• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
No one suggested that. There was more pride than complaining when Botha or Fourie pulled on the red rose. This is because they are different.

Please stop equating the case of Nathan Hughes, ex-Fiji A Captain and blatant mercenary, with the case for acceptance of first generation immigrants. It is appalling logic.
Sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. It was more of a rhetorical point I was making. Rats said something general about how it will "often encourage disingenuousness", I'm responding that since that is not always the case, we need to decide on a case-by-case basis, and therefore you need proof of that in Hughes. I don't see there being any.

Not ignoring your other post, will reply later!
 
Sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. It was more of a rhetorical point I was making. Rats said something general about how it will "often encourage disingenuousness", I'm responding that since that is not always the case, we need to decide on a case-by-case basis, and therefore you need proof of that in Hughes. I don't see there being any.

Not ignoring your other post, will reply later!

Not always, no - but I would say the three year qualification ruling encourages more professional identifiers than genuine immigrants.

And, unfortunately, none of us can really talk to Nathan Hughes and find out what he's really about so neither of us can prove anything either way - but I personally would look for proof of genuine belonging and identification and assume that there's none otherwise because that will be more accurate most of the time with a man like Hughes; that is, a foreign national with no previous ties to the country undertaking a job that requires him to be resident in England and who will be incentivised to declare for England rather than Fiji or Samoa.

Still, we do have interviews. Here's one from the Mail in which he mentions his love for Fiji and Samoa but mentions his possible qualification for England without any affectionate words - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...I-spent-wedding-night-pub-watching-Wasps.html

His more recent comments simply talk about him not being ready for international rugby - no talk of attachment to any country or intention to qualify for us. He has been given every option to declare an affinity for England and an intention to qualify for us but hasn't taken it. If he genuinely feels in some small way English, why not mention it along with his love for the other two countries for which he's eligible?
 
I think it's his love of English money.

No way on earth does a man whose lived here two years feel more English than the county he was born in, raised in and already represented.

I know we can't know what he is actually thinking but it's clear he has no real connections here
 
I believe the rules should be changed, I'd leave grannies/grandads, but lengthen the residency rule significantly (as stated, twice as fast when under 18).

I believe England should pick the best players available to them in accordance to creating the best English side. This means no to Armitage and Bendyman, and potentially yes to Hughes.

I believe Hughes will be representing England for his family, he's basically stated as much. Not for a love of being English, not through hatred of Fiji, not through a love of money, but through loving his family, yes it comes down to money, but he's in a short career and needs to make the most of it. We live in a multicultural world, Hughes is Fijian, his wife Dutch, and his soon to be born son (think it's a son) will be English. He wants to give his best for his family. I find that hard to fault, even if I want the rules changed, whilst they aren't I have little issue with him being selected (if he's good enough). He also clearly loves it at Wasps, and that too is perhaps important, as it could well suggest that he plans on settling long term in England, and grow some English roots.
 
Gonna be really interesting to see what they do with Burgess when the next EPS is named.
Will they play him at 6 vs the BaaBaas with Ewers at 8?
 
Anyone rate Thomas Waldrom for an England squad call up ? 17 tries this season can't be ignored. Is he versatile in the back row ?
 
No, he's probably the least versatile backrow in England tbf.

Agree he's on fantastic form atm, his move to chiefs was inspired.
If Morgan isn't around then I'd have him as backup for Binny ahead of Easter (/Wood/Haskell).
 
There's a possible chance Ewers and Burgess won't be available for the Barbarians game if Bath and Exeter meet in the final. I don't really support a prem team but I'd like to see a Bath v Exeter final.
 
No, he's probably the least versatile backrow in England tbf.

Agree he's on fantastic form atm, his move to chiefs was inspired.
If Morgan isn't around then I'd have him as backup for Binny ahead of Easter (/Wood/Haskell).

Off topic but how is Magnus Lund at Sale?
 
Are we assuming Lancaster will pick a Saxons type squad or will he go tried and tested where possible for the babas game?
 
Are we assuming Lancaster will pick a Saxons type squad or will he go tried and tested where possible for the babas game?

Either has its merits to be honest. I just hope that a Saxons squad would be made up of a load of creative players to play entertaining, flowing rugby.

9 Simpson
10 Cipriani
11 Yarde
12 Eastmond
13 Daly
14 Wade
15 Pennell

Don't expect that lot to win anything but it should make good viewing.
 
I think I read something that said the Barbarians squad will basically be separate from the RWC squad.

I imagine there could be some crossover (so the likes of Launchbury and Morgan(?) may play, for the game time) but it's basically a Saxons side.
 
I'm pretty sure it's the regular annual fixture as opposed to a game specifically booked as a warm up.
 
Okay then

So if it was a bath saints final it could be:

1) Mullan, 2) George, 3) Brookes
4) Launchbury, 5) Itojie
6) Ewers, 7) Kvesic, 8) Waldrom/Morgan
9) Simpson, 10) Cips
12) Hill, 13) Daly
11) Wade, 14) Yarde, 15) Pennell

16) C-D, 17) Vunipola, 18) Balmain, 19) Slater, 20) Clifford, 21) Robson, 22) Slade, 23) Lewington

Or even have Slade @ 12 and Burns on the bench.
 
Okay then

So if it was a bath saints final it could be:

1) Mullan, 2) George, 3) Brookes
4) Launchbury, 5) Itojie
6) Ewers, 7) Kvesic, 8) Waldrom/Morgan
9) Simpson, 10) Cips
12) Hill, 13) Daly
11) Wade, 14) Yarde, 15) Pennell

16) C-D, 17) Vunipola, 18) Balmain, 19) Slater, 20) Clifford, 21) Robson, 22) Slade, 23) Lewington

Or even have Slade @ 12 and Burns on the bench.
That's almost exactly the side I would hope for, Yarde/Wade are the wrong way round btw, and I'd play May instead of Wade (more realistic chance of making the England team). At 8 Morgan won't be back yet and I would prefer to see Clifford there, as Waldrom is getting on a bit.
Both George, LCD and Youngs were outstanding on the weekend- so much more dynamic than Hartley, I'd start Youngs and bench George in a heartbeat for England (LCD a prospect for next years 6 nations). Honestly, the difference a dynamic front row can make around the field if like night and day; we'd be 2/3 of the way by playing Cole/Youngs, Marler is pretty good and certainly puts in a shift- but a really destructive loosehead+ball carrier would complete the set (Corbs in his prime pls- or Sheridan...either would do!).

Cole/Youngs/Marler/Launch/Lawes/Itoje/Robshaw/Vunipola
George/Vunipola/Wilson/Attwood(Slater)/Ewers

that's a world beating pack+bench there imo- (certainly would challenge NZ for the ***le)

add in Youngs/Ford/Nowell/Tuilagi/Joseph/May/Brown and I think we actually have a good shot at this WC...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top