How much pride could this guy have?

by **Biltong** Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:28 pm

First topic message reminder :

Antonie Claassen, son of Ex Springbok rugby Player Wynand Claassen has been called into the French 23 matchday squad for their clash with England on February 23.

He will be the ninth South African born player to represent France.

My question is this, your dad played for the Sprinboks, Your dad captained the Springboks, your dad played for the Bulls and Sharks, you decide to find your fortunes elsewhere for whatever reason.

Now you play for the French?

How much pride can you have with a rugby heritage like that?

by fa0019 Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:50 am

captain carrantuohil

The amateur days of Mike Catt were quite different. His mother was English and moved to SA as an adult.

He went to UK to visit is grandparents and lived with his mothers brother and during that time after getting bored his uncle called up Bath to see if he could have a run around to keep active after 6 months of messing around doing nothing. He never intended specifically to leave SA and go and play rugby for England... it just happened that way, he hadn't contacted any clubs before he left etc.

A lot of players in those days played for the nation where they happened to reside.... not their home nation.. there are scores of examples.

Only reason I know this is that he was a player I looked up to as a youth because I admired his all round skill, he could kick, pass, run, tackle and read his early autobiography.

by screamingaddabs Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:53 am

My son will soon be born in Glasgow. English father, Scottish mother, 3 English Grandparents and one Scottish.

Assuming we then move back to England (fairly likely) and he grows up there from say age 3 to 18, who should he play for?

How about if we move to NZ (we have considered it). Let's say he grows up there from the age of say 5 to 18. He could reasonably represent England, Scotland or NZ. Which should he choose?

With players such as this I don't have a problem with them choosing any of the countries they could play for.

Let's take a further example. Let's say my son is born in Glasgow and grows up there. Moves to Ireland and plays for say Ulster for a few years. Should he play for Ireland (if good enough obviously!). Here I would argue no, he shouldn't.

Another example: My brother was born in Australia to English parents. Moved back to England at 6 months. Should he play for Australia? I'd say no.

The problem is that there is a line somewhere between these examples that is really hard to draw. You cannot quantify how someone "feels". As the world gets smaller with more travelling between places easier and people moving countries for work more often this problem is going to get worse and worse.

That then leads to the question: Is international rugby an anachronism?

by captain carrantuohil Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:54 am

I'm quite uncomfortable with this idea of excessive patriotism in any case, partly, I suppose, because I happen to have grandparents from four different countries. It quite often seems to lead to a narrowing of horizons and the mind.

Sport is really the great triviality - unimportant, by comparison with a lot of things, and yet capable of either uniting or dividing people like nothing else. It shouldn't be that difficult to allow people to make their own decision and then applaud (or otherwise) their play on the field, no matter what jersey they're wearing.

I'm with Dr Johnson, I have to say: patriotism is (often) the last refuge of a scoundrel.

by **Biltong** Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:56 am

I'm with Dr Johnson, I have to say: patriotism is (often) the last refuge of a scoundrel.

You may call me Scoundrel. Very Happy

by captain carrantuohil Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:58 am

I don't see the difference, fa. Catt's conversion to the English cause may have come about through happenstance, but the basic issue on which the OP is exercised is still at play there.

In theory, people can still take that same trail in the professional era; I don't see that they're any less worthy of the jersey of their adopted country. I appreciate that you're not saying any different, but I would say that the same issues are in play today as was the case twenty years ago.

by fa0019 Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:06 am

captain carrantuohil

Yes but he didn't do it for money.

One of the best examples is the old great blindside Willi Ofahengaue.

He was born in Tonga but brought up in NZ. When playing for NZ schools in AUS he was refused re-entry to NZ becuase of his visa and had to stay in AUS... and then went on to become a legend.

In those days personal circumstances were king. Their was no money for NZ to fly Willi back to NZ for test matches etc like their is now.

I also recall reading that SCW after moving to AUS actually went for a trial for the senior squad... representation has in truth never been fully about national pride and identity solely.

by captain carrantuohil Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:06 am

Ospreydragon, didn't Sinkinson, Howarth and co give their all for Wales when they were playing in the red shirt? I'm fairly sure that their commitment to the cause was viewed as beyond question by Welsh supporters at the time, who were, quite rightly, happy to have them on board. The fact that it was later shown that some of them had no particular right to represent their adopted country doesn't alter this, it seems to me. It ought to be a source of pride that someone felt strongly enough about a new country to want to attain the highest honour on offer in it.

This is such a global world now. Borders are blurred; nationalities even more so. I really don't see that the background of a national team member is relevant any more, if, indeed, it ever was.

by captain carrantuohil Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:09 am

True with bells on, fa, that last sentence. I remember when Martin Johnson led England in new Zealand and various Kiwis were holding up banners decrying him as a "traitor", presumably becuase he'd once turned out for the All Black U-21s. I don't suppose that anyone would have been too exercised at the time if Johnson had decided to represent the full All Blacks.

by Bathman_in_London Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:48 am

beshocked wrote:Biltong true about Barritt but he is basically a dual citizen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/28/six-nations-2012-brad-barritt-england

Barritt was enjoying a successful career with his native Sharks when Eddie Jones, then director of rugby at Saracens, invited him to England towards the end of 2008. He was 22 and had been vice-captain of the Sharks and played at fly-half as well as centre after making his Super 14 debut in 2006.

"I have never had cause to regret the decision to move," said Barritt. "I have a strong English background. My parents both have British passports and I have family links in Devon and London. When Brian Smith [the then attack coach] asked me in 2009 to pledge my allegiance to England, it did not take me long to agree. I had grown up in Durban, living somewhat of a sheltered life, and it was a great opportunity for me to live in London and grow as a person.

In another article:

My grandparents were born in England and grandfather played for England Universities. I have strong English roots and a lot of my extended family, aunts and uncles, live in England… so no, no issues.

I would say the most similar equivalent to him is Kevin Pietersen.

Brad Barritt had a choice - he could have pursued an international career in SA but instead he chose to come to England.

I would say his scenario is different to Flutey,Hape,Waldrom,Vainokolo etc.

Plus you could see the likes of Barritt and Manu belting out the national anthem.

As an aside, his parents moved down from Rhodesia after that collapsed (from one 'English' African enclave to another you might say), which is why they are UK passport holders. Now there's a country that for different reasons has lost all its players.

by ScarletSpiderman Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:14 am

captain carrantuohil wrote:Ospreydragon, didn't Sinkinson, Howarth and co give their all for Wales when they were playing in the red shirt? I'm fairly sure that their commitment to the cause was viewed as beyond question by Welsh supporters at the time, who were, quite rightly, happy to have them on board. The fact that it was later shown that some of them had no particular right to represent their adopted country doesn't alter this, it seems to me. It ought to be a source of pride that someone felt strongly enough about a new country to want to attain the highest honour on offer in it.

This is such a global world now. Borders are blurred; nationalities even more so. I really don't see that the background of a national team member is relevant any more, if, indeed, it ever was.

They did play with commitment. The thing is that if I were able to sneak in and play for the Wales Womens team I would show commitment and play my backside off (and probably still look useless), however that still wouldn't make it right because I am not a woman.

National sides are about people who are from that nation playing in a team together, and not about necessarily being the best side in the world.

by gregortree Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:26 am

Who is the 'most' English then ?:

Tui
North
Cuthbert

by captain carrantuohil Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:29 am

SS, this brings us back to the slightly cyclical question of what "from that nation" means. Are we talking born and bred? By adoption, whether through parental or personal choice? Where is the line drawn? Should there really be one these days?

On your other point, and I'm just musing, you understand, but what if you were to decide that you wanted to be a woman and took the necessary steps to put your desires into practice (as some male tennis player did a while back)? Would you not then be entitled to take your place in the women's rugby team, if that was what you wanted and you were of the necessary standard? It's a slightly facetious point, I agree, but isn't the matter of personal choice fairly paramount in this discussion?

by nobbled Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:35 am

Perhaps he just wants to play at the highest level available to him? As a pro-sportsman I can't blame him.
Don't hate the player...

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:37 am

fa0019 wrote:Only reason I know this is that he was a player I looked up to as a youth because I admired his all round skill, he could kick, pass, run, tackle and read his early autobiography.

I know that wasn't meant to be funny, but it made me laugh! Smile

by nobbled Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:39 am

Just to be clear - he is the pro-sportsman - I most definitely am not.

by ScarletSpiderman Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:43 am

captain carrantuohil wrote:SS, this brings us back to the slightly cyclical question of what "from that nation" means. Are we talking born and bred? By adoption, whether through parental or personal choice? Where is the line drawn? Should there really be one these days?

And that is where only the person themselves can answer, however it is also something that is pretty easy to see if someone does not really see themselves as from a nation. Again using Kohn as an example, it is pretty clear he was settling for second best by the way he mentioned growing up sopporting England, he has never lived in Wales, he didn't know of his Welsh heritage until the WRU told him (Or the BBC mentioned it of whoever) before th tournament. He did 'technically' qualify as Welsh, however to be fair it is pretty clear that he isn't. Andy Marinos was the same, he was a South African that qualified to play for us, however as soon as his career ended he went back to South Africa, as that was his nation. Jason Jones-Hughes, however, turned down the opertunity to play for Australia (far batter side) in order to be able to play for Wales, as even though he was raised in Aus, his heritage etc was Welsh.

captain carrantuohil wrote:On your other point, and I'm just musing, you understand, but what if you were to decide that you wanted to be a woman and took the necessary steps to put your desires into practice (as some male tennis player did a while back)? Would you not then be entitled to take your place in the women's rugby team, if that was what you wanted and you were of the necessary standard? It's a slightly facetious point, I agree, but isn't the matter of personal choice fairly paramount in this discussion?

Personal choice is part of it, but it is less of a choice and more of an instinct. Nationality and loyalty to a nation, can change with personal situations, how you were treated etc. However, it is something that most people should really know, and feel, before their old enough to drink, vote, drive etc. I appreciate your from a bit of a mixed national background and it makes it harder, I 'technically' qualify for England, Wales and Ireland, but you know in your heart what nationality you are?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:46 am

Whereas Geordan Murphy came over here to go to University and got turned into a professional rugby player, then had the indecency to go and get picked for Ireland.
Traitor.

Biltongs right, theres shades of grey in all of this. Its chaps like the Aussie who qualified for Italy through a grandfather who had renounced his Italian citizenship so he could bring up his family as Australians that really make the system look stupid.
Other cases, like Tuilagi who had represented England but wasnt actually legally allowed to live work here (although if he had been capped on the summer tour of Aus whilst in exile could actually have got that right ), fit in a slightly different shade of grey. Hes now as firmly as English as he is a Tuilagi brother (he's adopted).

by captain carrantuohil Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:48 am

Ah well, the best I can do is European, SS. I've never really had what you could call a settled homeland, having been sent out to an english boarding school at some Dickensian age and then spent most of my young life going from country to country like the Flying Dutchman.

Not everyone has this sense of place that you describe and are lucky enough to possess. In my mid-40s now, I'm not much the wiser, even though I've lived more or less permanently in England for the past 15 years.

by blackcanelion Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:40 pm

It's pretty obvious that the idea of nationality when it comes to international representation is pretty subjective. To me it seems that perspective is largely related to how people feel their team is affected. At the moment British teams are net importers. The current rules suit them it allows there teams to build strength through the addition of players who have learnt their rugby in other parts of the world. Teams like the Argentina, New Zealand and South Africa are the current losers. We are the ones that lose players in the current climate. So it affects how we view it.

I think rugby would be stronger if it addressed the issue of player movement, national representation and international player release. I see scholarships to young players as being more of an issue in the long run. It's significant in football, basketball and rugby league. I think the game will be more sustainable if the IRB can come up with a workable structure now.

by ScarletSpiderman Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:46 pm

Personally i think it would make it far easier if they could cut it down to-:

Birthplace,
Parental Birthplace (or if they have represented a nation in any sport/competition etc)
Residency (over 10 years)

Then special interview and consideration for the following-:

Nationality of your Grandparents and/or Partner.
Nation of education

by captain carrantuohil Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:51 pm

What we don't have these days is international rugby player with caps for two different national sides. The days when men such as Robbie, Smith, Bunce and Enrico Rodriguez could legitimately play for two different international sides appear to be over. That's probably a good thing, although I believe that both Robbie and Rodriguez were bona fide and wholehearted participants in the life of their new countries (Smith an obvious exception).

Therefore, I think that the game is making steady progress on this one. You're never going to be able to stop something like a Claassen situation. International restraint of trade laws are likely to apply, which comfortably trump any sporting regulations. All that can be done pretty much has been done and it's now up to the various boards and authorities to apply what they have with common sense.

by **Biltong** Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:56 pm

Black canelion, irresepctive of whether SA is a nett exporter or importer of talent I still don't like it.

Let me use the case of Tendai Mtawarira. He learnt to play rugby in Zimbabwe, he didn't grow up in SA, he qualified for SA via residency.

Now he couldn't make a living in Zim with pro rugby as they don't have a professional setup, so he came here to make a living. With that I have no issue, but by representing SA we are benefitting from a player who learnt his trade in Zimbabwe. That to me is wrong.

Had he moved to SA as a child and learnt his rugby here, then he became a product of our system, not Zim's, hence no matter how much I like Beast, he should have represented Zimbabwe not us.

by blackcanelion Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:25 pm

I have a similar view. We've had a handful of imports. I don't think of the likes of Vidiri, Devine and co in the same way as the guys who grew up here. We have a similar issue in rugby league. Kids as young as 13 (rare I think) relocating to feeder schools in Australia when the sign with a club. The ARL/NRL have finally stepped in and made a ruling setting the age at 13 specifically to deal with this type of issue (http://www.radiosport.co.nz/news/spleg/768750768-tough-new-state-of-origin-eligibility-rules).

by **George Carlin** Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:39 pm

One thing is also true - we cannot know whether a player has agonised about the decision for 10 minutes or 10 years.

I genuinely believe Sean Maitland feels he has a connection to Scotland. Both sets of grandparents are Scottish which some might argue is a remote connection but he's spoken very eloquently about how pleased he was and how much it meant to his rellies back home in Canterbury.

To provide another comparison, Patrick Lambie's dad Jack is English but lived in Scotland for nearly 15 years and his mum Neeta is Scottish. Young Patrick grew up in Troon, was steeped in Scottish culture and has a British passport. Nothwithstanding all that, he didn't hesitate for a moment in picking the Springboks.

Good luck to both of them.

by **Biltong** Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:41 pm

George, there is a slight difference, Lambie went to school in SA, grew up here and learnt his rugby here.

by blackcanelion Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:45 pm

Fair cop to any player who represents a country. I thought Lambie went to Clifton Prep in Durban. From my perspective, it's not an individual player, it's the numbers of south africans, kiwis and Aussies turning out for British teams at the moment. That, and the issue of non player release by clubs.

by **George Carlin** Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:50 pm

Biltong wrote:George, there is a slight difference, Lambie went to school in SA, grew up here and learnt his rugby here.

That's true Biltong - my point is only that we cannot and should not think we can guess with any accuracy what individuals' ties with various countries mean to them.

I'm assuming that being passionate about playing for 'ones' country is the thing that matters most to the average supporter.

by The Great Aukster Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:58 pm

Biltong wrote:4. We need tribalism, we need nationalism when it comes to sport. How else do you think you will fill stands and get the big TV deals?

Therein lies the answer. Once the stands aren't being filled and the TV companies aren't putting money in due to teams' lack of identity, there would be a change. As it is there seems to be more money coming into the game than ever, and while players have freedom of choice they can choose what's most important to them.

Rugby is a fully professional game, therefore by definition it is bound to be driven by maximising it's monetary return. Freedom for players to move between countries should enhance the marketability of the product by spreading the resource wider and therefore making lesser teams more competitive.

Would a RWC with more teams in with a realistic chance of winning instill more nationalistic pride in the winners than if they came from the usual four suspects? Would it be more commercially attractive?
Yes and yes.

by **Biltong** Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:17 pm

The new flag for international rugby teams.

Spoiler:

You just add a number to each mini flag to know how many from each country will represent you on the day.

by OzT Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:41 pm

Nice one biltong, now the competetion, what rugby playing countries are not on there???

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:52 pm

Sealand currently dont have a Union team. We could form one of 606 members and push for entry into the world cup qualifiers and IRB sevens circuit.

by B91212 Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:04 pm

It's not straight forward Biltong - I have always considered myself English through and through but after living in Canada for as long as I have then there is no doubt that I feel a connection and even a certain amount of pride towards my adopted country (the peace keeping at any costs, overly-religious, anything to to maintain the status quo rednecks that they are Very Happy

).

by **Biltong** Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:23 pm

How old are you now and how old were you when you landed?

by B91212 Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:38 pm

Biltong wrote:How old are you now and how old were you when you landed?

31 & 37.

by **Biltong** Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:46 pm

B91212 wrote:
Biltong wrote:How old are you now and how old were you when you landed?
31 & 37.

Then you aren't really the demographic we are talking about mate.

At your age a person is looking at being a family man, setting down roots and settling into family life, our priorities are quite different to a 20-25 year old, isn't it?

by Taylorman Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:33 pm

I think part of it is with the reducing size of the globe in terms of sociability, breaking down of borders in terms of employment, outsourcing, and rugby has also become more accessible globally. The player market is world wide not country wide.

The only thing thats remained constant is the idea of a 'country'. NZ is still the same NZ it was 100 years ago, same with most of the rugby playing nations.

This increasing global movement of rugby players vs the static concept of 'country' is eroding away the concept of 'loyalty'. Below the international level- it hardly exists any more and movement between clubs is rapid.

Its now seeping through to international level almost by osmosis and its only when each successive 'sacred' tradition- sons of former international captains being the latest, that its a sore point.

Soon there will be 'records'- which father son has the most internationals for dfferent countries kind of thing. Its inevitable.

by OzT Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:58 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Soon there will be 'records'- which father son has the most internationals for dfferent countries kind of thing. Its inevitable.

Well we can kick it off with brothers playing for Oz and Wales!! Smile

by B91212 Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:32 pm

Biltong wrote:Then you aren't really the demographic we are talking about mate.

At your age a person is looking at being a family man, setting down roots and settling into family life, our priorities are quite different to a 20-25 year old, isn't it?

Agreed. But what I was trying to point out is that for some (like me), if you are in one place for a length of time you do begin to bond with that place. Awsn't expecting it and it kind of snuck up on me a little, but after my last 2 visits to the 'motherland' I've felt more like a visitor there with a sense of feeling like I'm home on return to Canada. I think it took about 4 solid years of being here for that to be the case. However, I certainly feel and class myself as British and think I always will. I guess what I'm saying is that home and nationality can be two different things for some people.

It is of course very different for this lad what with his Dad being an ex-Springbok captain, would have expected the tradition, history and upbringing would make him want to follow in his old mans footsteps and pull on the green jersey. At his age I'd expect there would have still been a chance yet. Perhaps its more a general reflection of the lack of patience in today's society, maybe kind of like the Shingler and Heathcote situations. I wonder if they will ever regret their decisions to commit to the first country that came knocking?

by Sin é Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:33 pm

Biltong - just to fill you in on CJ Stander. Seems he was told by SA that he was too small and seems to be delighted to get a chance with Munster & Ireland. Now what is even more interesting is that his fiance Jean-Marié Neethling (swimmer) has been accepted into the Ireland High Performance Swimming Unit (which is handily for them in Limerick) and seems to be looking to represent Ireland in the Olympics.

by mystiroakey Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:01 pm

To me nationailty and ethnicity isnt the point- i fully believe one should only represent the country that produced the sportsman..

Its all about paying back the system that created you. In some cases this is split- and that should only be the case when someone can choose..

by maestegmafia Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:12 pm

fa0019 wrote:Perhaps he feels animosity to SA for not giving him a chance?

Perhaps he feels indebted to the French for believing in him.

That was certainly the way Kevin Pietersen went. He is easily one of the most talented cricketers of his generation.... would have walked into the SA team but he was being sidelined as a junior and after getting an offer in England he took it. He like Claassen's did his 3 years and then played for England.

I liked that joke from a South African friend that during the SA vs Eng cricket a senior SA cricket exec asked "why are their South Africans better than ours?"

by mystiroakey Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:14 pm

look guys biltong understands the arrangment with the old country.. They have to pass us talent.. Its clearly france that is the problem Whistle

by Taylorman Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:50 pm

SA's recent selection policies havnt exactly lended itself to keeping players- keeping players well past their use by date, the confusing selections of both PDV and Meyer over the last 3 years don't help. In that period it was harder to get out than in the side if your name was Steyn or Smit. That may or may not be the case for Claassen but its understandable why one would leave with the internal politics bouncing around.

In NZ we can't afford to be as conservative. We dont have the money to keep them so we have to keep our game at a knifes edge in terms of gaining an advantage over other sides.

We have to be smarter, faster, more flexible, more innovative, more ruthless in our selection policies than anyone else just to maintain anything like what we have so far. And so far we are doing that.

And by staying at the top and keeping the AB name as the biggest carrot for our players we get to keep players that much longer in the country- to the point where they are satisfied that they just arent good enough or no longer good enough to be an AB- without bias or some unwritten rule- they know its ultimately based on their ability alone. (Evans, Donald, Maitland, Rush, Roko, Sivi, Cowan for e.g)

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:18 am

How many French players are proud of their team at the moment?

by Cyril Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:25 am

I do wonder why people think they know where individual player's loyalties lie and how they feel ahout representing a nation. It's not like everyone is the same. People are complex and feel differently. I think it's a little insulting to assume that someone does couldn't have just as much pride as a so-called 'native'.

When players move to a country it may be for the money or because they're not good enough, but it can also be about other things. Settling into a new country where you may (or may not) have some ties, relocating your family and embracing a way of life shows commitment. They have also made a genuine decision as opposed to the happenchance of being born somewhere to parents from a certain background.

The number of immigrants who have come to Britain and are immensely proud of being a British citizen is heart-warming. It doesn't mean they've lost their original identity but have embraced another.

I think we're sometimes too quick to judge and assume everyone fits a certain mould.

by ScarletSpiderman Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:30 am

Cyril - the thing is how many players who qualify through residency stay in their adopted homeland after their playing careers are over? I can think of less that have stayed than have gone back 'home' (off the top of my head). That would say to me that the counrty they 'adopted' is not really that dear to them. Although I guess you can't tell who is going to stay or sod of back 'home' until their careers are over.

by **Biltong** Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:37 am

Cyril, I don't presume to think how they feel at all, I am questioning it.

The reality is money outweighs home grown loyalty, that is not an insult, but a reality.

by OzT Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:39 am

I think you can say that's a fact there Biltong, not that I agree with it, mais cest la vie!

by Cyril Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:42 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Cyril - the thing is how many players who qualify through residency stay in their adopted homeland after their playing careers are over? I can think of less that have stayed than have gone back 'home' (off the top of my head). That would say to me that the counrty they 'adopted' is not really that dear to them. Although I guess you can't tell who is going to stay or sod of back 'home' until their careers are over.

Fourie wanted to but that didn't quite work out Wink

It's a fair point and there's always going to be some that treat it as a meal ticket and a way to get 'cheap' caps but the majority add a lot to their clubs and 'adopted' nations. I've no problem with them going back 'home' in retirement as long as they've tried their best. An example of this is someone like Botha for England. He's not everyone's idea of a great prop, but he worked his way up the English system and represented England and worked like a trojan when we were a bit lacking in 2nd rows. He won't be remembered as a great but he showed guts and pride. You could tell how much it meant to him in interviews and on the pitch. From clearing asbestos to playing international rugby. He'll do for me.

by whocares Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:42 am

just a few words on Antonie Claaseen and how he feels about playing his rugby in France. he arrived in brive 6 years ago and stayed there till last season. on Brive last home game last season (when they also got relegated) he was the only man who shed a few tears. the guy is an example in terms of commitment on and off the pitch, speaks fluent french and for him making the french team has always been a goal and a true achievement, something that some of our "native" players take a bit too much for granted.
hopefully he will bring some discipline and commitment in this team but most importantly he can play at 6 and 8 and has been followed by french coaches since Lievremont times (who was himself a good backrow).

by the way Biltong, he will be the 6th south african to represent France...

if you stay long enough in any given country and truly embrace the life there, that counts as much as your heritage...

by Sponsored content