England A

[FKAS]

An Ent has more to offer.

Dan Cole is doing fine, thank you

He also appeared for England A against Portugal about 15 years ago.

Apparently the head of the Portuguese Union has said that this will be a Portugal A side, apparently they don't have a designated second team so this game might not actually capture anybody...

[Margin_Walker]

Even without the capture confusion, it's a pretty underwhelming fixture as A games go.

I'm really not sure how much we're going to learn about any of these players in a game against a Portuguese second team. Clearly scheduling a game like this during the season is a challenge, but it feels pretty messy all round.

[Captainhaircut]

Rowlands and Tompkins and then White (who the world and his mom derided rightly) are (eventually) starters at Int level. The rest are squad players. I’m not sure how that’s hampering teams by picking them. Other than a minor nuisance. White has improved but would never have been near an England squad. Rowlands and Tompkins equally. We’d be capping people for shits and giggles.

And of course capping them in place of who? And why?

Redpath is the only one that kind of hurts cause he’s class! And quite Scottish.

How is Redpath quite Scottish? Born one England, played for England age grade, only ever played rugby in England. From a rugby sense, he’s as English as it gets.

They really need to think about the heritage rule. I’m a big advocate for some kind of halfway house on residency rule I.e. if you have heritage, you have to play in that country for 2 years. Sick of these poaches where the players have their cake and eat it. Tompkins did about 6 months on loan in wales and cut it short because he hated the place so much.

[Mikey Brown]

Rowlands and Tompkins and then White (who the world and his mom derided rightly) are (eventually) starters at Int level. The rest are squad players. I’m not sure how that’s hampering teams by picking them. Other than a minor nuisance. White has improved but would never have been near an England squad. Rowlands and Tompkins equally. We’d be capping people for shits and giggles.

And of course capping them in place of who? And why?

Redpath is the only one that kind of hurts cause he’s class! And quite Scottish.

How is Redpath quite Scottish? Born one England, played for England age grade, only ever played rugby in England. From a rugby sense, he’s as English as it gets.

They really need to think about the heritage rule. I’m a big advocate for some kind of halfway house on residency rule I.e. if you have heritage, you have to play in that country for 2 years. Sick of these poaches where the players have their cake and eat it. Tompkins did about 6 months on loan in wales and cut it short because he hated the place so much.

He was born in France actually. Does that make him French? Do two Scottish parents (or the rest of the family) override his schooling or his birthplace?

I get what you mean that he could reasonably have played for England, but Redpath seems like a weird one to take issue with, particularly in comparison to other Scottish selections.

Being of a certain nationality “in a rugby sense” is also a slightly odd one. Chandler Cunningham-South barely passes your threshold of 2 years playing here. Was he ‘developed’ by New Zealand? Should he be playing for them? There are so many grey areas.

I don’t want to get all wanky and political either but people move where there’s money. The English and Irish (in particular) economies and schools systems are obviously a huge draw. It’s not always as simple as where you were born. I’ve never even lived in Scotland but will support them every day over England, who I also consider myself a supporter of.

Sorry.

Anyway…

Back on topic.

This Portugal game is probably going to be shit.

[Puja]

Rowlands and Tompkins and then White (who the world and his mom derided rightly) are (eventually) starters at Int level. The rest are squad players. I’m not sure how that’s hampering teams by picking them. Other than a minor nuisance. White has improved but would never have been near an England squad. Rowlands and Tompkins equally. We’d be capping people for shits and giggles.

And of course capping them in place of who? And why?

Redpath is the only one that kind of hurts cause he’s class! And quite Scottish.

How is Redpath quite Scottish? Born one England, played for England age grade, only ever played rugby in England. From a rugby sense, he’s as English as it gets.

They really need to think about the heritage rule. I’m a big advocate for some kind of halfway house on residency rule I.e. if you have heritage, you have to play in that country for 2 years. Sick of these poaches where the players have their cake and eat it. Tompkins did about 6 months on loan in wales and cut it short because he hated the place so much.

He was born in France actually. Does that make him French? Do two Scottish parents (or the rest of the family) override his schooling or his birthplace?

I get what you mean that he could reasonably have played for England, but Redpath seems like a weird one to take issue with, particularly in comparison to other Scottish selections.

Being of a certain nationality “in a rugby sense” is also a slightly odd one. Chandler Cunningham-South barely passes your threshold of 2 years playing here. Was he ‘developed’ by New Zealand? Should he be playing for them? There are so many grey areas.

I don’t want to get all wanky and political either but people move where there’s money. The English and Irish (in particular) economies and schools systems are obviously a huge draw. It’s not always as simple as where you were born. I’ve never even lived in Scotland but will support them every day over England, who I also consider myself a supporter of.

Sorry.

Anyway…

Back on topic.

This Portugal game is probably going to be shit.

I'm with you. "Nationality" is a big ball of complicated things and it's very difficult to have a black and white rule - one player's "grandparent from Wales" has a deep connection with their half-Welsh always-considered-himself-Welsh father, who grew up cheering for Wales and getting red shirts for Christmas, whereas another player's "grandparent from Wales" is a "Huh, cousin Debbie's done the family tree and it turns out Grannie was born in Aberavon. Welp, time to see if I can get me some international money from the Welsh". And for the people who say, "Oh it should be birthplace or nothing," ignore the fact that being born in a barn doesn't necessarily make someone a horse.

Personally, I'd say parent or 6 years' residency, with having one grandparent allowing you to qualify on residency after 3 years, but anywhere you choose to draw the line, I can find you an exceptional circumstance.

Puja

[Oakboy]

How is Redpath quite Scottish? Born one England, played for England age grade, only ever played rugby in England. From a rugby sense, he’s as English as it gets.

They really need to think about the heritage rule. I’m a big advocate for some kind of halfway house on residency rule I.e. if you have heritage, you have to play in that country for 2 years. Sick of these poaches where the players have their cake and eat it. Tompkins did about 6 months on loan in wales and cut it short because he hated the place so much.

He was born in France actually. Does that make him French? Do two Scottish parents (or the rest of the family) override his schooling or his birthplace?

I get what you mean that he could reasonably have played for England, but Redpath seems like a weird one to take issue with, particularly in comparison to other Scottish selections.

Being of a certain nationality “in a rugby sense” is also a slightly odd one. Chandler Cunningham-South barely passes your threshold of 2 years playing here. Was he ‘developed’ by New Zealand? Should he be playing for them? There are so many grey areas.

I don’t want to get all wanky and political either but people move where there’s money. The English and Irish (in particular) economies and schools systems are obviously a huge draw. It’s not always as simple as where you were born. I’ve never even lived in Scotland but will support them every day over England, who I also consider myself a supporter of.

Sorry.

Anyway…

Back on topic.

This Portugal game is probably going to be shit.

I'm with you. "Nationality" is a big ball of complicated things and it's very difficult to have a black and white rule - one player's "grandparent from Wales" has a deep connection with their half-Welsh always-considered-himself-Welsh father, who grew up cheering for Wales and getting red shirts for Christmas, whereas another player's "grandparent from Wales" is a "Huh, cousin Debbie's done the family tree and it turns out Grannie was born in Aberavon. Welp, time to see if I can get me some international money from the Welsh". And for the people who say, "Oh it should be birthplace or nothing," ignore the fact that being born in a barn doesn't necessarily make someone a horse.

Personally, I'd say parent or 6 years' residency, with having one grandparent allowing you to qualify on residency after 3 years, but anywhere you choose to draw the line, I can find you an exceptional circumstance.

Puja

The aspect I can't get my head around is allowing a player to change allegiance. That just seems traitorous.

[Puja]

He was born in France actually. Does that make him French? Do two Scottish parents (or the rest of the family) override his schooling or his birthplace?

I get what you mean that he could reasonably have played for England, but Redpath seems like a weird one to take issue with, particularly in comparison to other Scottish selections.

Being of a certain nationality “in a rugby sense” is also a slightly odd one. Chandler Cunningham-South barely passes your threshold of 2 years playing here. Was he ‘developed’ by New Zealand? Should he be playing for them? There are so many grey areas.

I don’t want to get all wanky and political either but people move where there’s money. The English and Irish (in particular) economies and schools systems are obviously a huge draw. It’s not always as simple as where you were born. I’ve never even lived in Scotland but will support them every day over England, who I also consider myself a supporter of.

Sorry.

Anyway…

Back on topic.

This Portugal game is probably going to be shit.

I'm with you. "Nationality" is a big ball of complicated things and it's very difficult to have a black and white rule - one player's "grandparent from Wales" has a deep connection with their half-Welsh always-considered-himself-Welsh father, who grew up cheering for Wales and getting red shirts for Christmas, whereas another player's "grandparent from Wales" is a "Huh, cousin Debbie's done the family tree and it turns out Grannie was born in Aberavon. Welp, time to see if I can get me some international money from the Welsh". And for the people who say, "Oh it should be birthplace or nothing," ignore the fact that being born in a barn doesn't necessarily make someone a horse.

Personally, I'd say parent or 6 years' residency, with having one grandparent allowing you to qualify on residency after 3 years, but anywhere you choose to draw the line, I can find you an exceptional circumstance.

Puja

The aspect I can't get my head around is allowing a player to change allegiance. That just seems traitorous.

I don't have two nationalities myself, but I can understand feeling strongly towards two nations. I mean, just look at our own Mikey here.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I miss the thumbs up button.
Mikey and Puja, you both deserve a couple.

[Danno]

And for the people who say, "Oh it should be birthplace or nothing," ignore the fact that being born in a barn doesn't necessarily make someone a horse.

Or even the saviour of mankind

(Great post btw)

[Captainhaircut]

I’m not really interested in where people are born. I’m aware people feel pull towards other countries- I have many Irish friends who live in England and I know they’ll make sure their kids understand and love their heritage.

My take is that international sport should be a reflection of the commitment the country plays to the sport. The best teams should be the ones that produce and develop the best players, invest and grow the game.

Simply having an “exile” programme to pick up players with some element of heritage is not producing players or developing the game. It’s not investing in your pathways or clubs. It’s a horrible back door that’s abused mainly by Scotland and in some part by Wales.

Some element of residency attached to heritage (something like 2 years as I said) would ensure these countries had to commit to these players, develop them and pay them. Rather than English clubs producing them through their academies, coaching them, developing them and then they decide they are Scottish.

Redpath a prime example (wasn’t aware he was born in France but appears he lived in England from very young until now). If he feels strongly Scottish then great. He can go play and live in that country for the first time in his life then. You shouldn’t be able to have your cake and eat it. If money is an issue, you can take that up with the SRU- they can figure out a way to monetise the sport and invest in it. Maybe start by having more than 2 sides (which they get away with at international level because they didn’t actually produce or develop half of their 23).

I totally agree on CCS and Roots. In my plan, CCS would close or already qualified having played for England under 20s and seemingly having developed his game significantly whilst in this country. Roots should be nowhere near the test side having been in the country for about 6 months.

[Oakboy]

I'm with you. "Nationality" is a big ball of complicated things and it's very difficult to have a black and white rule - one player's "grandparent from Wales" has a deep connection with their half-Welsh always-considered-himself-Welsh father, who grew up cheering for Wales and getting red shirts for Christmas, whereas another player's "grandparent from Wales" is a "Huh, cousin Debbie's done the family tree and it turns out Grannie was born in Aberavon. Welp, time to see if I can get me some international money from the Welsh". And for the people who say, "Oh it should be birthplace or nothing," ignore the fact that being born in a barn doesn't necessarily make someone a horse.

Personally, I'd say parent or 6 years' residency, with having one grandparent allowing you to qualify on residency after 3 years, but anywhere you choose to draw the line, I can find you an exceptional circumstance.

Puja

The aspect I can't get my head around is allowing a player to change allegiance. That just seems traitorous.

I don't have two nationalities myself, but I can understand feeling strongly towards two nations. I mean, just look at our own Mikey here.

Puja

I accept that but, having chosen, a player should stick not twist.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I’m not really interested in where people are born. I’m aware people feel pull towards other countries- I have many Irish friends who live in England and I know they’ll make sure their kids understand and love their heritage.

My take is that international sport should be a reflection of the commitment the country plays to the sport. The best teams should be the ones that produce and develop the best players, invest and grow the game.

Simply having an “exile” programme to pick up players with some element of heritage is not producing players or developing the game. It’s not investing in your pathways or clubs. It’s a horrible back door that’s abused mainly by Scotland and in some part by Wales.

Some element of residency attached to heritage (something like 2 years as I said) would ensure these countries had to commit to these players, develop them and pay them. Rather than English clubs producing them through their academies, coaching them, developing them and then they decide they are Scottish.

Redpath a prime example (wasn’t aware he was born in France but appears he lived in England from very young until now). If he feels strongly Scottish then great. He can go play and live in that country for the first time in his life then. You shouldn’t be able to have your cake and eat it. If money is an issue, you can take that up with the SRU- they can figure out a way to monetise the sport and invest in it. Maybe start by having more than 2 sides (which they get away with at international level because they didn’t actually produce or develop half of their 23).

I totally agree on CCS and Roots. In my plan, CCS would close or already qualified having played for England under 20s and seemingly having developed his game significantly whilst in this country. Roots should be nowhere near the test side having been in the country for about 6 months.

But then you have nuance like players who start in one country and then come to do A levels in England and become attached to Prem clubs. So products of two systems. Some stay, some return. Some change allegiance to their adopted country and some stay with their homeland. Frankly who cares. If you’re eligible to play for a country and want to then fill yer boots.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m not really interested in where people are born. I’m aware people feel pull towards other countries- I have many Irish friends who live in England and I know they’ll make sure their kids understand and love their heritage.

My take is that international sport should be a reflection of the commitment the country plays to the sport. The best teams should be the ones that produce and develop the best players, invest and grow the game.

Simply having an “exile” programme to pick up players with some element of heritage is not producing players or developing the game. It’s not investing in your pathways or clubs. It’s a horrible back door that’s abused mainly by Scotland and in some part by Wales.

Some element of residency attached to heritage (something like 2 years as I said) would ensure these countries had to commit to these players, develop them and pay them. Rather than English clubs producing them through their academies, coaching them, developing them and then they decide they are Scottish.

Redpath a prime example (wasn’t aware he was born in France but appears he lived in England from very young until now). If he feels strongly Scottish then great. He can go play and live in that country for the first time in his life then. You shouldn’t be able to have your cake and eat it. If money is an issue, you can take that up with the SRU- they can figure out a way to monetise the sport and invest in it. Maybe start by having more than 2 sides (which they get away with at international level because they didn’t actually produce or develop half of their 23).

I totally agree on CCS and Roots. In my plan, CCS would close or already qualified having played for England under 20s and seemingly having developed his game significantly whilst in this country. Roots should be nowhere near the test side having been in the country for about 6 months.

But then you have nuance like players who start in one country and then come to do A levels in England and become attached to Prem clubs. So products of two systems. Some stay, some return. Some change allegiance to their adopted country and some stay with their homeland. Frankly who cares. If you’re eligible to play for a country and want to then fill yer boots.

Yeah, I'm not really clear what Captain haircut's proposed system would actually look like, not that I disagree with their right to view it that way. At what point should a kid in an English school (who considers themselves not English) opt out of playing rugby at a higher level? Would you expect a young kid to turn down counties level because they aren't English or aren't a native of that county? I just find the boundaries so arbitrary.

I agree some of the 'project players' cases kind of go against the notion of international sport, but so much of what distinguishes nations is completely idiotic in the first place.

I loved the idea of Tonga/Samoa etc being able to strengthen their teams with ex All Blacks (would anyone argue they lose many of those players for purely economic reasons?) but Jack Dempsey playing for Scotland does seem a bit ridiculous.

[Captainhaircut]

You wouldn’t need to worry about kids who move for A levels or university. They would have been in the country they wish to play for as a child and likely born there. So they’d qualify that way.

I’m talking about people who qualify through parents or grandparents but have never lived or played in that country. Go commit to the country and play there for a bit before you call yourself Scottish, Welsh or English. As it is, Scotland just take the piss out of us knowing that the prem clubs (who are funded by the RFU) will continue to develop and play players for them and they can just pick them up through an “exiles” program having had nothing to do with building their rugby game.

[SixAndAHalf]

I think the balance as it is about right (I would probably slightly reduce the stand down period but it's broadly fine) in maintaining the integrity of international sport while also giving players leeway to explore options. Unless you set it as a one country for life rule where you have to be born there, you will always have some exceptional examples such as Dempsey.

It's very simplistic to distill ties to a country down to a set of rules hence I am in favour of a more liberal approach. I think people also forget that this is also the players' livelihoods and careers so they will rightfully pursue the most lucrative option and it seems churlish to punish them for that. Read some of the testimonies from Worcester or Wasps players (e.g. Rory Sutherland, who was recently on Johnny Beatties French rugby podcast, had just signed his peak contract with Worcester and is now playing away from his family in Oyannax) and you will realise how precarious it is.

[Puja]

The aspect I can't get my head around is allowing a player to change allegiance. That just seems traitorous.

I don't have two nationalities myself, but I can understand feeling strongly towards two nations. I mean, just look at our own Mikey here.

Puja

I accept that but, having chosen, a player should stick not twist.

I'm generally of the same opinion, but the issue was settled when we wanted to get rugby into the Olympics, because they required allowing people to change nationality after 3 years. Once the "Sevens Loophole" was opened, it was ridiculous to try and have that as the only method of swapping nations. Personally, I'd've been in favour of having 7s Nationality treated as separate from 15s Nationality - they're already two very different games, so why link nationality capture from one sport to the other.

I loved the idea of Tonga/Samoa etc being able to strengthen their teams with ex All Blacks (would anyone argue they lose many of those players for purely economic reasons?) but Jack Dempsey playing for Scotland does seem a bit ridiculous.

Agreed - I do like the idea of strengthening the PI sides with their exiles, but the likes of Jean Kleyn (especially since he was a Project Player for Ireland in the first place) is ridiculous.

Puja

[SixAndAHalf]

You wouldn’t need to worry about kids who move for A levels or university. They would have been in the country they wish to play for as a child and likely born there. So they’d qualify that way.

I’m talking about people who qualify through parents or grandparents but have never lived or played in that country. Go commit to the country and play there for a bit before you call yourself Scottish, Welsh or English. As it is, Scotland just take the piss out of us knowing that the prem clubs (who are funded by the RFU) will continue to develop and play players for them and they can just pick them up through an “exiles” program having had nothing to do with building their rugby game.

With any player eligible for another country (e.g. Redpath), the England hierarchy would be fully aware and could choose not to select them for age grade teams. I'd assume England have benefitted as much from the inflows as we have from the outflows. Your idea would force players at 18-21 to have to select the nation they are eligible for which seems like a big burden to put on a young kid who wouldnt even be assured of a career in the game.

Furthermore, your suggestion would mean Charles Piutau would have had to go and play in the Tongan domestic league before switching his nationality - evidence that stricter rules would create even more perverse circumstances.

You could widen this discussion into a further one re eligibility rules and whether the RFU would be smarter to allow the likes of Jamie George and Maro Itoje to be paid big wedge by French / Japanese clubs and reinvest in youth like South Africa do.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I could only see this pushing the game further in to being dominated by money. Would players be able to play in a different country once they're capped? Would Radradra etc be allowed to play in France? Would they have to stop building schools and hospitals back home with the money these guys can earn in the top tier? It would likely just mean those players stop turning out for poorer nations because they can do far more with a club salary.

On the other hand I do dislike it when a guy like Van Der Merwe immediately leaves to play in England once he's completed his residency - even if he happened to end up back at Edinburgh. Should a player only remain qualified on residency while they're in that country? I'm not sure how you account for them then getting low-balled by their club.

[Puja]

Yeah I could only see this pushing the game further in to being dominated by money. Would players be able to play in a different country once they're capped? Would Radradra etc be allowed to play in France? Would they have to stop building schools and hospitals back home with the money these guys can earn in the top tier? It would likely just mean those players stop turning out for poorer nations because they can do far more with a club salary.

On the other hand I do dislike it when a guy like Van Der Merwe immediately leaves to play in England once he's completed his residency - even if he happened to end up back at Edinburgh. Should a player only remain qualified on residency while they're in that country? I'm not sure how you account for them then getting low-balled by their club.

I think you just have to accept that, no matter what rules you set, there is going to be someone's situation that fits into them that you find distasteful.

Puja

[p/d]

The aspect I can't get my head around is allowing a player to change allegiance. That just seems traitorous.

I don't have two nationalities myself, but I can understand feeling strongly towards two nations. I mean, just look at our own Mikey here.

Puja

I accept that but, having chosen, a player should stick not twist.

With you Dors.

Whatever the system it needs to be in place to build the development of rugby across the board, not just for the benefit of a few. I don't like the 3 year rule and I think England (to name one) should not be exploiting it.

[Captainhaircut]

Some strange extrapolations here. Would Radradra be allowed to play in France? He plays for Fiji having been born in Fiji and lived there until he was 21. Not quite sure where he enters this sort of debate.

I kind of understand the debate re tier 2 sides. Again though, I’m not really convinced that a load of players who only want to play for them after they haven’t made it for their actual country is a good thing long term. The real problem in that area is New Zealand and Australia poaching players incredibly young and nationalising them.

If these countries could just pick what should be available to them in the first place, they would be far stronger.

[Which Tyler]

The real problem in that area is New Zealand and Australia poaching players incredibly young and nationalising them.

Frequently, so young that haven't been born yet - or a bit later, and merely before they've picked up a rugby ball.

[Mikey Brown]

Some strange extrapolations here. Would Radradra be allowed to play in France? He plays for Fiji having been born in Fiji and lived there until he was 21. Not quite sure where he enters this sort of debate.

I kind of understand the debate re tier 2 sides. Again though, I’m not really convinced that a load of players who only want to play for them after they haven’t made it for their actual country is a good thing long term. The real problem in that area is New Zealand and Australia poaching players incredibly young and nationalising them.

If these countries could just pick what should be available to them in the first place, they would be far stronger.

I was just wondering what the boundaries are of being developed by another nation’s club system, in your idea of a better system. Obviously I have no issue with Radrada, he was just the first person I thought of from a massively poor country that has developed in to a world class player playing mostly in France.

The NZ/Aus poaching thing also seems a lot more complicated and isn’t really just about rugby.

I’m not against trying to improve any of these rules, I’m just not sure there are any fool-proof answers.

[p/d]

I’m not against trying to improve any of these rules, I’m just not sure there are any fool-proof answers.

a full season tour around CAMRA recommended public houses as part of a Morris Dancing ensemble.- England qualified.

[Captainhaircut]

Just to confirm that this is absolute madness, Scotland name their 23 and 13 of them weren’t produced by their system.

3 South Africans, 2 Australians, 1 Irishman, 6 English and 1 Australian/English. 5 of them have never even played in Scotland.

And they start as favourites versus England.