Influx of foreign blood in the English jersey. Good or bad?

The summer is just beginning and the competition for places in the World Cup squads is heating up, just like the weather judging by looking out the window. I was thinking about the trend of foreign born players representing England, and is it necessarily acceptable for the amount of foreign born players to don the jersey?

In itself, I don't think it's a bad thing. You have to pick the strongest side and if the player is eligible then you'd have to say it's fair game. But then again, I have to say it sits very uncomfortably with me that we have to rely so much on players who haven't come through our system in such numbers. It doesn't really speak that highly for the work the RFU are doing in the community and professional game if, for example, Thomas Waldrom can come over and after six months be immediately considered for the No 8 slot after discovering his eligibility. Where is the competition from English players?

The same could be said for Riki Flutey, Mouritz Botha, Matt Stevens, Mark van Gisbergen, David Paice, Michael Lipman, Hendre Fourie amongst others. It's not that they aren't good enough, of course they are - but this seemingly reliant stance on talent from the old commonwealth does strike me as a little bit worrying (from an English point of view).

Any thoughts or ideas?

Doesn't matter. Neither good or bad. It's pretty representative of England as a whole isn't it?

I've said it plenty of times before and I'll say it again. As long as the RFU takes no part it bringing foreign players into England with the aim of getting them qualified and into the England team then I'm fine. There's a quota on foreign players (within employment laws) and there's bonus funding for those with a certain number of EQ players. If they ever gave funding based on players who 'may' qualify in the future I'd be down in London every free moment

I'm English and personally don't like the 3 year residency rule one bit, and think it needs to be at least doubled to 6 years. I guess it came in to help the developing rugby nations improve and become more competitive against the bigger teams but for me it's just too short, meaning certain players will play their club rugby in certain countries just so they can represent that country, usually because they are not good enough to represent their own country. I do also feel that once a player has represented a country at U19 level and upwards then they should be tied to that country for their career.

I do agree with the passport rule. I guess this is because I live in North America - if one day I have a son (and by some fluke he is good enough to play International rugby) then I would like him to play for England. Although I live in Canada I am English and by default my kids would be at least 50% English. I also think that the line should stop at parents though, a Grandparents nationality should not be considered. Again living in Western Canada just about everyone here has a British or Irish Grandparent, something to with us colonizing the world a few years back or something

England is a very multi cultural country, most young children there could probably represent 3-4 countries.
If you look at the Welsh team several of the players are born in England to Welsh parents who went there for university or to get work, before coming home to wales after having kids.

Charteris - Camborne
Jonathan Davies - Solihull
George North - Kings Lynn
etc, etc.

In my family and extended family we have Welsh, English, Italian, Pakistani, Jamaican etc, im sure this is pretty normal these days.

Define English.

Dictionary.com define it thus...

Eng·lish   
[ing-glish or, often, -lish]

–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of England or its inhabitants, institutions, etc.
2.
belonging or pertaining to, or spoken or written in, the English language.

–noun
3.
the people of England collectively, especially as distinguished from the Scots, Welsh, and Irish.
4.
the Germanic language of the British Isles, widespread and standard also in the U.S. and most of the British Commonwealth, historically termed old english (c450–c1150), Middle English (c1150–c1475), and Modern English (after c1475). Abbreviation: E


I see no mention of where somebody is born, or of parentage, or even grandparentage.

I find it interesting and got involved in a debate on another thread yesterday as to peoples opinions of where the line should be in relation to a players 'Englishness'.

Current IRB regulations into player eligibility are poor, as they seem to be muddled and dated, and miss the fact that most countries are multicultural places nowadays. It is a difficult area to address and one that people seldom agree on.

One area that people do agree on is I think that nobody wants to see 'foreign' mercenaries who were unable to make it into the national team of where they were born coming here just for the cash and perceived opportunity to play international rugby, but where do you draw line.

The debate I had yesterday centred around two players, Mouritz Botha and Brad Barritt. Here is the summary I posted of them both and their 'Englishness' or lack thereof...



Brad Barritt, born in Durban, played all of his junior rugby in South Africa, played for South Africa U21's in the 2006 U21 Rugby World Championship, then played for the Emerging Springboks in the 2007 IRB Nations Cup before coming to England because Francois Steyn took his place in the Sharks team qualifies for England on the basis that he for one reason or another holds a UK passport due to parentage.

Mouritz Botha, born in Vryheid, played all of his junior rugby in South Africa, did not represent South Africa at any level beofre coming to England in about 2005 and played amateur rugby for Bedford Athletic, before getting picked up by Bedford Blues and then Saracens, and qualifies through residency having been here for about 6 years.


The debate yesterday centred around the premise that Barritt is ok as he qualifies through parentage, but Botha isn't as he qualifies through residency. I don't hold with that argument as to me they are both South Africans, who for whatever reason are 'choosing' to be English.

So where should the line be drawn. Should the IRB tighten up the regulations and make it harder for players not born in a country to qualify to lay for them, or should they concede that we live in a multi-cultural society and open them up meaning each country can pick whoever it chooses?

Option 2 is dangerous as the richest countries could just turn their national side into a Toulon-esque set up and buy the best in and totally destroy the competitive nature of international rugby.

Put simply the regulations need tightening, but it needs to be done in a way that does not stop people who have no control over which country they are brought up in from playing for the country that they want to as an adult.

Sorry it's been waffly, and having just looked at the OP I fear I may not have quite answered the question which was is the foreign influx a good thing or not. So to address that point I saw simply this, at present no, as the waters around eligibility are muddied, and until they are cleared up, 'foreign' players choosing their country to lay for is having and will have a detrimental effect on the game in some countries.

I don't think that it is a paticularly good thing, however it seems that alot of the younger players do seem to be of foreign blood. The most obviopus example would be Manu Tuilangi, who has been living in this country for some time, and is one of the best prospects around for England in the future.

Pete, so the only two option are tighten the qualification criteria or abandon it completely. Surely there's a middle ground of keeping it the same?

The qualification criteria isn't muddled at all. You need to live in a country continuously for 3 years up until your first cap.

Who deserves to play for England more:

Ben Morgan - born and raised in England moved to Wales for uni and qualifies for Wales next year. Supposedly turned down the Saxons to keep is options open for Wales

Mouritz Botha - born a raised in South Africa before moving to England playing amateur rugby. After staying for 3 years he's now qualified.

One gained qualification due to where his parents lived when he was born/growing up. The gained qualification through choice. Is someone more 'English' due to an accident of birth or by decisions they made themselves.

Thunor, are you asking me this question?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Who deserves to play for England more:

Ben Morgan - born and raised in England moved to Wales for uni and qualifies for Wales next year. Supposedly turned down the Saxons to keep is options open for Wales

Mouritz Botha - born a raised in South Africa before moving to England playing amateur rugby. After staying for 3 years he's now qualified.

One gained qualification due to where his parents lived when he was born/growing up. The gained qualification through choice. Is someone more 'English' due to an accident of birth or by decisions they made themselves.

If so, I thought I had made my opinion clear, I do not see one being more English than the other and they should be treated the same if they both feel that they are English.

In relation to your question of leaving the qualifying criteria as is, I feel that it does not distinguish between foreign mercenaries and those who have a genuine desire to become 'English' or those who have had no control over the country they were born/raised in

No I wasn't asking you specifically Pete. Mainly continuing your point from earlier.

Any qualification rules will be either hard on people who genuinely immigrate to 'become English' and those who just want somewhere to play international rugby. Generally the middle ground is taken.

It's similar to the justice system. If we tighten it up to make sure as many guilty people as possible get put away there will be more innocent people caught up. If we minimise the innocent going to prison then we're going to let some guilty people get away with it. A rather tripe analogy perhaps but the best I can do.

The only way to be truly 'fair' would be to have each case looked at individually (back on rugby qualification) by an all-knowing and impartial person.

LDCPete wrote:Define English.

Oh god, you've left yourself so open there


Nationality is down to an individual person, some people have come from abroad to Wales and made huge contribution to us and the towns they have moved into. Dale "Chief" Mcintosh is a legend in Pontypridd, he's loved very much works very hard for charity and coaches rugby at all levels, the services he does for Pontypridd are brilliant. Hemi Taylor is another who came over here and played for Cardiff and Wales and now lives happily in St Mellons with his family. They will always be a New Zealanders in blood but Wales have taken them both to heart and are very proud of them.

Then you have people like Andy Marions, who came here from South Africa, he was born in Zimbabwe but didnt think they were good enough so tried out for South Africa, but was never selected. They he got stroppy and came to Wales for a big pay day and decided to play for Wales. As soon as he finushed plying he was on the first plane back and now is head of the South African Rugby Union and head of Sanzaar. Basically an oppertunist who goes where the money is and has no love or loyalty to the country he represented.

AlynDavies wrote:England is a very multi cultural country, most young children there could probably represent 3-4 countries.

This is a poignant fact about England, but the origins of the English players in the squad that were not born in England, do not reflect the make up of the settled immigrant populations in England.

The majorities of the immigrants in England are not Afrikaan or Boer South Africans, Kiwis or pacific islanders. They are a myriad of Chinese, Indian, West Indian, Pakistani and Bangledeshi.

AlynDavies wrote:
If you look at the Welsh team several of the players are born in England to Welsh parents who went there for university or to get work, before coming home to wales after having kids.

Charteris - Camborne
Jonathan Davies - Solihull
George North - Kings Lynn
etc, etc.

This has nothing to do with the opening post, many great England players grew up in Wales, even represented welsh school boy national sides, some, like Will Carling and Stuart Barnes even admit to supporting Wales over England when they were children.

maestegmafia wrote:This has nothing to do with the opening post, many great England players grew up in Wales, even represented welsh school boy national sides, some, like Will Carling and Stuart Barnes even admit to supporting Wales over England when they were children.

That point was the cement my argument that people moving countries and having duel nationality is a lot more common now than it was 10 years ago to potentially represent more than one country.
Though I accept your argument about Asians / Arabians being the ones who have moved into England not people from Oceania. I will say however that Pakistan and india so play international rugby and at some point having all these duel qualified people may be of great benefit to these countries!

maestegmafia wrote:
This has nothing to do with the opening post, many great England players grew up in Wales, even represented welsh school boy national sides,

How many ?

maestegmafia wrote:some, like Will Carling and Stuart Barnes even admit to supporting Wales over England when they were children.

Really ?

I reckon the majority of immigrants to England that play rugby are South African, New Zealanders, etc. Same way the majority of immigrant that play cricket are asian, west indian,etc.

Also, didn't Barnes live in England and just went to Monmouth Boys School just over the border? That's why he represented Welsh Schools not because he thought he was Welsh.

Thunor

"I reckon the majority of immigrants to England that play rugby are South African, New Zealanders, etc. Same way the majority of immigrant that play cricket are asian, west indian,etc."

Unless you are talking about the England cricket team, with it's over-representation of South African-born players. In the past we have had a number of West Indians (both by birth and ancestry), but relatively few sub-continental players (Nasser Hussein being the last successful one I can recall).

With regards to eligibility, I don't see how you can have too many objections to someone representing the country of at least one of their parents - they are by default entitled to a passport for that country and will inevitably feel some association. I don't think this eligibility should go back to grandparents, but that's the rule as currently written.

If someone legally moves to England (or NZ etc) as a child (under 18), they should be eligible to represent that country after a minimal residency (maybe 12 months).

Another category would be if someone moves for reason other than a professional sporting contract, they should be subject to the current 3 year residency rules. Not sure if this applies for Fourie, but it clearly does for Botha.

The two changes I would make to the eligibility rules are:
1 - Someone who moves to a country for a professional sports contract should only be able to represent that country after obtaining full permanent citizenship and a much longer period of residency (8 to 10 years).
2 - To tighten up the regulations on previous international representation, so that a former RL international cannot switch nations, and that a greater emphasis is placed on sub test level representation of national sides (NZ Maoris, age group sides etc).


I do have an issue with the main thread though:

"It doesn't really speak that highly for the work the RFU are doing in the community and professional game if, for example, Thomas Waldrom can come over and after six months be immediately considered for the No 8 slot after discovering his eligibility. Where is the competition from English players?

The same could be said for Riki Flutey, Mouritz Botha, Matt Stevens, Mark van Gisbergen, David Paice, Michael Lipman, Hendre Fourie amongst others."

Waldrom hasn't played for England, and there is no evidence to suggest that he's being looked at in preference to English-developed players (Crane, Narraay etc).

Flutey, Fourie (and Hape) - OK, I don't like that they are picked, but it is within the rules. Don't see what either offer that the likes of Allen or Jordan Turner-Hall don't.

Botha - An interesting one in that he has little rugby pedigree from South Africa and presumably came to the UK for reasons other than rugby (starting playing here for an amateur club). Has developed into a better and now high level professional player here, but has not been capped and there is little evidence that he will be any time soon.

Stevens (and Catt) - English parents, so no issues with elligibility. Currently probably about 4th choice in the squad.

Van Gisbergen / Paice - Have never been more than peripheral to the England squad

Lipman - Was perhaps 3rd choice 7 for a while, but was born in London so a bit difficult to exclude from consideration especially when playing well for an English side.

Personally I think its not entirely a bad thing if it encourages greater competition for places and thus a stronger international squad. All countries recruit in this (or similar) fashion e.g. the 'kilted kiwis' of a few years ago. Aus NZ have always had a flow of immigrants feeding into their national teams.

The only real danger is if you get too many filling places in club/intenational squads that would mean less opportunity for english home grown talent.

Being Irish I would love to see Nacewa play at full back for Ireland (although he doesnt qualify) but I wouldnt want to see my national team with 7 or 8 non irish players in it.....I suppose the key thing here is quality not quantity!

dubh_linn wrote:Being Irish I would love to see Nacewa play at full back for Ireland (although he doesnt qualify)

Why? He isn't Irish and makes no claims about being anything other than a Kiwi. It is a massive regret to him that he chose to play for Fiji despite being a New Zealander.

red_stag wrote:

dubh_linn wrote:Being Irish I would love to see Nacewa play at full back for Ireland (although he doesnt qualify)

Why? He isn't Irish and makes no claims about being anything other than a Kiwi. It is a massive regret to him that he chose to play for Fiji despite being a New Zealander.

Why? Because he is a talented player who would enhance the irish team and yes I know he's not Irish but it was a hypothetical wish so to speak and besides we as well as other nations have used players not strictly Irish to represent Ireland....remember the (blond & tanned) australian Brian Smith playing outhalf for Ireland circa 1990?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Smith_%28rugby%29

Australia and New Zealand dont do too badly from using players from immigrant origins

I don't get the argument that people make that we should do it because others do. I would love to see a situation where the qualification rules were greatly tightened.

red_stag wrote:I don't get the argument that people make that we should do it because others do. I would love to see a situation where the qualification rules were greatly tightened.

Ideally that would be good but I just wonder how effective tighter qualification rules would be, as an example I wonder for example if you had a talented tongan playing for the brumbies (or other aus S15 side) would he be fast tracked to the front of the queue for Australian citizenship and thus qualify to play for Australia?

There will always be loopholes and ways around it. Always. But this 3 year rule and allowing Grandparent qualification is not the way forward.

7 years residency, citizenship and parents qualification would be acceptable and still realistic.

I think a player should be tied in to a country if they play under-20s or any higher level for that country. Playing for lower age-groups will be based mainly on country of residence with no qualification period and no International tie-in.

I would then like to see any player looking to play for a national team (under-20s or above) to get citizenship in that country. For example, you may be able to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen if you are over 18 and have been living in the United Kingdom for the last five years (or three years if you are married to or a civil partner of a British citizen). I would also go for a 5-year residency period (so to play for England you would have to get UK Citizenship and 5-years residency in England).

So a 14 year old with no attachment to a country can come over to that country and play through the age-groups. When he's 19 he can then play for the Under-20s and eventually move up to the A-team/full International team.

A 24 year old with no attachment to a country can come over to that country but can't play for the A-team/full International team until he's 29.

I would potentially also bring into place the ruling they were talking about a couple of years ago (although I'm not sure whether it came in) for second-tier nations. If you are eligible for a tier 1 nation and a tier 2 nation but you get tied in to the tier 1 nation early (for example at Under-20s) and then never progress, you can declare you are switching allegiances back to your tier 2 country. You then have to wait a year, but then you are eligible for your tier 2 country and can play for them.

robbo277 wrote:

I would potentially also bring into place the ruling they were talking about a couple of years ago (although I'm not sure whether it came in) for second-tier nations. If you are eligible for a tier 1 nation and a tier 2 nation but you get tied in to the tier 1 nation early (for example at Under-20s) and then never progress, you can declare you are switching allegiances back to your tier 2 country. You then have to wait a year, but then you are eligible for your tier 2 country and can play for them.

NZ, Australia and England voted for that one but pretty much everyone else with votes at the IRB said nay. Funnily enough countries near the bottom of tier 1 weren't keen on strengthening the Pacific Island teams ...

The proposal was to allow players to switch after a 3-year stand-down IIRC

Ah okay, I remembered hearing it talked about, but wasn't sure how it went.

Myself I would do the following,qualification by birth,or parents .Residence limited to people immigrating at a young age say 10 and under and educated in residence country.Players with dual qualifications make a choice Schoolboys upwards.No period of residency qualifications,second tier sides with players qualified and having less than 5 caps with another country.That may stem the tide of people coming abroad to play for another country.More room for home developed Academy players,indeed the NH sides would be dependent on it. Stronger tier 2 sides especially P acific islands.No mythical Grand parents mysteriously discovered.No gap year Internationals etc.

A question regarding residencey, Tim Visser will qualify for residency for Scotland just before the 2012 6N, he has already signified his intentions to play for Scotland so lets just assume that's exactly what he will do.

He has a younger brother keen on playing international rugby. Do blood ties with a brother mean he could play for Scotland if he wanted to?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:A question regarding residencey, Tim Visser will qualify for residency for Scotland just before the 2012 6N, he has already signified his intentions to play for Scotland so lets just assume that's exactly what he will do.

He has a younger brother keen on playing international rugby. Do blood ties with a brother mean he could play for Scotland if he wanted to?

No - its a good question though.

The problem for me with the three year residency rule is that the richest countries will be able to "buy" the best players via their clubs. Even if they only buy the second best players from another country this still reduces depth in the players country of origin. If I use Strauss at Leinster as an example, in 6 months he will be able to play for Ireland. Why? Because three years ago Leinster outbid other clubs for his services. That's it. Had the Ospreys bid higher he would probably play for Wales. It is outrageous that rich countries are able to swing international competitions in their favour like this.

I had an article about this before and there was consensus amongst posters that eight years residency is much more reasonable. It also suggests that the player has been living in the country because he wants to live there and has some love of the place and not just because the price was right.

Intotouch wrote:The problem for me with the three year residency rule is that the richest countries will be able to "buy" the best players via their clubs. Even if they only buy the second best players from another country this still reduces depth in the players country of origin. If I use Strauss at Leinster as an example, in 6 months he will be able to play for Ireland. Why? Because three years ago Leinster outbid other clubs for his services. That's it. Had the Ospreys bid higher he would probably play for Wales. It is outrageous that rich countries are able to swing international competitions in their favour like this.

I had an article about this before and there was consensus amongst posters that eight years residency is much more reasonable. It also suggests that the player has been living in the country because he wants to live there and has some love of the place and not just because the price was right.

Sums it all up really for me.

Define English

I consider myself English but I could have also played for (If I was any good) Wales, Aus or France.

This argument has been done to death by this poster on the old 606, just deal with it young man most of us have other blood in are veins at the end of the day, your points are becoming rather boring unless of course you are driven by hatred of all foreigners which in this day and age is rather dull.

Why don’t you change the subject?

It doesn't really speak that highly for the work the RFU are doing in the community and professional game if, for example, Thomas Waldrom can come over and after six months be immediately considered for the No 8 slot after discovering his eligibility. Where is the competition from English players?

And yet he's not even first choice for his club side... Crane has been picked ahead of him when both are fit and Crane has been called up to the Saxons ahead of him. So the competition from England players is pretty strong even if you just look at his club....

Good point snoopster.

The RFU has no hand what-so-ever in bringing in foreign players to the clubs. If fact they provide extra funding if they have more EQ players in the match day squad. So the reason why foreign players may come to the UK is the large professional structure that can pay these players. So players move to a country for better economic prospects. In the long run they become qualified and decide to represent the country that gave them a job. I don't understand why some people think that if they moved for a rugby job it's any different than if they moved for a non-rugby job during the amateur era (which some have said and at least one person on this thread).

I don't like the Flutey example. His life ws going down the toilet in New Zealand and he probably would have ended up in prison if he stayed much longer. He moved country, started afresh and turned his life around. I have no problem whatsoever for someone like him representing my country.

Then we have Fourie, Mouritz, Hape and Vainikolo (who I think are the most recent residency qualified players to play for England). Hape and Vainikolo both moved over here for league and were here for a more than the residency period before playing for England (Hape had technical issues for him having to restart his period of residency). Fourie and Mouritz both moved into the lower English leagues (in Mouritz case it was amateur), again both were here much longer than the 3 years needed, and both it could be argued that the English system 'made' them into the players they are. I don't have a problem with any of these players representing England.

Funnily enough I don't like the idea of Waldrum playing for England due to a long lost granny. It is quite amusing that he's the one that's hit the headlines but he hasn't been picked in any england squad yet (has he?)

I think people have to put aside their intuitive uneasiness and appreciate what a minefield this topic really is. In any other profession we – as Englishmen – do not begrudge immigrants answering the call of the British free market and plying their trade. Hospitals demand a number of doctors that Britain cannot currently supply, and the situation is the same in lots of other fields: I have never worked in any English workplace where there weren’t ‘foreigners’……my current team contains two South Africans, an Indian, a Dutchman and a Canadian alongside a Scot and 5 ‘Englishmen’, and this is eminently normal and absolutely essential to modern British society. What is more, of these ‘Englishmen’, several can scrape the surface and find that their ‘Englishness’ is pretty tenuous……for example, one of them’s got Greek parents, another Welsh, and my old man’s Geordie, so fits a whole nationality of his own!

Outside of the intrinsically patriotic field of sport I don’t think you’d find too many people who think that this situation even represents a problem, but, then, in everyday life we don’t compete as a nation.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that nationalism is an essential elements in sport generally…..and to rugby especially, as the international game remains the pinnacle of our sport: even then the presence of so many ‘foreigners’ is a symptom of a problem and not a problem in and of itself.

Take the doctors analogy. It could be seen as a problem that we as a nation cannot produce enough doctors to satisfy our demand, as the reliance on foreign doctors could – I suppose – be seen as a risk. In this scenario you would be a mentalist to hold those foreign doctors or their employer responsible for the situation: the problem is clearly not at the front end, where blokes who are obviously eligible to do a job are asked to do a job by blokes whose sole responsibility is to make sure the job gets done! The problem is at source, where – whether down to socio-cultural or economic factors – ‘English’ talent isn’t being brought through.

In my opinion the residency ruling should be extended to at least six years and I may sound controversial here by saying that I don't think any residency qualified player should be up for Lions selection.

BATH_BTGOG what was said on the old 606 or any other rugby forum has nothing to do with this site.
This is a new site with new members and many may not have posted on the subject before.

the thing is i dont understand why anyone would want to play for any other side apart from their national side (as in where they were born) i remember at a gareth thomas training camp i asked if he couldnt play for wales would there be any other international side he would play for, his answer was a simple no, never

Let's look at some of the great players who have played or are still playing the game. They will be remembered for the team they played for and how they played, not where they were born so much.

Lote Tuquiri. Ex-league star, Fijian origins I believe. Had a fantastic career for Australia.

Jonah Lomu: Tongan, and very possibly had the biggest impact of any player ever. Played of course for NZ. Would he have had the same impact playing for Tonga? Doubtful.

Va'aiga Tuigamala: Samoan who chose the silver fern. An awesome All Black.

Lawrence Dallaglio: Italian. One of the world's best ever No8s and an English rugby legend. But could have been a "Parisse" for Italy.

Diego Dominguez. Argentinian but hailed as one of the greatest Italian players.

Patricio Noriega. Argentinian. But he helped shore up the Australian scrum quite successfully.

I say if they are eligible by the rules, they play!

Unlike Sinkinson and Howarth, whose only connection to Wales was that they'd been there!!

Except wasn't Lomu born in New Zealand?
Dallaglio was definitely born and raised in England.

Welshy824, just because a Welsh player who only lived abroad for a few of years says he wouldn't have played for anyone else doesn't mean that everyone feels that way.

Also I doubt there are many (if any) players who move abroad with the idea of becoming qualified for that country specifically. They move for the job and become qualified eventually and if picked will play for them.

No i am just saying i dont understand that even if i moved over to Aus now, and some how became succesful over there then i wouldnt want to play for Aus i would want to play for Wales, i can understand maybe if a child moved at such a young age such as George North which means they have been raised from a very young age in that country, i just dont understand how some people seem to have no allegience to their country

George North was born in Norfolk due to the fact his father was serving in the RAF at the time.

I was under the impression that George North had an English parent.

Btw where's Greyghost? He would have loved this thread.

tigerleghorn wrote:I was under the impression that George North had an English parent.

Btw where's Greyghost? He would have loved this thread.

Until proved otherwise yes we can assume that his father is English but his mother is definitely Welsh George is just like my sons who were all born outside Wales due to the fact I was in the military but they just like George are Welsh through and through because they lived here from a very young age.

once again this particular subject brings lots of differing views! slightly more civilised than the old 606 views mind,i think most of us have no problem with a person who has lived in a particular country most of his life to represent that country, the problem area is the qualification time, i think 5 years is fair,only my opinion! i do however worry that you could conceivably have 9 or10 players who have lived in another country most of their lives represent your country,I'm not sure how i would respond to that.

Adam wrote:I think people have to put aside their intuitive uneasiness and appreciate what a minefield this topic really is. In any other profession we – as Englishmen – do not begrudge immigrants answering the call of the British free market and plying their trade. Hospitals demand a number of doctors that Britain cannot currently supply, and the situation is the same in lots of other fields: I have never worked in any English workplace where there weren’t ‘foreigners’……my current team contains two South Africans, an Indian, a Dutchman and a Canadian alongside a Scot and 5 ‘Englishmen’, and this is eminently normal and absolutely essential to modern British society. What is more, of these ‘Englishmen’, several can scrape the surface and find that their ‘Englishness’ is pretty tenuous……for example, one of them’s got Greek parents, another Welsh, and my old man’s Geordie, so fits a whole nationality of his own!

Outside of the intrinsically patriotic field of sport I don’t think you’d find too many people who think that this situation even represents a problem, but, then, in everyday life we don’t compete as a nation.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that nationalism is an essential elements in sport generally…..and to rugby especially, as the international game remains the pinnacle of our sport: even then the presence of so many ‘foreigners’ is a symptom of a problem and not a problem in and of itself.

Take the doctors analogy. It could be seen as a problem that we as a nation cannot produce enough doctors to satisfy our demand, as the reliance on foreign doctors could – I suppose – be seen as a risk. In this scenario you would be a mentalist to hold those foreign doctors or their employer responsible for the situation: the problem is clearly not at the front end, where blokes who are obviously eligible to do a job are asked to do a job by blokes whose sole responsibility is to make sure the job gets done! The problem is at source, where – whether down to socio-cultural or economic factors – ‘English’ talent isn’t being brought through.

Could not have said it better myself, and believe me I've tried. Consider that whole post seconded.

Intotouch wrote:It is outrageous that rich countries are able to swing international competitions in their favour like this.

That's a by-product of the strong leagues. As this post is about 'foreign' blood in the English team, I'll speak from an English perspective. The RFU have no part in the clubs bringing in foreign players and actively encourage them to pick English-qualified players in their matchday squads. As for the clubs, citing Waldrom as an example, they don't want these players to play for England and therefore miss large chunks of the season. Richard Cockerill said Waldrom 'halved in value' when he made himself eligible for England. It's the players' choice. And that is why I would ask players to obtain citizenship in the country in which they are trying to play for. Waldrom's granny would make him eligible, but alone it wouldn't be enough to get him qualified for England (he would have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship).

Cymroglan wrote:

BATH_BTGOG what was said on the old 606 or any other rugby forum has nothing to do with this site.
This is a new site with new members and many may not have posted on the subject before.

Of course it does!

Most people here are here because they were on the BBC 606, this subject has been done to death by people who seem to find it hard to except that these are the rules like it or not and just use this as an excuse to express there bigotry views regarding foreigners.

I have known many a proud Welshman who are in fact English by birth but I would never begrudge them the right to follow or play (if they were good enough) for the country they have chosen to live/work in.

How about that Aussie chap who plays for Italy through his Grandfather who remounced his Italian citizenship to become Australian.
Thats pretty ridiculous.