Should international players play in the country they represent?

by Hood83 Sat 02 Mar 2013, 12:09 pm

Something that has frustrated me for a while is the number of people, including international coaches, who insist on players playing in the country they represent. For England, Lancaster refused to pick players like Steffon Armitage as a result. Clearly, that's worked out fine, and I doubt many people would want SA to replace any of England's current team. But if players are able to get enough time off to train with the group, why is there such an obsession with this?

I know plenty of posters would agree with Lancaster's policy, and that of teams like the ABs, but why? Do you feel players need to be kept closer to the coaches so they can discuss their game more regularly, where they need to improve, what conditioning they want of them etc? Or is it something else? Is it the sense of players focusing on the money when they leave?

For my part, I think it's brilliant that more English players are playing over in France, and Haskell going to NZ. It seems to have given a number of them a new lease of life. When Haskell went to France I think he finally turned into a player capable of doing all the necessary jobs of a back-row player, despite everyone suggesting the French league focuses on power over fitness. He'll never be as a good as he should be, but he certainly improved imo.

Also, a number of players have taken sabbaticals or had gap years etc where they've gone and played in SH leagues for a while as young men. I'm pretty certain Launchbury, Easter and plenty of others have done this, and obvious Johnson did as well. No-one seems to bat an eyelid at this, and it's seen as a great way for them to learn a different style of the game. Why should that learning process stop in their early 20s? Isn't it a positive to see players soak up a new culture, different approach to the game and all that?

Would be good to hear people's thoughts.

by red_stag Sat 02 Mar 2013, 12:19 pm

Hood83,

I believe the mentality is to keep the domestic standards high.

Look at football in Brazil or Argentina for example. Even if they are a great nation their best players all play abroad which weakens the league.

Imagine if all the best All Blacks played in Japan and France. As you say it wont affect the national teams but it will affect rugby in that nation.

by Hood83 Sat 02 Mar 2013, 12:25 pm

red_stag wrote:Hood83,

I believe the mentality is to keep the domestic standards high.

Look at football in Brazil or Argentina for example. Even if they are a great nation their best players all play abroad which weakens the league.

Imagine if all the best All Blacks played in Japan and France. As you say it wont affect the national teams but it will affect rugby in that nation.

Ok, I can see that as a reason. But the AB S15 teams still look pretty damn strong to me! In England this year we've arguably had more young players coming through as a result of players leaving for France (could be wrong on that but it certainly seems that way) and the league looks stronger for it. Maybe it would weaken if a lot more left though, I can see that.

So it seems like it's more of a club thing then than an international issue, is that the point do you think?

by nathan Sat 02 Mar 2013, 12:38 pm

access to the players is a pretty big problem for those playing abroad.

by red_stag Sat 02 Mar 2013, 12:38 pm

Hood83 wrote:
red_stag wrote:Hood83,

I believe the mentality is to keep the domestic standards high.

Look at football in Brazil or Argentina for example. Even if they are a great nation their best players all play abroad which weakens the league.

Imagine if all the best All Blacks played in Japan and France. As you say it wont affect the national teams but it will affect rugby in that nation.

Ok, I can see that as a reason. But the AB S15 teams still look pretty damn strong to me! In England this year we've arguably had more young players coming through as a result of players leaving for France (could be wrong on that but it certainly seems that way) and the league looks stronger for it. Maybe it would weaken if a lot more left though, I can see that.

So it seems like it's more of a club thing then than an international issue, is that the point do you think?

Definitely. Yes the All Black S15 team is strong. Thats becuase if you leave NZ you cannot be an All Black. Thats a massive motivational tool.

You need to have big name players plying their trade domestically. Having your best guys abroad wont help.

If your best players are turning out every week for the clubs, then you'll get good crowds, you'll get more cash in the sport, you'll get kids who want to take up the sport, you'll get a powerful rugby culture where youngsters are learning from experienced internationals.

by lostinwales Sat 02 Mar 2013, 4:52 pm

To be fair though NZ is a long way from anywhere else. The rules are a little different.

Access to players is key, but for home nation players playing across Europe the distances are not great. Even as far as SA at least the clocks are roughly the same

by **LondonTiger** Sat 02 Mar 2013, 9:17 pm

nathan wrote:access to the players is a pretty big problem for those playing abroad.

This is key. The art of being an international coach is forging a team from disparate individuals. The agreement that RFU have with PRL gives extended access to England players for training camps during the season. It allows Lancaster to withdraw players from club matches if he so wishes to give them a rest, or if they have a niggle that the club are willing to risk. Lancaster has never said that he will not select a player from outside England, just that it is a lot easier to select players you see in training regularly.

by Hood83 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 12:16 pm

red_stag wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
red_stag wrote:Hood83,

I believe the mentality is to keep the domestic standards high.

Look at football in Brazil or Argentina for example. Even if they are a great nation their best players all play abroad which weakens the league.

Imagine if all the best All Blacks played in Japan and France. As you say it wont affect the national teams but it will affect rugby in that nation.

Ok, I can see that as a reason. But the AB S15 teams still look pretty damn strong to me! In England this year we've arguably had more young players coming through as a result of players leaving for France (could be wrong on that but it certainly seems that way) and the league looks stronger for it. Maybe it would weaken if a lot more left though, I can see that.

So it seems like it's more of a club thing then than an international issue, is that the point do you think?

Definitely. Yes the All Black S15 team is strong. Thats becuase if you leave NZ you cannot be an All Black. Thats a massive motivational tool.

You need to have big name players plying their trade domestically. Having your best guys abroad wont help.

If your best players are turning out every week for the clubs, then you'll get good crowds, you'll get more cash in the sport, you'll get kids who want to take up the sport, you'll get a powerful rugby culture where youngsters are learning from experienced internationals.

Ha, yeah i suppose I walked into that argument. I suppose what i meant was I think they're strong in spite of that rule, as tonnes of current ABs ship out and they still keep churning players out. But maybe you're right, Carter and McCaw have been their two most influential players and they've both stayed.

Personally I think we want as many English players playing in top flight teams across the world as possible. Obviously providing they can get themselves released for international training camps.

by Hood83 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 12:17 pm

Hood83 wrote:
red_stag wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
red_stag wrote:Hood83,

I believe the mentality is to keep the domestic standards high.

Look at football in Brazil or Argentina for example. Even if they are a great nation their best players all play abroad which weakens the league.

Imagine if all the best All Blacks played in Japan and France. As you say it wont affect the national teams but it will affect rugby in that nation.

Ok, I can see that as a reason. But the AB S15 teams still look pretty damn strong to me! In England this year we've arguably had more young players coming through as a result of players leaving for France (could be wrong on that but it certainly seems that way) and the league looks stronger for it. Maybe it would weaken if a lot more left though, I can see that.

So it seems like it's more of a club thing then than an international issue, is that the point do you think?

Definitely. Yes the All Black S15 team is strong. Thats becuase if you leave NZ you cannot be an All Black. Thats a massive motivational tool.

You need to have big name players plying their trade domestically. Having your best guys abroad wont help.

If your best players are turning out every week for the clubs, then you'll get good crowds, you'll get more cash in the sport, you'll get kids who want to take up the sport, you'll get a powerful rugby culture where youngsters are learning from experienced internationals.

Ha, yeah i suppose I walked into that argument. I suppose what i meant was I think they're strong in spite of that rule, as tonnes of current ABs ship out and they still keep churning players out. But maybe you're right, Carter and McCaw have been their two most influential players and they've both stayed.

Personally I think we want as many English players playing in top flight teams across the world as possible. Obviously providing they can get themselves released for international training camps.

Sorry, i bodged that post a bit! Meant to say...

Ha, yeah i suppose I walked into that argument. I suppose what i meant was I think they're strong in spite of that rule, as tonnes of current ABs ship out and they still keep churning players out. But maybe you're right, Carter and McCaw have been their two most influential players and they've both stayed.

Personally I think we want as many English players playing in top flight teams across the world as possible. Obviously providing they can get themselves released for international training camps.

by RuggerBoy Sun 03 Mar 2013, 12:53 pm

In an ideal world I feel the answer to your question should be yes. The domestic game as well as the international side of any country would both benefit from easy access to the pool of players - the All Blacks being a case in point.

Unfortunately it is not an ideal world and countries, such as Wales, are finding it increasingly difficult to retain top flight players because the structure of the domestic game cannot afford the salaries those players can command elsewhere. New Zealand get around this by tying their players to central contracts. Wales on the other hand refuse to, or cannot afford to, go down this route - not even on the idea of shared contracts between Union and Regions as was suggested for both Jamie Roberts and Dan Lydiate. So, in my opinion the question is moot.

Unions will continue to beat the drum about how they will only select players from their domestic leagues but that will not stop the players from moving to where the big bucks are. After all it is their profession, so can you really blame them?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 03 Mar 2013, 1:19 pm

True Ruggerboy, Wales is perhaps not the best example though as at least most of the foriegn based players are within easy travelling distance of home and operate on the same season schedule.

Its more the Pislands and places like Argentina where its damaging, but completely unavoidable to have players based all over the world.

What we have seen develop from the Aussies and Kiwis is a much busier test schedule, so that the international team is playing together far more often like a travelling circus. Combines with super rugby this makes it far more viable to keep top players playing together and based in their home countries...despite the domestic scene barely generating any money.

Its remains finacially attractive to be an All Black because of all the additional personal sponsorship that can be attracted through that, and because the pay is reasonably good due to the large number of money spinning tests played.
The same is true in the Jeff, EPS players are given a big slice of the England cash through playing bonuses, win bonuses and fees for turning up to stuff wearing Nike shirts etc. This is one of the reasons why players like Haskell and now Armitage (S) have looked to move back, their main motivation in going to France was higher wages ...lets not kid ourselves. But now they find themselves unable to get into the England squad (due to restrictions on club release) that financial motivation is less relevant.

Smaller Unions though cant use that cash power. Theres very few who can generate enough from tests to compensate players for lower club wages. The IRB release window is very important here, but even that still leaves an uneven playing field in some cases (eg foreign based Scots players returning to their clubs this weekend).
Scotland would be better off if they had 4 pro teams and all their top players at home (lets gloss over a certain recent recruit), and were able to dictate when they were and werent available. However, they are already on welfare funding what they already have so cant really whinge too much.

Central contracts or Union control of players are a bonus for a national side. They are not realistic for everyone though.

by red_stag Sun 03 Mar 2013, 1:43 pm

We are lucky in Ireland that our governments tax system makes it very attractive for professional sportsmen. If your Jonny Sexton and will command big big bucks abroad it wont matter but it is a factor in keeping most of them at home.

by **Biltong** Sun 03 Mar 2013, 1:53 pm

Consider a situation where SARU actually has enough money to retain all the professional players playing all over Europe, Japan etc.

That would mean SA will have an additional couple of hundred players who stays.

Lets argue that 100 of those players are better than current players in the Currie Cup teams (and some even better than their Super rugby counterparts)

Devide those 100 players into the remaining 9 Currie Cupt trams who currently don't have any way to financially retain those players.

Our domestic rugby will then provide us with 14 provincial teams that are at least able to play (compete) Currie Cup Premier division.

That more than doubles our teams in the Premier division and makes our rugby a hell of a lot stronger than what it is now.

This in turn will provide more options for a national coach who can now select from his best 14 players per position rather than his best 6

The second scenario is the fact that all players are then playing in the South African environment and culture of rugby, which simply means that these players are on the same page, and can be measured amongst those who they compete with for a position.

As much as overseas clubs say they benefit from these higher quality and experienced players, as much as that we are currently losing from the situation.

It is all fine and well that other nations benefit from those ecxperienced players, but to be hoenst, I don't care what other nations need to be better or stronger, I care about SA rugby, what it needs and how strong it can be.

by red_stag Sun 03 Mar 2013, 1:57 pm

Biltong - Im amazed at how little impact CJ Stander has made since joining us. He had a short injury but for many games is either on bench or just not in the squad.

He has started three league games and come off the bench a further three times.

I wonder has the move outside his comfort zone before he was established upset his development as a player.

by **Biltong** Sun 03 Mar 2013, 2:03 pm

It is very possible Stag, growing up in a mainly conservative Afrikaans community is very different.

Also he is still very young as well.

by robbo277 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 2:18 pm

You want to keep your best players in the prime of their careers in your domestic league, so that your young, upcoming players straight out of the academy are training and playing with quality players week in, week out. You don't mind so much if your older players go away to "collect a pension", players like Wilkinson or Sheridan. And these players you can shut the door on (unless they were to move back), and move forward - the All Blacks are very good at this.

The trouble is when you've got a player in their prime (like Armitage) who is playing away, playing well and possibly demanding inclusion. The trouble is if you pick him, you do set a precedent that you can move away and play you way into the England squad, which might open the doors to a lot of 23/24 year old players who get their head turned by the money and think they can get the best of both worlds. This is an undesirable scenario as you won't be retaining players in your league and the strength of the league will diminish.

The problem comes if a player like Cole, Robshaw or Tuilagi were to move abroad. A nailed-on first choice international player, would you bring in any Wilson, Haskell or Joseph? You would weaken your team but if one goes and gets picked then again that opens the door for the others to get picked. The ABs just let them go - their refusal to pick Nick Evans in RWC 2011 could have cost them the World Cup - whereas Wales continue to pick them - and have seen a related "player drain" away from the regions.

Luckily for England our clubs are quite rich and can play our players well, so our current Internationals are more likely to stay with their clubs.

The EPS agreement also gives the coaches a level of control that is hard to completely replicate with clubs not bound by the contract, so it is desirable that players play for EPS-bound clubs, and they all happen to be in England (due to the nature of the agreement).

There's no real issues with travel or time, but there are some issues that make it more practical and more desirable that we only pick England-based players.

by SecretFly Sun 03 Mar 2013, 2:28 pm

You can't blame a player for going abroad after career money...and I don't think anyone does. It gets a lot of feedback from people who seem to always think that the topic itself always somehow suggests that players are guilty.

They're not. If players want to go abroad to chase down a better income so that they have more security in a career that often has very sudden and unexpected end-dates, that's fine. The player has the freedom to go abroad.

BUT...and there is always a but, isn't there. That/those players then must be alive to the professional consequences. Their departures might, and often do, throw a spanner in the works of their International aspirations. Afterall, if players have the freedom to control their playing careers for best results financially, then the organisations have the same rights to coldly and clinically put down their cards on the table and stick to them.

A player playing abroad adds value to the club they play for - sometimes less value, sometimes more, depending on their true talents. But if they play regularly, they are adding value to the club they go to. This means they also threaten the value of clubs/regions/Provinces back in their homeland. They threaten the value of home clubs, threaten the advertising revenue that accrues from winning sides, threaten Championship positioning etc, etc.
And that's all fair in a professional environment. But business is then business all round - And in a business plan, you don't continue to shoot your financial plans for growth in the foot by giving plush International positions to a plethora of National players playing outside the Nation who week in and week out use their skills to assist their clubs attempts in pushing home club aspirations into the dirt. That's a bad business plan. Much better to give the bulk of International positions to players who also help home clubs develop and prosper - adding real value to the sport in that Nation as a whole. Better to kill two birds with one stone, as it were.

So yes, players have their freedoms - but moans about them being then 'wrongfully' overlooked for International duty don't impress me at all. I'd even suggest Sexton moving to France now justly pushes Madigan, Jackson and others into primary spots for International experience and valued cap collection. It's not about the ability of the individual player it's about how much of that ability in percentage terms he gives to the home nation.

Live in a professional world, profit from it and then don't cry too much when you look back and see the same emotionless and pragmatic approach used against you in your absence.

by Taylorman Mon 04 Mar 2013, 12:27 am

The rule is there in NZ because the NZ selectors believe that our competitions produce the best players. In terms of pure %'s its hard to argue with that.

Generally if a player plays overseas it will be because the signs are there that they will not be All Blacks in the near future. Few leave at a young age for the money alone. Carl Heyman and Jerome Kaino are the only player's I can think of that had his position anchored within the ABs but chose to play abroad. Nick Evans left purely because DC was preventing him from the regular 10 spot. Doug Howlett left after being dropped from the top side in the 07 French match- (although he shouldnt have been).

Because we have so many players coming through we dont miss the overseas players as much as say SA do, Kaino being the only player wed like to have back- though I would take Evans back for DC these days.

Picking a player from the HCup directly into the ABs wont happen soon as theres no way of being satisfied that the player is up to speed with the sxv equivalents until they run onto the field in a test, and thats just too big a risk to take..

by emack2 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 3:29 am

Put bluntly IF you choose to play abroad for cash and are not available for regular squad training/coaching.THEN you should not be miffed if you are not chosen for your country.
SA are the only one of the big 3 SH countries to allow Overseas based players
to continue to represent their Country.Something which has`nt really worked
out for the side.
It is simplistic to say that another 200 SA players are available to the Boks,most would`nt be good enough.IF they are technically they still can be Boks.
NZ `s policy is simple cash or country,those that leave are either promising who can`t get game time.Or established players looking for a pension,or players victim of the rotation system under GH.
An awful lot of NZ players with a couple of AB caps on there CV got a good earner in the NH.Many were and still are great servants for there adopted clubs.

by rainbow-warrior Mon 04 Mar 2013, 4:14 am

Personally I would like to see all money grabbing SH has beens out of Wales to make room for more Welsh players. I would also like to see a 5th region based in North Wales at Eiras Park, Colwyn Bay & Wrecsam. Also believe we should have less competitions in the NH and get some uniformity. Since professionalism seems as if it is just lining the pockets of the sponsors and owners.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 04 Mar 2013, 7:38 am

Maybe I read the above a little quick, but no one mentions things like loyalty, the desire to make sacrifices to qualfy for the National team etc etc .

one thing which has to enter into the equation is that no New Zealander in my opinion can go overseas and get better coaching than he can in New Zealand, and since the All Blacks coaches are the best in New Zealand, then how can a New Zealander expect to improve by going overseas.

We have our way of doing things and other countries can do what ever they think is best for them, and our system appears to work quite well for us, perhaps if other countries started copying New Zealand they may find it just doesnt work.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 04 Mar 2013, 8:49 am

rainbow-warrior wrote: Since professionalism seems as if it is just lining the pockets of the sponsors and owners.

I doubt any owber has lined their pockets from rugby. The money has gone to players (but not to the extent of lining pockets) and administrators. These jackals seem intent on selling the game short to ensure a bloated corpse for themselves.

by beshocked Mon 04 Mar 2013, 9:20 am

Agree completely with ruggerboy.

I think ideally yes they should play in the country they represent but it's getting to the state when this simply isn't possible for certain countries.

Glasgow would be stronger if they had the likes of Gray,Brown and Beattie back for example. This would help Scottish rugby as a whole if they were back playing in the same team.

Can Ireland for example afford not to pick Sexton when he moves to Racing Metro?

France and England have a far bigger playing pool to work with.

At openside flanker England have Robshaw as first choice,Ksevic and Fraser as future prospects - S.Armitage will have to play in England if he wants to re-establish his England prospects.

by red_stag Mon 04 Mar 2013, 9:23 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
one thing which has to enter into the equation is that no New Zealander in my opinion can go overseas and get better coaching than he can in New Zealand, and since the All Blacks coaches are the best in New Zealand, then how can a New Zealander expect to improve by going overseas.

Munster - Rob Penney
Leinster - Joe Schmidt
Connacht - Pat Lam
Ulster - Mark Anscombe

We'll get there soon enough with our Kiwi/Samoan coaches.

by Alex_Germany Mon 04 Mar 2013, 9:45 am

I think players going abroad is a good way to expand the pool of talent.

Ireland for example has 4 top teams. So they only have 4 fly-halfs who get regular 1st team practice. Take the extreme case - should all Samoans play in Samoa?

I know in football the poor state of the England team is often blamed on the number of foreigners filling the premiership teams. But there the issue is more that Englidh footballers in general (Beckham excepted) can't be arsed to go play on the Continent - it might mean learning a foreign language.

There are of course logisitcal issues. It would have been a bit tricky for Haskell to pop back from NZ last year for some matches. But this doesn't apply to players in France. There it's more of a contractual issue. Since France needs a new International - Club agreement, perhaps there should be some European guidelines around player release.

Final point - if the RFU categorically states that players must play in England that would be illegal under EU law (free movement of labour) and possibly under UK law (restriction of trade).

by SecretFly Mon 04 Mar 2013, 10:33 am

Alex_Germany wrote:

Final point - if the RFU categorically states that players must play in England that would be illegal under EU law (free movement of labour) and possibly under UK law (restriction of trade).

England isn't a prison. Players are free to choose - choose to stay, choose to move. They don't want their personal freedoms curtailed by a Sporting organisation? Good. Fine. Nobody is expressing an issue with freedom of choice for players.

But as always in this increasingly 'rights' infested world, individuals always see their own 'rights' but don't mind verily stepping all over the rights of others to get them. Clubs and Unions have the right to implement policies that seek to give an advantage in sporting terms to them. That is their right and no EU law on the movement of labour can demand that a club or Union shoots itself in the foot in sporting terms (something a court of judges doesn't rightly know a whole lot about) by forcing them to select players who are playing outside the Nation and who are 'demanding' to be let play International.

You don't demand to play for your country - you're picked, you are chosen. Unions will continue to choose players based on their judgements of what is best for the International side in particular and in the interests of the sport itself in general.

by red_stag Mon 04 Mar 2013, 10:36 am

EU law wont stand in the way of that.

National teams are discretionary selections of professional rugby players.

Nobody has a contractual right to be picking for national team.

Players have the freedom to move abroad to seek better jobs - there is no breach of law.

by RuggerBoy Mon 04 Mar 2013, 11:19 am

To both SecretFly and red_stag, in their replies to Alex_Germany
clap

The 'rights' that people constantly harp on about as being 'inalienable', as the American constitution says, are no such thing. They are a social construct made by man to control mankind. The only 'right' we have is to be born into this world with the duty to survive as best we can.

I think you touched a nerve with me there Fly, your use of the word 'infested' brought it home to me just how much I find the 'rights' issue to be insidiously destructive.

Oops, sorry everyone, I forgot for a moment this is a rugby forum! Shocked

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 04 Mar 2013, 11:51 am

RuggerBoy wrote:

The 'rights' that people constantly harp on about as being 'inalienable', as the American constitution says,are no such thing. They are a social construct made by man to control mankind.

Surely the Bill of Rights not the Constitution? Which is document limiting the powers that Government has, making statements as to what it outside its jurisdiction. Its based on the notion that we are all free, actions of government take away individual liberties not create them.....although as many Libertarians pointed out at the time having a Bill of Rights makes it appear that the government is granting these Liberties and that individual freedom is expressed through the document rather than something we are born with. As they feared over time its been twisted and the meaning manipulated as an excuse for government to exceed its intended powers whilst covering itself in the rhetoric of a revolution that would be utterly opposed to its current form and powers.

The IRB regulations and Premiership rules do to some extent dictate what clubs and individuals can and cannot do in terms of freedom of movement. The EPS system and similar agreements elsewhere do control players trade. Is that unreasonable? Surely an employer should be able to negotiate terms with its workforce and reach equitable settlement? Where players feel not enough is being offered to stay home, they will move. Where Unions feel players are not giving the required commitment they will not select them.

Theres no great evil here.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 12:15 pm

If contracts states that club must realise player for all designated time and is willing to do extra travelling to play for the national team and puts in the same effort there is no reason why they can't.

In terms of draining talent pools in smaller countries... its swings and roundabouts really.

Say Richie Gray leaving Scotland has caused a lowering in strength for his former provincial side. Probably a given... but he is also giving a chance to another player and the squad will be able to afford more players.

Say Richie Gray was on a standard salary of 60K GBP in Scotland and left to treble his salary abroad. Theoretically him leaving frees up 60K in wages which could go towards say 3 new youngsters with salaries of 20K a piece and increases the numbers of players in Scotland getting HC and Rabo exposure.

If the number of test Scots moving abroad was say 20 individuals, we would have 20 test individuals + say 60 domestic players getting first grade rugby exposure.

Yes the relative strength drops a little but see how Ireland is currently suffering at Prop and Flyhalf at the moment. Sexton out and there is 1 has-been and 1 newbie to choose from... with disasterous results. Prop is the same and they have 2 more pro clubs then we do to choose from.

by RuggerBoy Mon 04 Mar 2013, 12:27 pm

Not wishing to be pedantic PSW, but the Bill of Rights are the amendments to the Constitution. They are essentially one and the same thing. The Government of the USA, or any other country for that matter is purely incidental - another manmade construct if you will and as you rightly say notional, in the same sense that it is simply a notion that we are free.

Apart from that totally agree with your second paragraph regarding the game of rugby and I notice that at no point did the notion of 'rights' get a mention, so I also agree with your conclusion.

There's no great evil here.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 04 Mar 2013, 12:37 pm

fa0019 wrote:

Say Richie Gray was on a standard salary of 60K GBP in Scotland and left to treble his salary abroad. Theoretically him leaving frees up 60K in wages which could go towards say 3 new youngsters with salaries of 20K a piece and increases the numbers of players in Scotland getting HC and Rabo exposure.

Sort of but they cant play all 3 at once, and with worse players they will progress less and have less games in the Pro12 playoffs and Euro knockouts.

It does increase the total number of SQ players getting gametime though. Scotland must have clubs worth of exiles in england and france, saves them having to finance another one at home.

The situation is different for different Unions. Scotland simply cannot sustain enough pro club spots (and high wages) to demand their top player stay at home and provide sufficient squad depth for the national side. They have gone the other way and actively sought to recruit non Scotland born players who are or will become qualified, offer support for their club contracts and central training facilities, in return for a commitment to the Scottish national team.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 12:40 pm

PSW

Depends if the clubs squad size is being dictated by salaries or not. If so the squad size may be on the smaller size and freeing up capital spent on 1 individual may enable them to have a bigger squad, one they would have liked to have had, but before could afford to do so.

As I said, there are pro's and con's to the situation. Its not all bad.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Mar 2013, 12:50 pm

fa0019 wrote:

Yes the relative strength drops a little but see how Ireland is currently suffering at Prop and Flyhalf at the moment. Sexton out and there is 1 has-been and 1 newbie to choose from... with disasterous results. Prop is the same and they have 2 more pro clubs then we do to choose from.

Disastrous only if you see it as an advantage that Ireland could ship in an exile from the AP or Top 14 to fill the vaccuum.... I don't see smallness as a disaster, I see it as what it is - fact.
We can't help that we're small - pretending we're not by taking 'ownership' of outside clubs, where most Irish players would earn a career in the alternative world we're debating now, is not going to be good for Irish rugby.

It might get us another Triple crown in any given year but it's not going to give us Munster's record in Europe or Leinster's record. And that is Irish Provinces, filled mostly with Irish players, learning their trade in a high ranking international club event and making the experience learned tell on the results sheet. That's pride for Irish fans, pride for Irish players, money for homebase towns and cities, money going into Irish rugby, money getting used to help academies and buy in good coaching.etc. etc. Cyclical development.

There is not one argument I'd buy that would make the case for me, as an Irish person, lauding the winning of a 6Nations championship using a bulk of exiled talent, whilst at the same time having to cheer an outside club force in club competition as being 'partially my own' given the number of Irish internationals on it! No, that's not good for rugby development in Ireland... that's just back to the dark old days.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 1:06 pm

Do you think its good for Ireland's development that they only have 3 open positions available for would-be flyhalfs at home? For a country of Ireland's talent base I'd be surprised if this is all they all they could produce (given their relative strength in depth elsewhere ). If 1 or 2 goes down injured/has rapid loss of form then what happens?

I myself think there is pro's and con's for plying trade outside of a country. It doesn't hurt other sports and as long as strength can be replaced with strength then its no bad thing.
Perhaps some are not a fan of imported talent into the club game but in many instances I believe they can help take your own players to a new level.

Would Ulster/Leinster have achieved what they had without their headline foreigners? Doubtful.
Added to that, I would imagine the youngsters training amongst guys like Pienaar every day will benefit no end.

True that they prevent a local player from representing but it all has to be looked collectively for its net benefit to both the club and the country in question.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Mar 2013, 1:15 pm

I believe you struggle through your trials fa0019. And Ireland, again because of its very size in playing numbers, will struggle in certain departments from time to time. That's just reality hitting the fan. England have struggled for the best part of a complete decade and have no excuses about playing numbers. So reality happens for everyone but especially small European ones!

Struggle through the downtimes, reap the rewards of the up times they sometimes force. But cheering Leicester or Toulon because it has a handful of Irish International players... nope, not for me and not in the best interests of Irish rugby.

We already do that for football... a sport I'm not exactly a fan of but another one I fully believe would gain from a clear decision to begin choosing League of Ireland players rather than the exiles. The exiles ain't really all that much better, just bigger paychecks.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 04 Mar 2013, 1:15 pm

As we speak rumour is spreading that the Kiwi Gopperth has signed for Leinster

by SecretFly Mon 04 Mar 2013, 1:31 pm

There are a few Kiwi rumours going on around Leinster at the moment, Peter....but then, there always is..!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 04 Mar 2013, 1:38 pm

True but this one is already euro based and a free agent so its slightly more realistic than SBW. And (sort of) on topic with regard to this conversation.

by twoeightnine Mon 04 Mar 2013, 3:52 pm

One point that has possibly been missed here is that if you are playing in your home country its is much easier for the coach to come to games and training sessions and watch you play, not just see the odd match on TV. It also allows the physios to get hands on with the players more easily and watch your fitness. Again they get their own info not just what they are told.

Obviously England RFU have more financial muscle and we have a big player base which allows us to be a bit more ballsey but look at the situation in this 6N where the Italian players are playing for their clubs in the off weeks and leading up to the championship where they only had a week together. I would think that just having the players full time in blocks would be more beneficial than having a few players coming and going and not having control over them.

I fear a little for Welsh rugby as losing your best players is not only about the above but also about the club scene and making young players want to play. If their clubs get weaker then attracting spectators and new players becomes harder and eventually the flow of good players coming through will dry up.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Mar 2013, 4:00 pm

I like the NZ attitude that says you either play for us or the money.

I wish Meyer will adopt that attitude, at least Jaques Fourie was honorable enough to say he is not avaiable for the Boks whilst in Jaoan.

It goes to commitment, you are either commited to representing your country or not.

It should be a simple answer.

by SecretFly Mon 04 Mar 2013, 4:05 pm

The freedom to choose... added to the willingness to lose (International place). Correct Biltong. Your personal decision as a player infers your choice about International place.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Mar 2013, 4:07 pm

Agreed, it shouldn't be complicated. We can't decide for them where they want to play, but rather reward the guy who commits to the domestic scene, at the end of the day there are many reasons why he should be selected for the national team.

by emack2 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 4:43 pm

Hi,biltong it really should be as simple as that money or a test place.How many
players in Japan or NH would there be if it meant a Bok place.
As a general rule NH based Bok players have not been totally successful for them and it has taken time to readjust.
That applied to Nz and Aus players too,do Kaino,SBW and Kahui think they will
walk back into an AllBlacks side RWC2015.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Mar 2013, 4:49 pm

Hi Alan, the only one that has been successful was Louw last year, can't think of anyone else.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 04 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm

emack2 wrote:Hi,biltong it really should be as simple as that money or a test place.How many
players in Japan or NH would there be if it meant a Bok place.
As a general rule NH based Bok players have not been totally successful for them and it has taken time to readjust.
That applied to Nz and Aus players too,do Kaino,SBW and Kahui think they will
walk back into an AllBlacks side RWC2015.

Alan, there's an interesting opinion piece here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10868856 on Kaino's chances - he's playing 8kg lighter in Japan which makes for a lot of bulking up if he does come back.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 5:25 pm

Percy Montegomery?

Wasn't picked when he was playing in Europe but it re-invented his game according to his own testimony and the boks would not have won the RWC in 07 had he not played/gone through the same transformation.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Mar 2013, 5:58 pm

Fa, percy came back home fulltime, Louw is still in the UK.

by emack2 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 6:12 pm

The only thing that Percy Montgomery improved in the NH was his goal kicking according to several Bok sources.Can`t give you chapter and verse on that read it in 2008.
I saw his last game for the Boks when he lead them out with his son at Newlands.Two of the best goalkicks in the game managed 2 between them
it was one of those games [AB`s won 19-0]
With respect the sides the Boks faced in the 2007 RWC on any known form in 2007.SA would have beaten anyway that was one weird RWC well done the Boks for winnig it though.
You have to beat all those in front of you and the Boks certainly did that Whistle

by Hood83 Mon 04 Mar 2013, 8:23 pm

Alex_Germany wrote:I think players going abroad is a good way to expand the pool of talent.

Ireland for example has 4 top teams. So they only have 4 fly-halfs who get regular 1st team practice. Take the extreme case - should all Samoans play in Samoa?

I know in football the poor state of the England team is often blamed on the number of foreigners filling the premiership teams. But there the issue is more that Englidh footballers in general (Beckham excepted) can't be arsed to go play on the Continent - it might mean learning a foreign language.

There are of course logisitcal issues. It would have been a bit tricky for Haskell to pop back from NZ last year for some matches. But this doesn't apply to players in France. There it's more of a contractual issue. Since France needs a new International - Club agreement, perhaps there should be some European guidelines around player release.

Final point - if the RFU categorically states that players must play in England that would be illegal under EU law (free movement of labour) and possibly under UK law (restriction of trade).

My word, bet you had no idea this would weed out so many Tory boys and 'classical Liberals' eh! Anyway, enough of politics and each to their own etc etc.

I basically thought the same as your main point re expanding player pools, but it looks like there are a number of other themes.

Firstly, it sounds like a lot of people view it as a money or glory thing. You're either playing for your county or the money as Biltong put it. I can understand this, but doesn't it rule out other reasonable reasons to play abroad. Ok it'd be naive to not see money as the primary motive for many players, but plenty of British players must be tempted by the south of France when they're knee deep in winter mud. What about culture and lifestyle? And on a non-rugby point shouldn't we encourage players to be a bit less insular and to experience other cultures. Quite possibly I'm alone on this but I think it's positive for players' to do so and that shouldn't be lost to the national team through a rigid selection policy.

Secondly, this idea of players improving by playing abroad doesn't extend to all countries. Some Kiwi posters would argue that the best coaching is in NZ and so a player drain means nothing comes back. Hard to argue with that. I think Biltong and others have said a similar thing about Bok players coming back and playing worse. Again, seems a fair point, but I'm not 100% convinced on cause and effect. Plus plenty of Kiwi and Bok players have come across and looked pretty average before they left to go back home!

Thirdly, I think some of this has become wrapped up with the nationality issue. For example I can see it's an issue that may annoy fans if players move and then play internationally for another country. I didn't want to dwell on that point so please consider us talking about current capped internationals.

Fourthly, seems like it's not a one size fits all. For some countries letting people leave to increase the player base may be preferable, for others the most important thing is to have players playing together as a team. I have to say in this regard I'm surprised at how many Welsh, Irish and Scots fans would prefer the latter. Scotland for me, with two teams, look like an obvious beneficiary of talent exporting. They don't have to keep a 'strong league' just two strong teams. Gray is clearly a player who has gone backwards since leaving, but Beattie seems to have rediscovered some form and Brown has undoubtedly improved. Plus a decent crop of youngsters are coming through. It seems that most posters would prefer the strongest possible teams with deep squads instead. Fair enough. Ditto on Ireland, someone was talking about the pride associated with having Irish players coming through etc. - i don;t see how players going abroad stops that. But I can see it might temporarily jeopardise chances of winning silverware.

Personally, i'd still be very happy to see more English players have a year or two in France etc. especially props. Or at the least to extend these apprenticeship programmes where they go out young and play club rugby in SA and NZ.

by Sponsored content