Losing players to our rivals ...

[Scrumhead]

The transfer thread has gone off topic so I thought I’d create a new one to cover the conversation on losing players to our rivals.

In the past couple of years, we’ve lost quite a few who have played for England at age grade and (in several cases) the Barbarians or Saxons.

I’m not sure we actually would have capped the likes of Haley, Addison, Skinner or Rowlands, but it does feel like the other home nations are aggressively targeting players developed in our system and age grade sides.

I don’t have an issue with it when it’s a parent, but in the case of someone like Tompkins, it really grates on me.

Eligibility rules have needed tightening for ages but it feels like it’s become increasingly deliberate and that feels wrong to me ... it’s like they’re waiting for us to develop someone for them and then swooping in when they’re considered ready (or close to being ready).

[Tigersman]

It’s unfortunately always going to happen just which how the UK works.

At least we have the amount to cover it.

[Raggs]

So in response to all the "Just don't play if you aren't sure." comments.

What about all the Fijians who play u20s for NZ.

They need to be in that shop window, and they'll desperately want to be in the AB pathway, but to then deny all of them to Fiji from then on, just seems wrong.

EDIT - At the same time, how few would be interested in playing for Fiji at u20s levels, in case they're throwing away a chance at ABs, and limiting their Super rugby contract opportunities.

[fivepointer]

There's a limit to what we can do unless qualification rules change.
Right now a lone grandparent can qualify you and even playing for a nations U20 team doesnt rule out a switch to another country at a later date.
Those are 2 avenues that could be closed down but its getting support from other Unions and that may not be forthcoming.
I do think there's a fundamental injustice in one country nurturing a talent, supporting it through an academy and with exposure to the Premiership and investing age group caps only to see the player walk away to be instantly capped elsewhere. Often when that player still plays in the country of their development. I'm still sore about Sam Skinner!

[Raggs]

u20s locking in is just wrong for me. Shouldn't happen.

I do agree that 1 grandparent shouldn't be enough. Especially when it comes as a shock to the player themselves (like Francis I believe).

[Which Tyler]

Sorry, I didn't see this thread existing when I posted in the transfers one.

IMO, 20 is too early, and too immature yet to hold that level of responsibility for the rest of your career - that feels like being mandated to marry your first girl/boyfriend. Bear in mind that psychological maturity is supposed to be somwehere around 23 years old. Playing for England vs the BaaBaas is a different matter though - but I guess that's up to the RFU to award caps for those matches (like the WRU do - or did at least)

I'm okay with grandparents; if a parent can bring their child up to feel like they share a nationality, despite not living in that country; why can't that child then become a parent and instill the same form of identity? Hell Americans seem to feel a shared nationality for a country their family hasn't visited in 5-6 generations, and the individual probably can't find on a globe!
However, 1 grandparent does seem like too few; so I've always preferred the idea of 2 grandparents. Of course, it may be that living in the border marches affects my bias here.


I do think that you should have at least played rugby in the country you want to represent, before representing them - which is not a problem with Williams, of course; he's off to Wales to chase a Wales callup. Much more a problem with people like Tompkins, or Shields.


Maybe the best solution is to make family links count towards the residency period. 5 years to qualify on residency is bang-on right (IMO). Let each qualifying parent or grandparent count as 1 year off. or maybe 1 year for each grandparent, and 2 (or 3) for a parent?

[Puja]

I'd go with Which's idea of having grandparents knock time off the residency requirements, but I'd say just having a parent is fine - you're legitimately half that nationality and would have more of a connection than someone being qualified for Germany cause they were born on an army base.

It's hard to judge, cause there's always an exception to the rule and we can always pick a scenario which would be unfair to someone.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I'm a bit undecided on the '19 is too young to decide' bit. If a player is good enough to play for a full international team at 19 and does so, should there be a new rule saying he was too young to make a decision so his cap does not count? If not, what is the difference from under-20 representation as a principle?

[Scrumhead]

There's a limit to what we can do unless qualification rules change.
Right now a lone grandparent can qualify you and even playing for a nations U20 team doesnt rule out a switch to another country at a later date.
Those are 2 avenues that could be closed down but its getting support from other Unions and that may not be forthcoming.
I do think there's a fundamental injustice in one country nurturing a talent, supporting it through an academy and with exposure to the Premiership and investing age group caps only to see the player walk away to be instantly capped elsewhere. Often when that player still plays in the country of their development. I'm still sore about Sam Skinner!

Yes. This is the point I’m trying to make. Particularly when it feels that coaches like Pivac are actively looking at this route. Wales Online regularly publish articles on players they want to poach.

Surely their exiles system and the provincial teams should be making more of an effort to attract eligible players early enough to develop them themselves.

There are exceptions though. As a couple of examples, I’d use Rory Hutchinson and Jake Polledri. In both cases, they made an early decision and stuck to it in spite of the reported interest from England. Both grew up in England and were developed in the English system but made decision that definitely aren’t financially superior and probably limit their potential for winning things. I have a lot less of an issue with that.

[Puja]

Its pretty easy.
If you are having doubts about who you want to represent at 19/20 then don't play for any nations U20 team and keep your options open. No one is forcing you to play and choosing not to play shouldn't have an impact on your career.
You dont have to have played at U20 level to make it in the game. In the same way playing U20s doesnt guarantee you advancement.
At least by declaring yourself available you will be signalling a clear intent.
And it is, of course, absurd that the Saxons are still viewed as a means of defining eligibility when they dont actually play any games.

Hard disagree. For a start, a 20 year old who is just getting started in the game is a very different kettle of fish to an established player who is attracting full international attention. Take Dan Kelly - English born, English raised, Irish grandparent, in Connacht's academy. If he says no to Ireland U20s at age 18/19 because he might possibly want to play for England one day, how long is his time in Connacht's academy going to last? Or a Scot in an English academy - would they jeopardise their future career by declaring themselves potentially not an EQP at 18? You would be wiping out the Pacific Island U20s sides as no-one would play for them, as well as denuding the senior sides of the likes of Veainu, who picked up a few games in the NZ U20s.

Just let the U20s be what they are - a development and showcase of talent, rather than making children make life-long decisions, possibly pressurised by who they're currently employed by.

Puja

[fivepointer]

The U20s are a vehicle for developing players to play for the national side. The purpose must be to select players who want to play for England at the highest level. What is the point of investing time and effort in a player that wont commit themselves to the national side?
I think young adults at 18/19 can make a choice.
It would also stop the absurdity of a situation like Ross Moriarty who played for England U20s when it was patently obvious he only ever wanted to play for Wales.

[Raggs]

The U20s are a vehicle for developing players to play for the national side. The purpose must be to select players who want to play for England at the highest level. What is the point of investing time and effort in a player that wont commit themselves to the national side?
I think young adults at 18/19 can make a choice.
It would also stop the absurdity of a situation like Ross Moriarty who played for England U20s when it was patently obvious he only ever wanted to play for Wales.

Forget England.

Would any young Fijian want to play for the Fiji u20s? Some sure, but many wouldn't want to basically lose their future opportunities for a super rugby contract in NZ, because once they're Fijian, the NZ system is going to be far less enthusiastic about developing them.

Locking in 40+ players every, single, year, when how many will actually ever play at international level?

[twitchy]

IMO, 20 is too early, and too immature yet to hold that level of responsibility for the rest of your career - that feels like being mandated to marry your first girl/boyfriend.

You can vote, have sex, get married, drink, smoke, drive, go to war and kill people but you aren't mature enough to decide which country you want to play for in some sport?

[Scrumhead]

Haha - very true.

[Mellsblue]

None of those are decisions that could permanently and detrimentally affect your career for the rest of your life.
It’s more akin to asking someone to choose a company to work for when they leave university knowing they can’t change their mind.

[twitchy]

Getting killed or maimed in a war or killing some one else probably has some sort of impact.

Also, you can play for any club you want. That is the "day job".

[Raggs]

So now we've got rid of all the pesky PI islands from the u20s competition, we only need to wait a few seasons before the weight of the change hits their senior teams too, since any of them that played for nz u20s are now ineligible too.

[Mellsblue]

Getting killed or maimed in a war or killing some one else probably has some sort of impact.

Also, you can play for any club you want. That is the "day job".

Agreed but that’s apples and oranges.

I assumed the word ‘akin’ would show that it wasn’t a perfect example; however, international honours will have a bigger effect on earnings, both during and after your playing career, than your club duties ever will.

[Puja]

The U20s are a vehicle for developing players to play for the national side. The purpose must be to select players who want to play for England at the highest level. What is the point of investing time and effort in a player that wont commit themselves to the national side?
I think young adults at 18/19 can make a choice.
It would also stop the absurdity of a situation like Ross Moriarty who played for England U20s when it was patently obvious he only ever wanted to play for Wales.

Remind me again why Ross Moriarty played for England U20s instead of Wales U20s?

IMO, 20 is too early, and too immature yet to hold that level of responsibility for the rest of your career - that feels like being mandated to marry your first girl/boyfriend.

You can vote, have sex, get married, drink, smoke, drive, go to war and kill people but you aren't mature enough to decide which country you want to play for in some sport?

I think the main problem is that someone can legitimately have two or more nationalities that they consider themselves to be. for every Brad Shields and Nick Tompkins, there's a Johnny Williams or Sam Skinner, whose dads probably bought them Wales/Scotland paraphenalia when they were kids. Both of them were in English academies, both of them were asked to play for England U20s and, quite apart from the boost to their career that international callup would get them (coaching, networking, "being in the system", as well as publicity), they would have taken a big risk in their next contract (considering EQP payments) if they'd turned down England U20s on the basis that they felt equally Celtic and didn't want to shut down their future options. They're not making an informed decision on "I think I feel more English than Welsh/Scottish", they're being forced in a direction by their immediate hopes of keeping a professional contract (not to mention that their chosen nation might not even select exiles for U20s tournaments).

And that's not to mention that the U20s (of necessity) cast a very wide net and would capture people who never stood an earthly chance of representing the country in full international rugby - removing them would have a deleterous effect on some T2 and T3 nations. Hell, Spain got kicked out of the last RWC cause they accidentally picked someone who had played U20s for France in a qualifying match, despite him being actively Spanish.

I just don't see what extra value is gained from tying in people at U20s.

Puja

[Raggs]

The U20s are a vehicle for developing players to play for the national side. The purpose must be to select players who want to play for England at the highest level. What is the point of investing time and effort in a player that wont commit themselves to the national side?
I think young adults at 18/19 can make a choice.
It would also stop the absurdity of a situation like Ross Moriarty who played for England U20s when it was patently obvious he only ever wanted to play for Wales.

Remind me again why Ross Moriarty played for England U20s instead of Wales U20s?

IMO, 20 is too early, and too immature yet to hold that level of responsibility for the rest of your career - that feels like being mandated to marry your first girl/boyfriend.

You can vote, have sex, get married, drink, smoke, drive, go to war and kill people but you aren't mature enough to decide which country you want to play for in some sport?

I think the main problem is that someone can legitimately have two or more nationalities that they consider themselves to be. for every Brad Shields and Nick Tompkins, there's a Johnny Williams or Sam Skinner, whose dads probably bought them Wales/Scotland paraphenalia when they were kids. Both of them were in English academies, both of them were asked to play for England U20s and, quite apart from the boost to their career that international callup would get them (coaching, networking, "being in the system", as well as publicity), they would have taken a big risk in their next contract (considering EQP payments) if they'd turned down England U20s on the basis that they felt equally Celtic and didn't want to shut down their future options. They're not making an informed decision on "I think I feel more English than Welsh/Scottish", they're being forced in a direction by their immediate hopes of keeping a professional contract (not to mention that their chosen nation might not even select exiles for U20s tournaments).

And that's not to mention that the U20s (of necessity) cast a very wide net and would capture people who never stood an earthly chance of representing the country in full international rugby - removing them would have a deleterous effect on some T2 and T3 nations. Hell, Spain got kicked out of the last RWC cause they accidentally picked someone who had played U20s for France in a qualifying match, despite him being actively Spanish.

I just don't see what extra value is gained from tying in people at U20s.

Puja

It stops Wales picking players that are on the fringe of England selection anyway ( not even that close in some cases, Francis was never getting an England shirt).

[Puja]

The U20s are a vehicle for developing players to play for the national side. The purpose must be to select players who want to play for England at the highest level. What is the point of investing time and effort in a player that wont commit themselves to the national side?
I think young adults at 18/19 can make a choice.
It would also stop the absurdity of a situation like Ross Moriarty who played for England U20s when it was patently obvious he only ever wanted to play for Wales.

Remind me again why Ross Moriarty played for England U20s instead of Wales U20s?

You can vote, have sex, get married, drink, smoke, drive, go to war and kill people but you aren't mature enough to decide which country you want to play for in some sport?

I think the main problem is that someone can legitimately have two or more nationalities that they consider themselves to be. for every Brad Shields and Nick Tompkins, there's a Johnny Williams or Sam Skinner, whose dads probably bought them Wales/Scotland paraphenalia when they were kids. Both of them were in English academies, both of them were asked to play for England U20s and, quite apart from the boost to their career that international callup would get them (coaching, networking, "being in the system", as well as publicity), they would have taken a big risk in their next contract (considering EQP payments) if they'd turned down England U20s on the basis that they felt equally Celtic and didn't want to shut down their future options. They're not making an informed decision on "I think I feel more English than Welsh/Scottish", they're being forced in a direction by their immediate hopes of keeping a professional contract (not to mention that their chosen nation might not even select exiles for U20s tournaments).

And that's not to mention that the U20s (of necessity) cast a very wide net and would capture people who never stood an earthly chance of representing the country in full international rugby - removing them would have a deleterous effect on some T2 and T3 nations. Hell, Spain got kicked out of the last RWC cause they accidentally picked someone who had played U20s for France in a qualifying match, despite him being actively Spanish.

I just don't see what extra value is gained from tying in people at U20s.

Puja

It stops Wales picking players that are on the fringe of England selection anyway ( not even that close in some cases, Francis was never getting an England shirt).

But what is the real holistic benefit to that? I mean, Francis is one thing cause of his gran that he never knew, but someone like Rowlands or Williams, who are legitimately half-Welsh? From a selfish perspective, it helps England, but it's a bit shitty to go dog-in-the-manger about someone like Rowlands who will never represent England. And it is selfish - we're in a rich country with schools and economic opportunities that will draw in children and parents, so it's all very well us lot being in favour of a system which lets us stamp "MINE" on 40 players a year based on where they've gone to school or what academy they've ended up in.

Puja


ETA. Although the thought has occurred to me that, while we are blase about Francis and "We never wanted him anyway", can you really say that an English qualified Francis wouldn't've been in the hunt for the England 18 shirt? Would you say Cole was drastically better? Or that we might not have been better suited with Francis on the bench in the RWC final? Okay, so all he does is scrum, but that's one more thing than Cole did in that game.

[Raggs]

I'm with you Puja, I don't see many serious benefits of it, and a lot of negatives.

It would actively hurt players. Actively hurt many tier 2 nations, and only benefit countries that are already rugby powerhouses, and even then, only slightly.

[Scrumhead]

I don’t agree with locking players down at such a young age. I just think there needs to be some more regulation around it to avoid the Moriarty situation. I don’t know why he didn’t do what Polledri or Hutchinson did and commit himself to the country he actually wanted to play for?

My issue is that we seem to be investing in a lot of players’ development only for other unions to swoop in at a later point. That feels wrong to me and it seems to be happening more often.

I don’t begrudge the players - more the system that is clearly open to abuse.

As an aside - I agree with Puja on Francis. I think there’s a fairly good chance he’d have leapfrogged Cole.

[Mikey Brown]

ETA?

[Puja]

I don’t agree with locking players down at such a young age. I just think there needs to be some more regulation around it to avoid the Moriarty situation. I don’t know why he didn’t do what Polledri or Hutchinson did and commit himself to the country he actually wanted to play for?

As an 18 year old academy player yet to make a first team appearance, you've got to have balls of steel to tell your employer, "F*ck your EQP money; I want to live the dream and play U20s for Wales!" when the other option is playing U20s for England and keeping yourself unaligned. Polledri and Hutchinson didn't rule themselves out as EQ by playing for their respective U20s, Moriarty would have done.

My issue is that we seem to be investing in a lot of players’ development only for other unions to swoop in at a later point. That feels wrong to me and it seems to be happening more often.

I think that's the price we pay for having such a big system and casting such a wide net. We have a development and player identification system that is second only to NZ and a volume of young talent to call upon that's second to no-one. If we wanted to, we could cut back to a limited number of academies and focus on people, but that's not what we do and we benefit from having such a wide scattershot approach. The down side is that a lot of other teams benefit by taking our leavings as well.

Puja


ETA. ETA means Edited To Add