Unshackled Joy? or Individuals Thrown Together For Mutual Profit?

"
In our country, true teams rarely exist, social barriers and personal ambitions have reduced athletes to dissolute cliques or individuals thrown together for mutual profit. Yet these rugby players. with their muddied, cracked bodies, are struggling to hold onto a sense of humanity that we in America have lost and are unlikely to regain. The game may only be to move a ball forward on a dirt field, but the task can be accomplished with an unshackled joy and its memories will be a permanent delight. The women and men who play on that rugby field are more alive than too many of us will ever be. The foolish emptiness we think we perceive in their existence is only our own.

Victor Cahn, 1973
"

Is this ideal that was seized upon and widely celebrated at the time as both a USP for the sport and also as a kind of elevation of the societal values intrinsic in rugby playing nations, has been kicked about a fair amount since the advent of professionalism, stabbed and poisoned by globalisation and arguably the lid nailed down firmly and the coffin lowered into wet concrete by the announcement of the shall we say, diverse England extended world cup training squad.

The slow and grinding devaluation of international rugby outside of the RWC, the apparent tradability of national identity of both the individual and the team in the search for commerical and sporting success, the dilution and slow decent into irrelevance of stalwart traditions such as the Lions and the Barbarians make the sentiments above sound hollow and naive.

Does anyone still care? Or are we collectively accepting the inevitable progression of rugby into the template set by the round ball and American game? where club competitions proliferate and international games outside of the world cup and period tournaments become "friendlies" or exhibition matches?

Dog with a bone.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Does anyone still care? Or are we collectively accepting the inevitable progression of rugby into the template set by the round ball and American game? where club competitions proliferate and international games outside of the world cup and period tournaments become "friendlies" or exhibition matches?

I certainly care, for one, and we should not accept as inevitable the demotion of Test matches just because they fall outside the World Cup.

Test rugby should be the pinnacle of the game

I think you make some great points there GG and with your usual insightfullness. There are lots of permutations here and from a societal perspective looking at the older intrisic values of rugby I remain somewhat dismayed at the devaluing of the international jersey and the somewhat "synthetic" creation of teams. Professionalism was inevitable and this has brought both pros and cons. Wales beating England in 1999 at Wembley was a perfect example for me, whilst there was joy at the victory - this for me was quickly overshadowed by the fact that it wasn't actually a welsh victory after all. No tongue in cheek here, that is what it felt like for me. I guess there's a generational thing here and I'm sure those post 70's and 80's fans may embrace the new professional era in a sort of "Thatcherite" manner where winning is what matters irrespective of how you attain it.

I do actually still care as rugby remains inextricably linked to the blood that flows through my veins - However, the fact that this post is likely to meet with ridicule may well answer your question in itself. As a smaller nation I also fear we may fall behind as other countrys continue to fill their boots with the mercenarys.

Good post. In my opinion the importance of test rugby is hugely reduced. There are friendlies in rugby. The idea that you always just look to win the next test is no longer there. Terms like 'blooding players' and 'building for future' are common place. There are plenty of fans who see the lions and barbarians as inconveniences that just increase risk of injury. Question is whether this is bad for rugby or just different.

"In our country, true teams rarely exist, social barriers and personal ambitions have reduced athletes to dissolute cliques or individuals thrown together for mutual profit."

In England we have a lot of immigrants, and that has brought forth xenophobia among some members of society - commonly put under the catch-all heading of "Daily Mail readers".

So isn't it good to see that in the England Rugby team we do have a true team free of social barriers, where such trivialities as place of birth or accent aren't issues?

That would be a World XV then Robbo as suggested by GG last week

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
I certainly care, for one, and we should not accept as inevitable the demotion of Test matches just because they fall outside the World Cup.

Test rugby should be the pinnacle of the game

Funny because didnt test rugby start as a sideshow of scratch sides cobbled together from members of whatever clubs/university sides got invited to the party?

Maybe it should just go full circle and we can go back to supporting something that has local meaning and connection rather than just an extrenaly impossed national identity that is increasingly meaningless in the modern world.

Just a thought.

robbo277 wrote:"So isn't it good to see that in the England Rugby team we do have a true team free of social barriers, where such trivialities as place of birth or accent aren't issues?

Hmmm.. I always thought that the judgement on the success of multiculturalism was proportional representation. This is often used as a validation for so-called "positive discrimination" in for the citing of an uncontroversial example (in this context at least) European law will mandate the board of publicly listed companies have a given percentage of female board members. I guess our cousins in South Africa might have views on quota systems from first hand experience. It strikes me that certain relatively small immigrant communities in "Equality Britain" are over-represented in the Equality England's world cup squad, for example. Perhaps a quota system based on South Africa's example might be in order, similar to the board rooms of Europe, just to make sure everything stays equal?

You're flogging a dead one GG - Ignorance remains bliss in the good ole' UK, or is that Britain?? I get confused

Put simply Money talks.Merit walks,The need to win means the end justifies the means.If that means buying the best available players to bolster your teams.Fine thats the way it goes.
Trophies mean everything,coaches and players need to win,traditional values
no longer count.Lions tour,Barbarians matches 4Ns/6Ns,S15s,Hc,Top14,ITM.Magners League.Aviva etc.
THEY ALL MATTER.playing understrength teams is not acceptable,I am passionate about my Rugby.I would as soon watch a ITM or Currie Cup match
as the blighted RWC.
Despite all the excuses there is no such mean as a friendy match or should`nt be.
Why is it that the NH sides don`t play RWC matches,by that I mean look at the record of NH sides in it.ALL have have inferior records to the so called arch choking All Blacks.
Yes I know England have won one and made 2 other finals,but matches won /lost are inferior to AB`s.
France have made the final twice,but not turned up there after beating the All Blacks.As for the rest?
So the were trying so and so to give him experience or building for a RWC match 4 years away just does`nt cut it.
Mostly between RWCs the Sh sides rule,and in them as well as far as Aus and SA are concerned.
You pack your leagues with overseas players especially in the top 14.then wonder why your sides don`t perform at test level.
Unless of course you can get some of those in your test sides,after all players like Hugo Porter and his successor Diego Dominguez wore Italian shirts not to mention the odd prop.

RubyGuby wrote:That would be a World XV then Robbo as suggested by GG last week

Not quite. They've all qualified for England through IRB regulations and they've all decided to pledge their Rugby Union careers to the England Rugby team. They are managed by the England Rugby Manager appointed by the (English) Rugby Football Union and play their home games in England. They represent the people of England, who themselves weren't all born in England, but all accept England as their home.

Not some World XV that just picks any player willy-nilly. I'm sure Richie McCaw and Dan Carter would play for a World XV, but they wouldn't play for England.

Simply there is too much international rugby played against the same opposition which devalues the event. Playing each other 3 times in the tri nations? ridiculous. England playing All blacks and SA seamingly every autumn? ridiculous. less is sometimes more.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

robbo277 wrote:"So isn't it good to see that in the England Rugby team we do have a true team free of social barriers, where such trivialities as place of birth or accent aren't issues?

Hmmm.. I always thought that the judgement on the success of multiculturalism was proportional representation. This is often used as a validation for so-called "positive discrimination" in for the citing of an uncontroversial example (in this context at least) European law will mandate the board of publicly listed companies have a given percentage of female board members. I guess our cousins in South Africa might have views on quota systems from first hand experience. It strikes me that certain relatively small immigrant communities in "Equality Britain" are over-represented in the Equality England's world cup squad, for example. Perhaps a quota system based on South Africa's example might be in order, similar to the board rooms of Europe, just to make sure everything stays equal?

The point is there is no discrimination in the England team. So called "positive" discrimination or otherwise. If you qualify you will be judged on merit, on your rugby playing ability. Not on your passport. Not on your accent. Not on where your grandmother comes from. If you qualify, rugby ability is all that matters.

Is this a dead horse? I think its a good point. Is the international game greatly changing.

Robbo - if that principle works for you then that's fine - I'm sure it works for many - it just doesn't work for me and the day Wales win with 6 or 7 foreign players will be a sad day for me. It's just a diferent view that's all.

I have no problem with England playing players who qualify, and I think it would be morally wrong if we turned players away because they didn't measure up to our standard of Englishness.

However I accept that residency rules need reviewing.

Don't we all just love the sport and hope that the players and orgazing bodies can provide us with as much entertainment as possible?

I can't get enough of it and am grateful that there is a JWC and summer tests to feed my craving.

As a player only towards the twilight of my career did I ever look forward to the end of the season, as a kid I would have played all year round.

God it was nice to be so indestructible back then.

Grey Ghost
What do you suggest. should players only be allowed to play in a country they are born in?

TheGreyGhost wrote:

robbo277 wrote:"So isn't it good to see that in the England Rugby team we do have a true team free of social barriers, where such trivialities as place of birth or accent aren't issues?

Hmmm.. I always thought that the judgement on the success of multiculturalism was proportional representation. This is often used as a validation for so-called "positive discrimination" in for the citing of an uncontroversial example (in this context at least) European law will mandate the board of publicly listed companies have a given percentage of female board members. I guess our cousins in South Africa might have views on quota systems from first hand experience. It strikes me that certain relatively small immigrant communities in "Equality Britain" are over-represented in the Equality England's world cup squad, for example. Perhaps a quota system based on South Africa's example might be in order, similar to the board rooms of Europe, just to make sure everything stays equal?

On the issue of proportional representation, there are a number of ethnic minorities that aren't represented in the national squad (true of most sports and countries). Though given the size of the squad and the size of the ethnic groups, the only way you could hope to be meaningfully demographically accurate would be to employ the rather broad categorisation of Asian (6%, 2 players), White non-British (5%, 2 players) & Black (3%, 1 player).

If you've played local club rugby in England however, particularly in the SE, you can't deny that the English team is representative of their member base, which often contain more than a few players from SANZAR nations. Whatever your position on the rights and wrongs of eligibility, in England's case it is surely reflective of the grass roots situation.

johnpartle wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:

robbo277 wrote:"So isn't it good to see that in the England Rugby team we do have a true team free of social barriers, where such trivialities as place of birth or accent aren't issues?

Hmmm.. I always thought that the judgement on the success of multiculturalism was proportional representation. This is often used as a validation for so-called "positive discrimination" in for the citing of an uncontroversial example (in this context at least) European law will mandate the board of publicly listed companies have a given percentage of female board members. I guess our cousins in South Africa might have views on quota systems from first hand experience. It strikes me that certain relatively small immigrant communities in "Equality Britain" are over-represented in the Equality England's world cup squad, for example. Perhaps a quota system based on South Africa's example might be in order, similar to the board rooms of Europe, just to make sure everything stays equal?

On the issue of proportional representation, there are a number of ethnic minorities that aren't represented in the national squad (true of most sports and countries). Though given the size of the squad and the size of the ethnic groups, the only way you could hope to be meaningfully demographically accurate would be to employ the rather broad categorisation of Asian (6%, 2 players), White non-British (5%, 2 players) & Black (3%, 1 player).

If you've played local club rugby in England however, particularly in the SE, you can't deny that the English team is representative of their member base, which often contain more than a few players from SANZAR nations. Whatever your position on the rights and wrongs of eligibility, in England's case it is surely reflective of the grass roots situation.

Where are you from John? At my club (also in the south east), we had 6 players who would call themselves New Zealanders in our first team. We also had a player of Bangladeshi heritage in the first team and a couple of Canadians and a Japense player in our seconds, which is not a proportional representation of the country as a whole.

My club (in the SE) has a number of Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, a couple of Welshmen and a bloke from Pakistan and a few others from asia.

The grassroots game is truly multi cultural and I for one like it that way.

Just to clarify, I was agreeing with John's point that the England rugby team is representative of the grassroots of the game, rather than the country as a whole.

yappysnap wrote:The grassroots game is truly multi cultural and I for one like it that way.

100% seconded.

TheGreyGhost wrote:"Does anyone still care?

Of course we care, we wouldn't be here otherwise.

Welsh fans are just depressed because we arent beating everyone in sight which of course is our god given right and totally essential to the well being of our population.
Suicides in Bridgend are up again, as you'd expect in any season England beat Wales...

I live in london at the moment. Post university I've played in sides from Kent, Surrey, and N, S & W London. I've never been in a team with any N.Americans or Japanese. I've played with an Argentinian, Italian, Portuguese, 2 Tongans, a handful of British players of Indian descent and a fair number of African heritage, but I've played with far more players of SANZAR origin. At my last club in SE London, in the top two teams we had 4 Boks, 4 Aussies and 2 Kiwis.

Surely you mean "aspiring and potential representatives of England" rather than "Boks, Aussies, Kiwis, Argentinians, Italian, Portuguese...."

I thought the debate was that the members of the England squad were English, rather than that it was acceptable to have non-English players in the England team?

Well, I can't talk for John or Yappy, but I don't think anyone at my level (level 6) are aspiring and potential representatives of England.

If that is the debate then you have to ask the players themselves what nationality they see themselves as. As I said, I would think it morally wrong to tell someone that has qualified and meets all IRB regulations that in my subjective opinion they aren't English enough to play for the England team.

Greyghost, you seem to be swinging between asking what it means to 'be English' and are the current IRB rules on overseas players correct?

Two very different questions, players don't need to be English to play for England ( as an example) but they do need to meet the regulations, if they do then there's no problem. Unless some dastardly countries were to make up the info that gets the player playing for them...

TheGreyGhost wrote: Surely you mean "aspiring and potential representatives of England" rather than "Boks, Aussies, Kiwis, Argentinians, Italian, Portuguese...."

I thought the debate was that the members of the England squad were English, rather than that it was acceptable to have non-English players in the England team?

Maybe they were, I think at least half of them would have qualified on residency grounds, so they would have been entitled to if that was their desire. The point I made in my original post was "whatever your position on the rights and wrongs of eligibility" the number of SANZAR origined players was similar to the English grassroots situation, if not demographically proportionally representative, which almost no sports are.

Not another thread from TGG about England players not being "English".

Just how, exactly, has the selection of certain England qualified players brought down the lid and put the final nail in the coffin? There's nothing cynical about any of the selections or against the rules, unlike the selections of the two kiwis in the 'grannygate' controversy and it's fairly commonplace amongst all national sides(pray god Ben Morgan opts for Wales!). Your flogging a dead horse.

The Rakish Brigand wrote:Just how, exactly, has the selection of certain England qualified players brought down the lid and put the final nail in the coffin? There's nothing cynical about any of the selections or against the rules, unlike the selections of the two kiwis in the 'grannygate' controversy and it's fairly commonplace amongst all national sides(pray god Ben Morgan opts for Wales!). Your flogging a dead horse.

Calm down. Calm down. Nobody is saying anybody did anything illegal. But if you, for a second, take off the rose tinted glasses and look at the bigger picture...surely you can question why it is that so many members of the squad weren't developed in this country, and the process by which they have been included. Then ask: Is this in the greater spirit of rugby? or have we lost something here?

TheGreyGhost wrote: why it is that so many members of the squad weren't developed in this country

How many "weren't developed in this country" ?

I am calm GG, and I do agree with you in part, but I can't see how this is the final nail in the coffin. That is what you wrote after all.

The Rakish Brigand wrote:Just how, exactly, has the selection of certain England qualified players brought down the lid and put the final nail in the coffin? There's nothing cynical about any of the selections or against the rules, unlike the selections of the two kiwis in the 'grannygate' controversy and it's fairly commonplace amongst all national sides(pray god Ben Morgan opts for Wales!). Your flogging a dead horse.

The Difference being before the Grannygate scandal Residency Qualification and the laws relating to them were not as stringent as they are now.

No one really investigated, rugby was a gentlemans sport and a gentlemans word was as good as the IRB needed. Obviously that changed after the previous Laws appeared to have been exploited.

That's why I cited it as an example. But why has the selection of this England squad put the final nail in the coffin?

I dont know, I didnt say it had...!

Maybe because they are relying so heavily on the residency/grand parentage rules to make up a squad?

maestegmafia wrote:I dont know, I didnt say it had...!

Maybe because they are relying so heavily on the residency/grand parentage rules to make up a squad?

I'm not aiming this at you maestegmafia, but when it comes down to it, the only players that will make the proper squad who don't have English parentage or weren't raised here at the very least for the majority of their teenage years are Hape & Flutey (certainly both of whom many would prefer not to be selected). Not sure that could be described as relying heavily.

I don't really care about anything you have to say TGG, you've yet to enlighten me on a single issue you've ever raised.

Do you know where "home" is?

I think the problem here is that people have gone off on a tangent - partly because of TGGs history of having a go at Pomland.

Actually his topic today is a far bigger one than that and is comparing what he sees happening now to some utopian paragraph written by a rugby fan in America nearly 40 years ago.

My response to TGG would be that I love the traditions of rugby but accept that traditions change. The amateur origins of rugby only survived 100 years (approx) and when my great great great great great great great grandson holds up the RWC trophy for NZ they (the origins) will be talked about as a mythical anachronism. Sad but probably true

Well Done GG!!

Except ...

It's just becoming increasingly sad that you shoe-horn such a comment to once gain flog your tirades at anything English and most things British. If you really wanted to make a worthwhile, balanced or insightful comment on the changes professionalism have brought to Rugby Union then you only get credence if you at least nod in the general direction of all those things every top and middle tier nation has engaged in in the name of professionalism and the subsequent loss of this anachronistic ideal of amateur rugby.

Some on here clearly still buy your posts wrapped up in weasley words of fake debate - but the silent majority absolutely get your barbs and the intentions behind them and can only wonder what sort of life drives someone to invest so heavily in it.

nganboy wrote:I think the problem here is that people have gone off on a tangent - partly because of TGGs history of having a go at Pomland.

Very true. Some people only hear (or read) what they want to hear (or read).

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

nganboy wrote:I think the problem here is that people have gone off on a tangent - partly because of TGGs history of having a go at Pomland.

Very true. Some people only hear (or read) what they want to hear (or read).

I presume you missed this "gem" by TGG ?

thegreyghost wrote:It strikes me that certain relatively small immigrant communities in "Equality Britain" are over-represented in the Equality England's world cup squad

This debate is so polarised it beggars belief - can I pose a question please? - Are there any England fans on here who are becoming disillusioned by the increasing number of South African and NZ players being chosen by their country purely on the basis that they have plyed their trade here for 3 years? Living in England (well Cornwall) many I talk to would actually share GG's views. I have made mine clear above citing a welsh example.

Rugby always brags about it's moral high code when compared to football yet the english FA made a conscious decision not to pick foreign players even though they qualified due to residency rules. Cudicini was an example - Thois for me is a very important debate as in time every Northern rugby nation could have 7-8 SH players in the national team. When that day comes i don't see much point in calling them Wales, England or whoever. OK back to the point, any englishmen have any concerns about the amount of foreign players being drafted into the national side?

Did you not read this by the OP, "and arguably the lid nailed down firmly and the coffin lowered into wet concrete by the announcement of the shall we say, diverse England extended world cup training squad."

The BBC listed 14 foreign born players in the trainng squad. Do you consider the likes of Banahan, Hartley, Armitage, Simpson, Sharples, Corbisiero, Tuilagi, Stevens NOT to be English ?

There are a few players that are in the England squad that I don't think should be there, but that's not due to where they were born. I wonder if the OP has the same problem with the number of foreign born players in the squads of France, Italy, New Zealand, Samoa and sevceral other countries ?

Doran-Jones, Hape, Flutry and Waldrom are the only ones I have an issue with - the rest of the foreign born players are fine.

As for pride and internationals mattering to players - anyone who heard POC's speech before the England game will tell it mattered - it mattered a lot. Been told some of it second hand. Virtually all unprintable on this board !

Thank you Geoff, I think you have highlighted some of the players where there are concerns, I think Botha might be another one. And of course England are not the only country involved in this.

In all fairness to england, many of these players won't be selected in the 30 man world cups squad.
So effectively what MJ has done is outsourced tackle bag holders

caoimhincentre wrote:In all fairness to england, many of these players won't be selected in the 30 man world cups squad.
So effectively what MJ has done is outsourced tackle bag holders

That's class Caomin