rule needs to be across the board. I don't mind if it is brought in at u20 or kept at A level but at present it is a shambles as if Wales win their appeal over shingler you could have the situation where wales lock their players in at u20 but if someone who plays for scotland, england or any other nation at u20 won't be tied in to them and if say they were dual qualified for the likes of wales they could still go on to be capped at senior level.

But Majestic that's the situation that is suppose be in play at the minute - ie the ERFU, IRU, SRU ect can 'tie' their players in (though I don't like that word as it implies that players have no patrotism and will move like Premier League footballers) by playing them in the Wolfhounds, Saxons or Scotland A. As some teams don't have an A team they can do the same for their u20's.

It's pretty similar and if unions have a rising star they want to look after then they can play him in their 2nd XV to as you say 'tie him in'.

The thing I find strange is that although the u20's count for Wales it doesn't count in all games - and if the French u20's don't count then you're effectively saying that the Welsh u20's don't count towards eligibility because all other NH sides have A sides and it's unlikely that there would be a pan hemisphere A-side match as the cost's would be too high.

Majestic83 wrote:It doesn't matter if they play in one off games or in competitions, there are still many 'A' teams that compete around the world from tier one nations right down to the tier three nations.
The main rule that needs to be addressed which is the first point i made is that the rule needs to be across the board. I don't mind if it is brought in at u20 or kept at A level but at present it is a shambles as if Wales win their appeal over shingler you could have the situation where wales lock their players in at u20 but if someone who plays for scotland, england or any other nation at u20 won't be tied in to them and if say they were dual qualified for the likes of wales they could still go on to be capped at senior level.

I think we all agree on that.

The eligibility rule should definitely be based around U20s teams.

The A-Team idea would be great if we all had A-Teams, a concept we all like and see the benefits of. I used to really enjoy the A-Team six nations matches as a warm up to the real deal. I think the majority in wales agree.

The rest of the worlds administrative bodies do not though, their A-Teams are not in any regular competition.

How about if Wales create the A team though?

That is what is supposed to be in play but it is now not working as Wales have made their u20's their designated '2nd' team which doesn't make it a level playing field for all nations which is what it should be. It should be the one rule for everybody and if your nation doesn't want to put an 'A' team out then that is a risk they have to run.
There is a big difference between playing u20 rugby which is still classed by the irb as junior rugby and then the step up to 'a' level.
Many players get capped at u20 level but do not step up to top tier international level. Alot of these players are dual qualified for teams that are further down the rankings and can do a good job for them and make international rugby more competitive. If everyone is tied into a country at u20 then this won't happen.

Majestic83 wrote:That is what is supposed to be in play but it is now not working as Wales have made their u20's their designated '2nd' team which doesn't make it a level playing field for all nations which is what it should be. It should be the one rule for everybody and if your nation doesn't want to put an 'A' team out then that is a risk they have to run.
There is a big difference between playing u20 rugby which is still classed by the irb as junior rugby and then the step up to 'a' level.
Many players get capped at u20 level but do not step up to top tier international level. Alot of these players are dual qualified for teams that are further down the rankings and can do a good job for them and make international rugby more competitive. If everyone is tied into a country at u20 then this won't happen.

Thats exactly what im thinking. Even as a Welshman.

But a lot of players get A caps and can't make it up to international level - indeed some players get u20's caps and then go straight into the international team - so you can't generalise about the step-up in level.

Also if a player doesn't want to play in the u20's then they don't have to, they can wait, concentrate on their club form and see how likely they are to earn a cap for their 'home' nation before considering if they'd want to qualify for someone else (sounds so mercenary though!)

I don't think it is mercenary at all. I've been capped at junior level but never got near it at senior but i am dual qualified to play for poland and would put in as much passion playing for them as i would for scotland.
No player at u20 level is going to turn down a call up to the international u20 team, for many that is the pinnacle of their career so to think some might turn it down to concentrate or their club form is ridiculous.

Majestic83 wrote:I don't think it is mercenary at all. I've been capped at junior level but never got near it at senior but i am dual qualified to play for poland and would put in as much passion playing for them as i would for scotland.
No player at u20 level is going to turn down a call up to the international u20 team, for many that is the pinnacle of their career so to think some might turn it down to concentrate or their club form is ridiculous.

+1

I wasn't talking so much of being dual-qualified I was more talking about viewing it as "let's see if I can get into this international team 1st, and then if not I'll try my luck with another country and then another if that fails".
Rather than the people who are dual qualified, but maybe have the same passion/links to both countries and haven't decided yet.

Also about u20's being the pinnacle of their career - I agree, but say you live in Scotland (?) it wouldn't stop you turning down the Scottish u20's and playing for the Polish u20's (and letting the Polish union know that you're interested) or vice versa, so you'd still get capped but you'd get capped in for the country that you dream of representing at test level, rather than the country that asked you to play 1st.

Right the Polish union is going to fly you over to do training. Its about logistics as well.

It isn't a case of playing for the first country that asked you. In my situation the dream was to play for Scotland as i have grown up there and have attended games since i was 5 year old etc. I do also have strong links to poland though still as have family out there and visited it many times on holiday. Competition is that strong that come your mid20s that if you haven't been capped by a team like Scotland at senior level then you have to realise that you probably won't be capped but you could still have a good few years playing and helping a team that is a lot further down the rankings.

Well if you're saying it's impossible to play for Poland being based in Scotland (or Fiji/Samoa being based in Wales - look at Faletau) then the argument seems moot as you've only got the choice of playing for Scotland - and I'm not sure I agree about the Polish union not flying players over, if that's the case then they must not have a U20's or A side as I imagine a large number of their players must play outside of Poland as their league is very poor (both in finances and quality) - which just isn't true

Well exactly Majestic - you play really hard and wait for Scotland to come calling but if they haven't (and aren't likely) then because you've got strong links to Poland you then see if they come calling and if they do then you accept their offer.

gowales wrote:Right the Polish union is going to fly you over to do training. Its about logistics as well.

Exactly teams of that stature don't have the money to pay for transport for people to come from all over the world. Also at that age the majority of players will be at uni and won't have the time to fly all over the world so logistically at u20 level you are probably more inclined to play for the nation where you are living.

Lol mate they would invite you to training but you make your own way there. My mate who lives in Reading got invited to Scotland U18 training and he had to make his own way there.

Look at Faletau? He wouldn't have been able to play for Tonga U20's unless he could find a way over for the training. and im sure he is proud to be Welsh but choosing Tonga over Wales wouldn't exactly be the best career choice, same with Manu Tuilagi.

The guy said he wanted to force his way in to the Wales squad last november...it's been around 2 months...he obviously hasnt got the desire to earn a spot, so has taken the easy option of Scotland. Not to mention he turned out for the Wales U20's and is playing dumb over the eligibility rule. If he "declined to sign a declaration" committing to Wales, then he wouldn't have played.

I don't particularly care if he plays for Scotland, the guy is obviously a mercenary who wants caps regardless of who it's for. Otherwise, he would have done what he said in November and tried to get in to the wales team.

The guy sounds like a moron who doesn't have the desire to challenge himself, instead picking the easy option.

What is your point about faletau, he played for Wales u20 did he not and lived in Wales?
At no point has anyone said it would have been impossible to fly over and play for poland u20 but logistically it would have been more difficult and as i stated earlier the dream for me was to play for scotland and at a world cup etc. You wouldn't hang around and turn down a chance at junior level to see what international senior team picks you, you could be seriously injured and not play again and then have missed out on a chance like that.

My mistake i misread smirnoffpriest's post.
I agree that it wouldn't be impossible to fly to Poland but it would be pretty stupid to do so. It would make much more sense to play for the country you are based in.

gcBlues wrote:The guy said he wanted to force his way in to the Wales squad last november...it's been around 2 months...he obviously hasnt got the desire to earn a spot, so has taken the easy option of Scotland. Not to mention he turned out for the Wales U20's and is playing dumb over the eligibility rule. If he "declined to sign a declaration" committing to Wales, then he wouldn't have played.

I don't particularly care if he plays for Scotland, the guy is obviously a mercenary who wants caps regardless of who it's for. Otherwise, he would have done what he said in November and tried to get in to the wales team.

The guy sounds like a moron who doesn't have the desire to challenge himself, instead picking the easy option.

Why?

Exactly it is more likely you are going to play for the country you live in at junior level. Not many unions are going to pay for your travel at that age when there will be competition for places and there will be work or uni to consider too which has to be taken into consideration as when you are in the u20s you will be a way at long periods of time at training camps, training in the build up to matches, playing the games etc.

Majestic83 wrote:Exactly it is more likely you are going to play for the country you live in at junior level. Not many unions are going to pay for your travel at that age when there will be competition for places and there will be work or uni to consider too which has to be taken into consideration as when you are in the u20s you will be a way at long periods of time at training camps, training in the build up to matches, playing the games etc.

My sentaments exactly. Its hard to try and explain this to people who live in a fantasy world though.

I don't live in a fantasy world gowales and can cease with the petty insults.

I merely continuing the line that the IRB have adopted which if you live in a country like Wales but are dual qualified (like Toby Faletau, thats the only reason I mentioned him was because he's dual qualified) then if you play for the Wales u20's you'll be tied into only being able to play for Wales - regardless of who you want to play for.

All I said was that if you want to play for another country but are based in Wales (or if the IRB bring this in for all countries as has been suggested in this thread) then you won't be able to play in the Wales u20's games and will either have to play in the other countries u20's games or wait until a call for the Full team/A team comes.

gowales wrote:How about if Wales create the A team though?

Wales initially scrapped their A team due to costs due now the regions dont want an A team.
It will take twice as many players away from the regions. The regions have games to play at the same time as Wales in a lot of cases.

Mate thats not all you said.
You make it sound like it would be such an easy decision to turn the chance to play for an age group side. When at that age all you want to do is play rugby and possibility try and make a career out of it, you don't want to be worrying about eligibility. And as Majestic said you may pick up an injury later on.

You have your views on the IRB ruling i have the opposite. I think it should be the same for all countries. Not making exceptions for the WRU and the like who aren't willing to invest in an A team. They (WRU) got themselves in a poor financial situation by terrible management in the past. They need to face the consequences.
If that changes in the future then so be it but i doubt that the likes of England and Ireland are going to drop it anytime soon.

gowales wrote:Mate thats not all you said.
You make it sound like it would be such an easy decision to turn the chance to play for an age group side. When at that age all you want to do is play rugby and possibility try and make a career out of it, you don't want to be worrying about eligibility. And as Majestic said you may pick up an injury later on.

You have your views on the IRB ruling i have the opposite. I think it should be the same for all countries. Not making exceptions for the WRU and the like who aren't willing to invest in an A team. They (WRU) got themselves in a poor financial situation by terrible management in the past. They need to face the consequences.
If that changes in the future then so be it but i doubt that the likes of England and Ireland are going to drop it anytime soon.

You make it sound like the IRB made a rule up just to suit the Welsh - conviently ignoring all the other countries who don't have/can't afford an A-team.

True the WRU was terribly mismanaged for years, but they are now making a decent profit which is reinvested in to grass roots rugby (yes the clubs that would pick up school kids and develop them) and then enough on top to pay off the debt that was built up in the 90's (a lot of this profit is thanks to the MS) -

But the IRB will have to change the rules, so can't see how Wales not having a A side should face the conswequences as the rules stated you didn't need to have a A team and could use your u20's. If the rules change in the future I suppose every nation without an A team is going to have to change - or face a huge player drain to better off countries (a serious threat for countries such as Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Japan)

Mate for all we know thats exactly what they did.
There aren't too many tier 1 international sides that don't have an A side. In my opinion there should be an exception for tier 2 sides and lower but tier 1 have to use the A team as it.

gowales wrote:Mate for all we know thats exactly what they did.
There aren't too many tier 1 international sides that don't have an A side. In my opinion there should be an exception for tier 2 sides and lower but tier 1 have to use the A team as it.

There are only four of any international sides that are active in any way.

Not if you add the Argentina Jaguars, Japan A, USA A, thats another 3. The rest may not play regular matches but they still are there.

The Emerging Boks don't play regularly cos there's no competition for them, and possibly we didn't see the Junior All Blacks in this year's IRB Pac Nations Cup cos of the RWC - so there's quite a few more than 4? In fact, of the top 9 nations, I believe that only Australia (willing to be corrected), France and Wales don't have an A side on a 'regular' basis

Yea if they get the games and comps going then they are really useful.

No ones is doubting how useful they are, but when you have two teams already shunning the only organised competition for A-Sides in World Rugby and the rest only brought together for touring teams then the IRB don't have grounds to base the eligibility rule of for national qualification on them.

Seems to me like the SRU have opened a new can of worms forcing the IRB to make a decision.

Which is a good thing.

So you think the International Rugby Board with it's responsibilities for the whole world bends it's will just because in your eyes Wales 'can't be bothered with an A team' so as a result the IRB creates a rule especially for Wales so that we don't feel left out.

Besides the fact that lots of countries don't have A teams - though I agree most do.

gowales wrote:Mate for all we know thats exactly what they did.
There aren't too many tier 1 international sides that don't have an A side. In my opinion there should be an exception for tier 2 sides and lower but tier 1 have to use the A team as it.

Sorry my previous comment was in response to this post by GoWales

I agree, the IRB needs to make a decision and make it clear for everyone in the future.

I just hope they don't make the Under 20s the cut off.

Perhaps i was being a bit over the top. It is strange how up to 2010 Wales were the only top international country not to have an A side yet they changed the rule.
Remember that the IRB has made decisions to convenience others in the past without thinking who it might effect negatively. Like changing the schedule of the world cup for SANZAR's preference in the past even though it had a negative effect on the northern hemisphere sides.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_A_national_rugby_union_team I suggest that this ends the argument

At 'A' level you don't need lots of organised competitions, there never has been but every nation in the past have found even the one of games between nations useful for bringing through players and to give the players the next step up.
Out of the top tier nations the only countries not to have 'A' teams are Wales and France though france regularly field a french barbarians team that is made up of their 2nd team. The french have up until 2 years ago had an 'a' team competing in the nations cup. Making the u20's the cut off point would not work and know many players would not be keen for that to be the case either.

Erm, no.

The argument is this:

In 2000 Unions were required to designate their next national team every four years. Does the resurrection of France A AFTER 2008 and hence part way through a four year period mean that their designation changed? Did they change their designation, and if not would their resurrection of the team be enough to count as a designation.

Glas a du wrote:Erm, no.

The argument is this:

In 2000 Unions were required to designate their next national team every four years. Does the resurrection of France A AFTER 2008 and hence part way through a four year period mean that their designation changed? Did they change their designation, and if not would their resurrection of the team be enough to count as a designation.

Did France resurrect it after their '08 designation, or was it consistently in existence before then, but lapsed in '10 and '11?

123456789 wrote:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_A_national_rugby_union_team I suggest that this ends the argument

No an A team isnt always the second team, the second team is nominated by the Union.
It's the IRB's rules that are messed up, everyone else is just trying to make sense of them.

Majestic83 wrote:The main point being about Xavier Rush's wages are that if the welsh rugby union are so heavily in debt and also worried about losing their young talent to other nations why are they forking out money to pay for these ex internationals.
The welsh rugby union claim they can't afford to spend money on an 'A' team but yet find money to spend on other so called luxuries.

The current laws do not reflect the changing situation. The only nations who are changing it are Wales and France. The rest have not and this is where the divide can not be. Either the rules are changed so that all nations U20's tie players to that country or the rules are kept the same and it is the 'A' team that ties players to a country. Having a few countries making it u20s and then the rest not having it makes the rules a mockery.

What luxuries? The WRU don't play Xaviers wages, if they did, they would in effect be centrally contracting a foreing player capped by NZ. And they aren't £250,000 per year.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the IRB aren't as of tomorrow just going to change their ruling so Scotland can poach Shingler.

Ok hear is another situation people. Does anyone remember Rhys Llewelyn, the Welsh lad who played for NZ U20's because his family moved there.
Should he be able to come back and represent Wales.
Or do some of those who feel that players should stay in the countries they are 'developed' in not think so.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future with him.