BJVR needs to visit a barber or transfer to Exeter anyway, so this whole discussion is moot
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
England 2025/26
- Thread starter TRF_Olyy
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,666
- Reaction score
- 1,160
He lost the magnificent Davy Crockett hat for hair as he got married. Your wish has been granted, hopefully it will return.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,365
- Reaction score
- 5,990
Tbh, I don't mind the rules themselves per say. 5 years is a big chunk of your career if you're willing to make the switch. Swapping countries on family residency is the worst, especially for players who know they aren't in line to play international rugby again for their first nation, though I think itcshould be parents only, not grandparents. Reality is you're never going to win the WC or 6Ns relying on foreign mercenaries because they are almost always the players who couldn't make it in their home team. Just look at Scotland, they've clearly hit a ceiling they can't get past.
My issues are the RFU wasting time and money on this for one player who is not a huge upgrade and who clearly won't value the shirt. I wouldn't want him starting a WC final against S.A when he clearly sees himself as South African and would only represent England for the money.
Second is the constant race to the bottom to cap young players and try and tie them to a country before their ready. It's not beneficial to young players and even detrimental to their development. There needs to be more protection from 20-23. I still say if you represent a country at u20 level you are tied for 3 years then can swap and it doesn't count as the official swap.
My issues are the RFU wasting time and money on this for one player who is not a huge upgrade and who clearly won't value the shirt. I wouldn't want him starting a WC final against S.A when he clearly sees himself as South African and would only represent England for the money.
Second is the constant race to the bottom to cap young players and try and tie them to a country before their ready. It's not beneficial to young players and even detrimental to their development. There needs to be more protection from 20-23. I still say if you represent a country at u20 level you are tied for 3 years then can swap and it doesn't count as the official swap.
Probably controversial but I’d just not allow players to change their allegiance on any grounds bar immediate ancestry or birth (no exception no appeals for anyone falling outside this situations), if my understanding is correct the rules changed to allow the pacific teams to recall their players who had favoured the money in their early careers and left the small nations cupboards pretty bare considering their original options. This situation is simply exploiting that England really should and could do better.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,365
- Reaction score
- 5,990
Residency is needed for rugby to compete in the Olympics.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,365
- Reaction score
- 5,990
What should England be doing better at? Targeting and exploiting young Pacific players?
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,418
- Reaction score
- 575
We don't need him.
The depth at centre is great now.
Especially with club pairings as well.
Ojomoh and Lawrence
Atkinson and Joseph
Dingwall and 'Freeman'
Add in Marchant with his ability to cover wing as well and there is great depth.
I agree, think it is Steve Lansdowne pulling string to bring him into EQP quota for Bristol.
The depth at centre is great now.
Especially with club pairings as well.
Ojomoh and Lawrence
Atkinson and Joseph
Dingwall and 'Freeman'
Add in Marchant with his ability to cover wing as well and there is great depth.
I agree, think it is Steve Lansdowne pulling string to bring him into EQP quota for Bristol.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,666
- Reaction score
- 1,160
There is no way Lansdown has any influence with the RFU. He'll be happy with this for sure, but it won't be at his behest.
Nope.
The rules changed because it's a requirement of the IOC that an athlete can change nations between one Olympics and another.
They weren't happy with the initial compromise of switching via sevens, as that would suggest that 7s isn't rugby and would need a different body overseeing it, and WR didn't want to split and have 3 official, different codes.
I don't think they require residency - plenty of athletes represent nations they don't live in.
They absolutely do require the ability to switch allegiance.
Last edited:
Wha? Who said England need to do better at targeting and exploiting pacific players? I was talking generally of what I at the time understood the reasoning behind it being to me ultimately there is a distinct difference between switching to the nation you have a strong family link to vs on the grounds of residency, especially when you have publically stated your allegiance strongly to one side not the one in question.
My apologies for the above - did you mean representing a country based on residency was an IOC requirement (alongside birth and blood)?
If so, then yes - but rugby as a whole (some fans personal opinions aside) has never had a problem with residency based qualification.
I think I mis-understood you initially
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,365
- Reaction score
- 5,990
Sorry then I misunderstood what you meant by exploiting.
Tbh, England's issue is less importing players and more retaining young players being targeted by others. Possibly you could argue that NZ benefited by importing players from the pacific islands. Ireland have had a few successful residency imports, but it still hasn't helped them reach a WC semi. Scotland have improved, but not enough to win anything of note. I don't think England need to change their policy. You're not going to win the WC importing the cast offs from other nations.
eye, you will never get everyone to agree here, I’m pretty uncaring about the grounds of which a player originally aligns with residency is fine by me, I just think switching after the fact should be far stricter, that’s my personal opinion only of course.
Blueblackandwhite
Academy Player
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2025
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 2
Irrespective of the whole pearl clutching debate, we are where we are. If we were just picking the best qualified England centres - BJVR would be in there for me because he's a monster! (obviously not available until the Autemn) but pretending he was availiable right now and picking on merit I'd go: Ojomoh, Atkinson, BJVR, Lawrence and either Joseph / Freeman if we were looking to continue that experiment. That's one hell of a group.
Pearl clutching at the pearl clutching.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,593
- Reaction score
- 5,416
Apparently ITV have secured the rights to the Nations Championship which means every England game next year will be free to air. 
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,583
- Reaction score
- 10,438
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,593
- Reaction score
- 5,416
Well that does give almost all of the test calendar to terrestrial TV for more or less 2026 and 2027. Considering they already have the 6 Nations, the Nations Championship and RWC will make up 90% of the fixture list for 2 seasons.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,593
- Reaction score
- 5,416
For the RWC, the likely path for us: R16: Italy >> QF: Australia >> SF: Argentina* >> Final: SA or France
It highly likely that SA and NZ meet in the QFs with the winner of that facing France in the SF.
*Ireland are the better team but there’s not much in it and QFs are their Kryptonite. I’d also argue that Argentina is a team on the rise vs. an Ireland squad with key players fighting Father Time.
en.wikipedia.org
It highly likely that SA and NZ meet in the QFs with the winner of that facing France in the SF.
*Ireland are the better team but there’s not much in it and QFs are their Kryptonite. I’d also argue that Argentina is a team on the rise vs. an Ireland squad with key players fighting Father Time.
