Ploughing with another man's cattle.

First topic message reminder :

Over the past week I have read an alarming number of threads that has to do with players that have qualified or will soon qualify for nations they have been playing in for the last few years. For me this is an issue that I want to clear the air with and explain why it is such an issue for me.

Just in the last week I have heard the names mentioned of Hanno Dirksen, Andries Pretorius, Michael Paterson, Tim Visser, George Earl (yes he hasn’t even signed his contract yet and there are already rumours the carrot for going to Scotland is to represent them), Richard Strauss, Robbie Diack and Jared Payne.

Then of course there are players such as Brad Barrit and Mouritz Botha who represented England over the last year.

The scary thing is that it is no longer only applicable to england being the culprit, it seems all the home nations have now joined in this “project” frenzy to see which “New Country Qualified” players are good enough to join their international squads. Although it hasn’t become a common feature yet, from what I have read a good number of these players mentioned stand realistic chances to represent their “qualified” country.

We all understand that privately owned clubs search the globe for quality professional players that can provide instant success and gratification for their supporters and on the whole, I have no issue at all with a player that makes money by way of the best financially rewarding contract. It is what we all do, if company X is prepared to pay you a higher wage, of course you will consider it.

What I do have a problem with is the plethora of players who these days change allegiance on a whim and a cheque.

I heard the other day Kobus Wiese mentioning that SA currently has 235 players playing professional rugby outside of South Africa, I don’t know how accurate the figure is, but either way it is a significant number of players.

In France alone there are over 50 players, but the biggest concern for me there is the number of relatively young players in France. The question is how many of them will follow the route of French prop Pieter de Villiers who also left at a young age only to represent France later on.

Now for some this may be a non-issue and your reasoning would be, “hey if we can pay them better then why not?”

True, if your clubs can pay them higher wages then I see no issue with that. But it seems that there is now a collective effort to attract players from SA (and other countries) to come play for a specific club and then the little carrot of over three years you could represent our national team if you are good enough.

For me there should be a clear distinction of when you should be able to represent a new country and when there should be proper residency qualifications put in place.

If you leave for another country whilst still a minor and dependent on your parents for food, clothing, shelter etc. you literally have no choice but to go.

If you are no longer financially dependent then it is simple. You leave and sign contracts out of your own free will, so a minimum of 7 years residency should be completed before you represent another country.

Why do I say that, because there is a major difference in plying a professional trade in another country and representing another country on the world stage of sport.

The one is a job and the other is a privilege and to just have the ability to leave the country where you learnt to play the game and now someone else reaps the rewards is simply just plain wrong.

I cannot believe that a patriotic supporter can be proud of a system that is circumvented by such a feeble residency law as parents, grandparents or 3 year residency rule.

Is the whole idea of rugby not to enter the battlefield with home grown talent?

There is a saying in Afrikaans “jy ploeg met n’ ander man se kalwers”

Loosely translated it means “you are plowing with another man’s cattle”

HammerofThunor wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Residency qualification should be tightened now to include only those that moved to countries in their childhood.

That means you would deny someone like Andy Ward who moved to Ireland aged 24, played his first International aged 28 and is still here aged 41, and showing no signs of leaving, from playing for his adopted country.

That can't be right.
By all means tighten up the rules but dont shut out the genuine immigrant like him

+1

There are always going to be individuals that have genuine reasons for adopting a country - I just believe any change needs to be clear and unambiguous. I still stick with my choice & it's only my opinion.
As Geordie says change is something we all agree on & I'm sure it will happen.

If you look at Heineken cup stats the best teams or at least the winners are the ones that have the least foreigners. The reason being indigenous players will probably go the extra mile for their jersey because of the emotional attachment. Same applies for International teams. Rarely have poached players from SH really excelled beyond all their peers in the NH.

This is one reason why I don't want lots of project players in Ireland but while the rule exists I'm happy the IRFU use it as a last resort.

On a side note ometimes I get the feeling that people from SH think all NH clubs think SH players are the answer to all their problems. I don't think this is really the case I'd say it's just easier to tempt SH players to come to the top NH clubs than getting the best players from rival clubs and NH leagues. I can't remember a French man ever playing for Leinster for example. They have lots of great players but they usually prefer to play in France.

leinsterbaby wrote:If you look at Heineken cup stats the best teams or at least the winners are the ones that have the least foreigners. The reason being indigenous players will probably go the extra mile for their jersey because of the emotional attachment. Same applies for International teams. Rarely have poached players from SH really excelled beyond all their peers in the NH.

This is one reason why I don't want lots of project players in Ireland but while the rule exists I'm happy the IRFU use it as a last resort.

On a side note ometimes I get the feeling that people from SH think all NH clubs think SH players are the answer to all their problems. I don't think this is really the case I'd say it's just easier to tempt SH players to come to the top NH clubs than getting the best players from rival clubs and NH leagues. I can't remember a French man ever playing for Leinster for example. They have lots of great players but they usually prefer to play in France.

something tells me you dont want Ulster to win at all with their cadre of boks

Leinster...i think the irish teams have managed this the best...

Low numbers of real high quality foreigners...i mean players like Howlett, Elsom, Cullen, Afoa currently with Ulster have been massive....

It can only help the young guys also ...

Citizenship for me as well. If you hold that status for a country it should entitle you to the right to represent it just as any of your fellow citizens can.


I know he has been here 8 years, starting as an amateur in a 6th division league, so has paid his dues in this country, but does anyone know if Mouritz Botha has committed himself to England to the extent of applying for citizenship?

If I were to choose Leinster to lose to any team in the Heineken cup final it will always be Ulster. They have always been my second team and even though they have possibly one too many Boks (and one Kiwi) for my liking I think they have some exceptional Irish players who aren't getting the credit they deserve in some media outlets. Ferris for me is the best 6 in world rugby Best the form hooker of the NH right now, Trimble an underrated and under utilised winger for Ireland. Same could probably be said for Touhy and Henry who I also rate highly.

If they do win with 5 foreigners they will have won with the most foreign players in some time.

johnpartle wrote:Citizenship for me as well. If you hold that status for a country it should entitle you to the right to represent it just as any of your fellow citizens can.


I know he has been here 8 years, starting as an amateur in a 6th division league, so has paid his dues in this country, but does anyone know if Mouritz Botha has committed himself to England to the extent of applying for citizenship?

How do you deal with the fact that citizenship is easier to get in some countries rather than others? Also, what about countries that may accelerate citizenship for sporting persons? It's an easy to suggest but it still requires a lot of thinking about. The current regulations are very simple, that's their benefit. We aren't seeing loads of players playing for countries based on residency (as adults). There's the odd one. There are a lot more players who were developed in one country and play for another due to parents, grandparents or even their own birth. Given the focus of the original post that should really be the point of discussion. Not residency qualification that has applied a few players in the last god knows how many years.

HammerofThunor wrote:

johnpartle wrote:Citizenship for me as well. If you hold that status for a country it should entitle you to the right to represent it just as any of your fellow citizens can.


I know he has been here 8 years, starting as an amateur in a 6th division league, so has paid his dues in this country, but does anyone know if Mouritz Botha has committed himself to England to the extent of applying for citizenship?

How do you deal with the fact that citizenship is easier to get in some countries rather than others? Also, what about countries that may accelerate citizenship for sporting persons?

The majority of the nations have pretty much identical citizenship qualification periods. Those that have much less stringent systems or whose governments would consider changing them for the benefit of their rugby team would be the sort of nations that could do with the most leeway.

Principally I just don't think it would be reasonable to deny somebody the right to play for a country that they are a citizen of (which entitles them to every other benefit that country can bestow), and I don't think you should be able to play for a country that you haven't fully aligned yourself to (not possessing a passport of the country you represent just isn't right). At the same time it does away with all the parentage stuff.

It goes without saying that the rule not allowing you to represent a country if you have already represented another should remain.

Biltong
Is this about ploughing or rustling?

Its not just the heffers either... the farmhands are getting poached... Deans, Gatland, Kirwan, Plumtree, Schmidt, Crowley, Mitchell and other cowboys who gallop off to more fertile pastures... not to mention Jake White and others out west!

As long as they bring back the gold bullion and keep the fires smoking in them far valleys down this way...

You have got to be kidding. Nacewa was a International class back when he went to play in Ireland. He would have been an All Black by that time, but for a decision to play for Fiji in 2003. My understanding is he didn't realise the implications, as the ruling re: 1 nation status was still relatively new (he's a Kiwi with Figian parentage). The Blues and Auckland teams he played for had good outside backs, his form was good enough to hold down a starting spot that was arguably better than Leinsters'. In 2006 season he was prefered to Toeava (who was forced to play for another franchise). He was capable of playing for probably most internaional starting XV's anywhere from 10 to 15. But he was at his best at full back or wing. In 2007 I think he was preferred at 10 to Luke McAllster. From memory this was because there was a gap following Spencers departure to Europe and Lavea didn't quite cut the mustard. There was sufficient talent out wide for him to cover (e.g. the likes of AB's McAllsiter, Howlett, Rokocoko and Toeava, as well good players in Tipoki, Wakaduadua, Pisi etc). Anyway, by 2007 it was obvious that the IRB wasn't going to change its mind so off he went.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Nacewa was an average flyhalf from the Blues. He developed into a world class fullback at Leinster.

I'd like either:

a) no restrictions apart from passport, or

b) rigid restrictions:
1: born somewhere,
2: Parents nationality,
3: Grew up somewhere (say up to 15 years old),
4: if you play for any rep side you can't play for another country.

Isa Nacewa: courstesy of http://www.theblues.co.nz/Players/122-Isa-Nacewa.aspx

"Isa Nacewa proved himself for the Blues from 2005-08 as one of the most accomplished utility backs ever seen in New Zealand rugby.

He was at home in any position from first five-eighths to fullback and was a useful goal kicker as well. He was another in a long line of legendary Fijian wingers like Joeli Vidiri, Rupeni Caucaunibuca and Joe Rokocoko who have thrived as potent attacking weapons for the Blues.

He would certainly have been an All Black but for appearing for Fiji briefly as a youngster at the 2003 World Cup, thus making himself ineligible for New Zealand.

He left the Blues at the end of the 2008 season and currently plays for Leinster in the Magners League and Heineken Cup competitions"

Isa Nacewa Started playing for the Auckland in 2003.
In 2004 The Blues got a new assistant coach.
Isa Nacewa Joined Leinster in 2008
In 2010 Leinster got a new Coach.
The Assistant coach/coach's name Joe Schmidt.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Isa Nacewa Started playing for the Auckland Blues in 2003.
In 2004 The Blues got a new assistant coach.
Isa Nacewa Joined Leinster in 2008
In 2010 Leinster got a new Coach.
The Assistant coach/coach's name Joe Schmidt.

Explains partially why Leinster are doing better than the Blues then...

And just how many d&*^&MN trophies does Brad Thorn want...

-NRL, State of Origin, umpteen Super xv, Bledisloe cup, Tri series, World cup and now Heineken and what else?

Man the guys a trophy magnet...

Taylorman
Actually quite funny,If you got all the ex Blues players,playing all over the World they would probably beat the Current blues team.

And on Brad Thorn its World Cups plural.

feckless rogue we await ur response to these damning allegations that Nacewa was a very good player before coming to Leinster

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
Is this about ploughing or rustling?

In this case rustling is probably more accurate Laurie.

HammerofThunor wrote:

johnpartle wrote:Citizenship for me as well. If you hold that status for a country it should entitle you to the right to represent it just as any of your fellow citizens can.


I know he has been here 8 years, starting as an amateur in a 6th division league, so has paid his dues in this country, but does anyone know if Mouritz Botha has committed himself to England to the extent of applying for citizenship?

How do you deal with the fact that citizenship is easier to get in some countries rather than others? Also, what about countries that may accelerate citizenship for sporting persons? It's an easy to suggest but it still requires a lot of thinking about. The current regulations are very simple, that's their benefit. We aren't seeing loads of players playing for countries based on residency (as adults). There's the odd one. There are a lot more players who were developed in one country and play for another due to parents, grandparents or even their own birth. Given the focus of the original post that should really be the point of discussion. Not residency qualification that has applied a few players in the last god knows how many years.

Hammer, the clue is in the OP.

I cannot believe that a patriotic supporter can be proud of a system that is circumvented by such a feeble residency law as parents, grandparents or 3 year residency rule.

HammerofThunor wrote:Barritt didn't qualify on residency. So I'm guessing you mean to remove qualification by parents as well, right? Stevens moved at 18 and also had English parent. Botha is the only South Africa who qualifies by residency and he moved to English without any pro-experience. Played for a amateur team out here while working and was eventually selected and developed by Sarries.

I don't see anything wrong with adding a couple of years onto the residency period. Also scrapping grandparent rule would be good (possibly have it so you need 2 grandparents if we want to keep if for the PI, etc). but in terms of residency qualifed players for England recently we've had, Botha here for around 7 years before getting capped, Hape here for around 7 years before getting capped (although he had a break therefore the 3 years was recent), Flutey here for bang on 3 years then off to France and back again, Vainikolo here for about 7 years before being capped. Other countries...can't think of many. Parker and Cobain from ages ago? (Although I remember someone claimed Cobain was born and raised in Wales but I think that was cowpat).

I do think people are moving more now and at an earlier age so an increase would be about right.

You name several players that have played for England recently that had also played against England for other countries, or against the Lions. Surely if you have represented one country you should not be allowed to switch?

Here is my mind.

First please look at the objectionables to players moving. What is lost? Is the resent about just some nationalist pride? or fear the other nation will get better based on stealing your player? If so then get into your pajayams and suck your thumb because its quiet childish and just part of modern world for people moving around.

Second my point is different objections. All country have a "style" and we like to pretend is not a true sometime because we get named "racist". For example Fijian are more supple and bendy and moving fast with grace and power and make them natural better running. But caucasian tend to be physique more rigid which natural make them better for scrum. Japan people are smallest is just a fact and everywhere and all and all there are these difference. Now it make all countries play a different way and different strong and weak. This add up to the contrast style and make the game so interesting to watch by strategy and mean the coaching team need just be very smart and tricky.

When teams plugging the gaps with import players means the styles all become similar and the game not evolving. And so we don't see new innovation so much because no team of small fast bendy people need to find a way to beat big rigid ones and so on.

This is why makes me resentment.

anotherworldofpain, I am actually glad you asked the question.

For me it is about the fact that everything in this world, every law, every boundary has become grey. There are no longer clearly defined lines.

National pride is something every individual not only recognises but identifies with.

Profesional rugby has already gone a long way to break down the boundaries of communities being represented by sportsmen outside of their communities.

I am a traditionalist and would like some of the "old world" remain. In other words when you look at the early 20th century, be it club, or country, when communities went to the sporting grounds it was town A vs town B, you could strongly identify yourself with the identity and representation of your team.

In my view sport has taken the place of warfare, instead of Villages or Towns battling each other in war, they started battling each other in sport.

This created an environment where sport has become the glue of society and there has been a lot of benfit from this, be it mutual respect instead of hate, competitive banter instead of fueds.

Now coming back to the present day scenario, I have accepted the fact that Regions/Provinces/Clubs have all become professional and hence players will move around to where they can make the most revenue.

BUT

test rugby is the last vestage of rugby, if you want it is the battle of Britain or any other important battle you would like to compare it too.

Once the grey area has taken over test rugby and there is no longer a line that can be drawn whereby society and communities can identify with, then sport has lost its noble origin.

It isn't about will they be better, or this or that.

It is about the last stand, us against you, I want to know that at least when it comes to test rugby, there is a strong identifying factor, that we test our best and you bring your best.

Once that is gone, rugby will lose its flavour.

Ask yourself this question.

Do you honestly want to see your country facing an opponent, and the mixture of each team is so globally mixed, that apart from the colour of the jumper, there is almost no identifying factor on which to base your alleginace?

Taylorman wrote:Its not just the heffers either... the farmhands are getting poached... Deans, Gatland, Kirwan, Plumtree, Schmidt, Crowley, Mitchell and other cowboys who gallop off to more fertile pastures... not to mention Jake White and others out west!

As long as they bring back the gold bullion and keep the fires smoking in them far valleys down this way...

Both Gatland and Schmidt started their coaching careers in Ireland. Schmidt was a pe teacher and coached Mullingar rugby club before coaching bay of plenty. Gatland coached Galwegians, Connacht and Ireland before anywhere in NZ or Wales. In some ways he was developed in Ireland and now Wales are reaping the rewards.

Nacewa might have been good before he came to Leinster but he's obviously not a project player. His best position is fullback but he has been moved to the wing because Rob Kearney is the best fullback in the NH now maybe the world.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Residency qualification should be tightened now to include only those that moved to countries in their childhood.

That means you would deny someone like Andy Ward who moved to Ireland aged 24, played his first International aged 28 and is still here aged 41, and showing no signs of leaving, from playing for his adopted country.

That can't be right.
By all means tighten up the rules but dont shut out the genuine immigrant like him

+1

There are always going to be individuals that have genuine reasons for adopting a country - I just believe any change needs to be clear and unambiguous. I still stick with my choice & it's only my opinion.
As Geordie says change is something we all agree on & I'm sure it will happen.

But what you propose makes it impossible to do what Andy Ward did and that is what is wrong.
By all means tighten up - say 5 years for an Adult, 4 years for a 18 to 21 year old, 3 years for a child.
Also I would suggest make staying in the country a requirement for continued eligability - no doing a Flutey and going elsewhere as soon as residency is through.

But no way should it be impossible for an adult to change home and allegiance which is what you proposed.

leinsterbaby wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Its not just the heffers either... the farmhands are getting poached... Deans, Gatland, Kirwan, Plumtree, Schmidt, Crowley, Mitchell and other cowboys who gallop off to more fertile pastures... not to mention Jake White and others out west!

As long as they bring back the gold bullion and keep the fires smoking in them far valleys down this way...

Both Gatland and Schmidt started their coaching careers in Ireland. Schmidt was a pe teacher and coached Mullingar rugby club before coaching bay of plenty. Gatland coached Galwegians, Connacht and Ireland before anywhere in NZ or Wales. In some ways he was developed in Ireland and now Wales are reaping the rewards.

Actually the first time I ever heard of Warren Gatland coaching,he was coaching a team you might have heard of they are called the All Blacks,True.

As for Isa Nacewa I was watching him play first five and fullback for Marist before you guys would of even heard of him.

When did Gatland coach the All Blacks?

What's your point on Nacewa?

Do you not believe me?

The point on Nacewa is that he was a well and truely established proffessional rugby player before he left the Blues, playing a variety of backline positions.

What I'm getting at re Schmidt and Gatland is that I'm more concerned that we are not producing enough top class Irish coaches we are giving all the best jobs to Kiwis. This concerns me a lot more than any project player scheme.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Do you not believe me?

I know he played for the ABs but my understanding was his coaching career began in Ireland.

Another example of how difficult the nationality issue can get, esp around these British & Irish Isles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18084984

Laurie, Gatlands not coached the All Blacks?

I think all countries to a lesser or greater extent are guilty of using the eligibility rules to strengthen the player base. Its not a NH vs SH battle as the case of Shingler points out. Jarvis and Loxton the year previously is another example of a home union delberatly targetting players developed by another union. England are more like the UN and the All Blacks have been packed with players from the samoa, fiji, tonga etc for years.

Australia has a kiwi ten and over the years played a saffer scrum half, Argentinians etc.

SA does have a disproportinate number of players developed in SA but no longer plying their trade there. However I would point out that the massive emigration from SA to the UK in paticular in the 90s and early noughties has in part been responsible for that.

Personally I think the rules that cricket has are far better in stopping the merry go round we now have. There is also the problem of agents, the same agent who advised Shingler was involved in the Loxton and Jarvis case and as long as agents can make big bucks for themselves from their clients then these sort of moves are going to be pushed at the players.

However, as it stands SARU needs to be smarter about the way they manage their age grade teams and eligibility. If they are not going to consider players for selection outside of SA then they are in part creating a situation where players good enough for the pro game are forced to move to get a contract which in turn can see them eligible for international teams.

leinsterbaby wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Do you not believe me?

I know he played for the ABs but my understanding was his coaching career began in Ireland.

What happened was I think it was on one of the tours in the late 80s early 90s,life got pretty boreing for Gatty, although he was an All Black he was always second fiddle to Sean Fitzpatrick and gatty was a very good thinker of the game even then,in those days running grids took the first half hour of every training session,and Gatty found it all too mundane.so Gatty was given the task of coming up with ideas to make the training sessions more exciting,he took to the task like a duck to water,Inventing all sorts of new games,activities and it then spread into set piece drills ,it was a success, every one was happy even Grizz, It got to the point that Gatty was after a while takeing full AB sessions.Then when the games came round he would go back and sit on his bench,He always was going to be a good coach.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Barritt didn't qualify on residency. So I'm guessing you mean to remove qualification by parents as well, right? Stevens moved at 18 and also had English parent. Botha is the only South Africa who qualifies by residency and he moved to English without any pro-experience. Played for a amateur team out here while working and was eventually selected and developed by Sarries.

I don't see anything wrong with adding a couple of years onto the residency period. Also scrapping grandparent rule would be good (possibly have it so you need 2 grandparents if we want to keep if for the PI, etc). but in terms of residency qualifed players for England recently we've had, Botha here for around 7 years before getting capped, Hape here for around 7 years before getting capped (although he had a break therefore the 3 years was recent), Flutey here for bang on 3 years then off to France and back again, Vainikolo here for about 7 years before being capped. Other countries...can't think of many. Parker and Cobain from ages ago? (Although I remember someone claimed Cobain was born and raised in Wales but I think that was cowpat).

I do think people are moving more now and at an earlier age so an increase would be about right.

You name several players that have played for England recently that had also played against England for other countries, or against the Lions. Surely if you have represented one country you should not be allowed to switch?

Don't see a problem with it. Also you do know the team that Flutey played for against the Lions don't you?

One of the drills was a GAA Aussie rules hybrid game.

It wasnt just the drills, but also as he always got a good seat at the games he used to watch Fitzy like a hawk then at the next training session tell fitzpatrick what he should and shouldnt be doing and what he was doing wrong. At that stage Fitzy was one of the best rugby players in the World.

Now that I think about it I think gatty was the one responsible for the hookers finger flick signal to the half back.

biltongbek wrote:anotherworldofpain, I am actually glad you asked the question.

For me it is about the fact that everything in this world, every law, every boundary has become grey. There are no longer clearly defined lines.

National pride is something every individual not only recognises but identifies with.

Profesional rugby has already gone a long way to break down the boundaries of communities being represented by sportsmen outside of their communities.

I am a traditionalist and would like some of the "old world" remain. In other words when you look at the early 20th century, be it club, or country, when communities went to the sporting grounds it was town A vs town B, you could strongly identify yourself with the identity and representation of your team.

In my view sport has taken the place of warfare, instead of Villages or Towns battling each other in war, they started battling each other in sport.

This created an environment where sport has become the glue of society and there has been a lot of benfit from this, be it mutual respect instead of hate, competitive banter instead of fueds.

Now coming back to the present day scenario, I have accepted the fact that Regions/Provinces/Clubs have all become professional and hence players will move around to where they can make the most revenue.

BUT

test rugby is the last vestage of rugby, if you want it is the battle of Britain or any other important battle you would like to compare it too.

Once the grey area has taken over test rugby and there is no longer a line that can be drawn whereby society and communities can identify with, then sport has lost its noble origin.

It isn't about will they be better, or this or that.

It is about the last stand, us against you, I want to know that at least when it comes to test rugby, there is a strong identifying factor, that we test our best and you bring your best.

Once that is gone, rugby will lose its flavour.

Ask yourself this question.

Do you honestly want to see your country facing an opponent, and the mixture of each team is so globally mixed, that apart from the colour of the jumper, there is almost no identifying factor on which to base your alleginace?

No. Which is my objectionable. You are correct on this in my mind but for the reasons I giving up above. For me is about diversity and compare of things that are different which is making world more better place.

Second point is that when the internationals team become blurred then is just really about club with identity label of nation and it errodes international competitions and makes more like club competitions.

biltongbek wrote:anotherworldofpain, I am actually glad you asked the question.

For me it is about the fact that everything in this world, every law, every boundary has become grey. There are no longer clearly defined lines.

National pride is something every individual not only recognises but identifies with.

Profesional rugby has already gone a long way to break down the boundaries of communities being represented by sportsmen outside of their communities.

I am a traditionalist and would like some of the "old world" remain. In other words when you look at the early 20th century, be it club, or country, when communities went to the sporting grounds it was town A vs town B, you could strongly identify yourself with the identity and representation of your team.

In my view sport has taken the place of warfare, instead of Villages or Towns battling each other in war, they started battling each other in sport.

This created an environment where sport has become the glue of society and there has been a lot of benfit from this, be it mutual respect instead of hate, competitive banter instead of fueds.

Now coming back to the present day scenario, I have accepted the fact that Regions/Provinces/Clubs have all become professional and hence players will move around to where they can make the most revenue.

BUT

test rugby is the last vestage of rugby, if you want it is the battle of Britain or any other important battle you would like to compare it too.

Weren't Polish pilots heavily involved in the Battle of Britain. Not a great example. In fact most conflicts all round the World, current and historical, have included 'foreigners' or mercenaries. The British army has a long tradition of including none-'British' people.

Once the grey area has taken over test rugby and there is no longer a line that can be drawn whereby society and communities can identify with, then sport has lost its noble origin.

It isn't about will they be better, or this or that.

It is about the last stand, us against you, I want to know that at least when it comes to test rugby, there is a strong identifying factor, that we test our best and you bring your best.

Once that is gone, rugby will lose its flavour.

Ask yourself this question.

Do you honestly want to see your country facing an opponent, and the mixture of each team is so globally mixed, that apart from the colour of the jumper, there is almost no identifying factor on which to base your alleginace?

But there isn't a strong indentifying factor for the English. There hasn't for years. I for one like it that way. The only real factor IS the colour of the jumper. I support England, not because they're the best (obviously) or more deserving or in any way 'better'. It's just because I live here. When I moved to Swansea I started supporting the Ospreys and kind of supported Wales (not that much as I had contant jibs for being English and boring).

Now we can talk about national 'systems'. As in a players was developed and trained within the system governed by a particular union and therefore they should play for that union. I certainly prefer that to any minor bloodlinks. However it's quite difficult to define exactly who developed someone and when has that developement stopped. What about players involved in an English club academy and a non-English international academy? Who's developed them? This would also destroy a lot of minor nations as they're developed in foreign professional structures.

It's not black and white.

You can tell non-Englishman playing rugby. He is the one being booed at Twickenham. As saying going.

Hammer, it is no use to take every comment I make as literal.

Read the intent of the point I am trying to make, otherwise next time I will respond in Afrikaans and you can get some online translator to sort that out in a literal way.

The battle of britain is merely a comparison of the importance of the event, not who participated in the actual battle.

If you like England to be represented by a multicultural team, then cudo's to you.

I myself want at least test rugby to be black and white as you put it.

The Cornish Pirates do this sort of thing all the time and have done for a number of seasons

biltongbek wrote:Hammer, it is no use to take every comment I make as literal.

Read the intent of the point I am trying to make, otherwise next time I will respond in Afrikaans and you can get some online translator to sort that out in a literal way.

The battle of britain is merely a comparison of the importance of the event, not who participated in the actual battle.

If you like England to be represented by a multicultural team, then cudo's to you.

I myself want at least test rugby to be black and white as you put it.

+2

biltongbek wrote:Hammer, it is no use to take every comment I make as literal.

Read the intent of the point I am trying to make, otherwise next time I will respond in Afrikaans and you can get some online translator to sort that out in a literal way.

The battle of britain is merely a comparison of the importance of the event, not who participated in the actual battle.

If you like England to be represented by a multicultural team, then cudo's to you.

I myself want at least test rugby to be black and white as you put it.

Don't go there mate!

I think citizenship seems the fairest way of seeing if someone is up to qualifying to play test rugby. At least for the top tier nations. Residency requirements should be for countries outside the top ten. If you give up your previous nationality to play for another, then that seems a fair test of your commitment to your adopted homeland. Some countries allow dual nationality which is fair enough as well.

I didn't mean to take everything literally. The Battle of Britain thing was supposed to be an amusing aside (I won't give up my day job).

You clearly have strong views regarding national identity and it's importance. I don't. If someone wishes to call themselves English then they're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned. The ONLY purpose for eligibility criteria is to try and avoid a free-for-all. You might think this has already happened. I don't.

I've said before that I would prefer a system with no blood/birth qualification and only residency based. If the period was long enough it would mean you could only play for a side that developed you. This would, however, be unworkable for PI players who were developed in NZ, Aus or UK, Southern African players developed in SA and European players developed largely in France.

I'm not trying to be arsey or a dick, I just disagree with you (meanly about clearly defined national identity)

You can tell non-Englishman playing rugby. He is the one being booed at Twickenham. As saying going.

Not always. Andy Goode is definitely English.

Kia,
England Scotland & Wales & NI all share one common citizenship on their passports. But in other nations citizenship could / should be a factor.
I live in Gloucstershire, and we suffer from cross - border raids by the Welsh boys with the same passports as the Glos boys they are kidnapping.

gregortree wrote:Kia,
England Scotland & Wales & NI all share one common citizenship on their passports. But in other nations citizenship could / should be a factor.
I live in Gloucstershire, and we suffer from cross - border raids by the Welsh boys with the same passports as the Glos boys they are kidnapping.

Yeah and we train them up and hand them back to you for international rugby

International borders mean nothing to us Irish