England Rugby 2018/19 Thread

[Leonormous Boozer]

The likes of Teo and Hughes are blatant but they aren't "poaches" ie we didn't promise them England caps if they came over and targeted as project players, they were already here and eligible. Same with Shields. However these have all been under Jones, a foreign coach with a clear favoritism for SH players.

That's veeeery naive, they were both definitely on the blower with EJ before signing. Both those guys played for the national side before their English club!

Not that I think that's anything to be criticised for.

I don't think anybody has a problem with guys like Moriarty picking who he wants to play for, it is his decision after all. It's clear that people like him should have the choice. My main problem is the project player issue, unions should not be going to (largely NZ/SA) foreign countries with the sole intention of paying people to switch allegiance in a 3 or 5 year plan. While England have certainly embraced the eligibility rules they have never done this.
For me the solution is simple, make it direct parents, not grandparents and change it to 7-10 years for residency if they moved over the age of 18.

The bolded here is another pet peeves of mine. The only reason England don't do this is because they can't because of their club structure, if they were any better they wouldn't play Nathan Hughes and the like.

It's also not the sole reason these players are signed, they're also meant to help their clubs succeed. The unions care about club success too (Winning 2 of the next 5 H cups and Pro 14s was just released as one of the IRFU's objectives in the new five year plan) and these guys help the club, giving preference to guys who could one day help the national team only makes sense. The holier than thou attitude towards this issue is a bit hypocritical coming from England or France considering it exists as a direct result of the unions clubs having more restrictions on signing foreign players.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Mallinder out for the season... Feel bad for the boy, but glad he's not playing for england

 

[TommiG88]

That's veeeery naive, they were both definitely on the blower with EJ before signing. Both those guys played for the national side before their English club!

Not that I think that's anything to be criticised for.

The bolded here is another pet peeves of mine. The only reason England don't do this is because they can't because of their club structure, if they were any better they wouldn't play Nathan Hughes and the like.

It's also not the sole reason these players are signed, they're also meant to help their clubs succeed. The unions care about club success too (Winning 2 of the next 5 H cups and Pro 14s was just released as one of the IRFU's objectives in the new five year plan) and these guys help the club, giving preference to guys who could one day help the national team only makes sense. The holier than thou attitude towards this issue is a bit hypocritical coming from England or France considering it exists as a direct result of the unions clubs having more restrictions on signing foreign players.

Shields is English though...

My father in law; half welsh, born and raised In England but sees himself as Welsh. But because NZ is on the other side of the planet, it's been defined differently for Shields.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Shields is English though...

My father in law; half welsh, born and raised In England but sees himself as Welsh. But because NZ is on the other side of the planet, it's been defined differently for Shields.

I said its nothing to be criticised, we have the same with Kieron Marmion for example and I'd argue to the end of the earth that just because you were born and raised somewhere doesn't make you the nationality of that place. I'm just that he'd definitely been on the phone with Eddie Jones beforehand and its no different to Addison coming here for example.

 

[higgik]

Really good news for the players but also the fans as I'm sure that this will help the national team. However that Premiership chief exec will probably make a statement saying how it's bad for the game.

Still doesn't go far enough.
Prem 16+4 (22 weeks)
Euro 4+3 (8 weeks)
6N 5 (6 weeks)
Tours/RWC 3+3 (7 weeks)
Maximum 30 matches out of 38 possible, (80% play rate)
Currently 67% play rate.

The concession from the unions would be moving 6N to late summer and play tours in September, with no matches in RWC years.
Clubs start season at beginning of November, or have a development only competition during international season, with strict appearance rules, for senior/international players.
30 weeks continuous season keeps the interest going, rather than these 'enforced' breaks whether they be for internationals or these new breaks.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45956402

Common sense from the RFU?!

The devil will be in the detail, and the smart arses who find loop holes, but by the time the tours have been added on to a mid late June GP finish it's really starting to look like the 11 month season.

Much though I love my rugby I enjoy a few months away from it, recharging my enthusiasm and anticipating the new season. Lawes said a while back that he hated the idea of the 11 month season; I suspect he's far from alone and the odd week off here and there earlier in the season won't change that.

 

[BPM]

I don't think anybody has a problem with guys like Moriarty picking who he wants to play for, it is his decision after all. It's clear that people like him should have the choice. My main problem is the project player issue, unions should not be going to (largely NZ/SA) foreign countries with the sole intention of paying people to switch allegiance in a 3 or 5 year plan. While England have certainly embraced the eligibility rules they have never done this.
For me the solution is simple, make it direct parents, not grandparents and change it to 7-10 years for residency if they moved over the age of 18.

This post captures my thoughts on these issues perfectly.

It would be interesting to see what the teams in the 6N would look like if the rules above had been in place.

 

[Aristodemus]

That's veeeery naive, they were both definitely on the blower with EJ before signing. Both those guys played for the national side before their English club!

Not that I think that's anything to be criticised for.

The bolded here is another pet peeves of mine. The only reason England don't do this is because they can't because of their club structure, if they were any better they wouldn't play Nathan Hughes and the like.

It's also not the sole reason these players are signed, they're also meant to help their clubs succeed. The unions care about club success too (Winning 2 of the next 5 H cups and Pro 14s was just released as one of the IRFU's objectives in the new five year plan) and these guys help the club, giving preference to guys who could one day help the national team only makes sense. The holier than thou attitude towards this issue is a bit hypocritical coming from England or France considering it exists as a direct result of the unions clubs having more restrictions on signing foreign players.

As you can see from my post I was talking about ways to stop this system of project players. It's not about finger pointing, it's about what is best for the international game.

As for the snipe at England, yes they have picked players through the residency who I would rather they didn't such as Hughes. You cannot say that it is certain that the RFU would be following the project player route if they owned the clubs though, maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. I would like to think that they would not. If they really wanted to I am sure they could set up a subsidised program even in the current system.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

As you can see from my post I was talking about ways to stop this system of project players. It's not about finger pointing, it's about what is best for the international game.

As for the snipe at England, yes they have picked players through the residency who I would rather they didn't such as Hughes. You cannot say that it is certain that the RFU would be following the project player route if they owned the clubs though, maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. I would like to think that they would not. If they really wanted to I am sure they could set up a subsidised program even in the current system.

Ok, but you can't complain to someone for replying to a point you made just because it wasn't your main point.

My "snipe" was only in response to your own at the unions. England don't have a project player system because they can't, they don't own the clubs and subsidising wages isn't financially viable. If they were above the residency rule, they wouldn't play players who qualify that way and they'd be fools not to.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ok, but you can't complain to someone for replying to a point you made just because it wasn't your main point.

My "snipe" was only in response to your own at the unions. England don't have a project player system because they can't, they don't own the clubs and subsidising wages isn't financially viable. If they were above the residency rule, they wouldn't play players who qualify that way and they'd be fools not to.

Just because we can't have project players, doesn't allow you to then say we would if we could. The fact remains we don't. The clubs definitely did not sign on players to further their chances of playing for England, the ONE exception being Sam Burgess, who was English anyway. Simple fact is you can't snipe at the English for something and then say "oh I'm allowed to do this thing I'm saying you can't because my population is smaller". The capping of foreign born players is up there with the English arrogance and the "oh you are such a big country/union" level of tedious Celt trump cards that are whipped out every sodding year and it's getting tiresome. A bit of banter is fine but the constant sniping by Celts on English rugby stories on any number of mediums is getting to levels that are frankly pathetic. Not so much here but it does betray and underlying sense that England are a free target and we have to play by a different set of rules to everyone else and impose artificial restrictions on ourselves.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Just because we can't have project players, doesn't allow you to then say we would if we could. The fact remains we don't. The clubs definitely did not sign on players to further their chances of playing for England, the ONE exception being Sam Burgess, who was English anyway. Simple fact is you can't snipe at the English for something and then say "oh I'm allowed to do this thing I'm saying you can't because my population is smaller". The capping of foreign born players is up there with the English arrogance and the "oh you are such a big country/union" level of tedious Celt trump cards that are whipped out every sodding year and it's getting tiresome. A bit of banter is fine but the constant sniping by Celts on English rugby stories on any number of mediums is getting to levels that are frankly pathetic. Not so much here but it does betray and underlying sense that England are a free target and we have to play by a different set of rules to everyone else and impose artificial restrictions on ourselves.

I know I've said as much. I'm saying it goes both ways with project players when England profit from that rule or say it's bad out to use the chance to play international rugby as a reason for an eligible player to sign when it happens in England too.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45963345

Baxter for England post Jones?

 

[Chief Pete]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45963345

Baxter for England post Jones?

Just read the same report and came to exactly the same conclusion...

 

[Nudger]

Did I read right loz had his ban extended because he was selected for England and wouldn't be available for sarries 1 game
Wtf

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

Shields is English though...

I don't mind Shields playing for England - rules are rules, but I think calling him "English" is a stretch. His parents moved to New Zealand as young children in 1964 and 1966 respectively. They were raised and educated in New Zealand, Shields was born, raised and educated in New Zealand. Both him and his parents supported the All Blacks until his switch and have god awful kiwi accents. English qualified? sure, English? only in the loosest technical sense at best

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

I know I've said as much. I'm saying it goes both ways with project players when England profit from that rule or say it's bad out to use the chance to play international rugby as a reason for an eligible player to sign when it happens in England too.

I think you're possibly missing the point slightly. The RFU doesn't recruit non-English qualified players to premiership clubs with a view to them qualifying on residency. Other nations, e.g. Scotland have a programme specifically for this purpose. The RFU also doesn't actively finance the recruitment of english-qualified players from other nations and has limited influence in facilitating those decisions. Sure, players may contact or be contacted by the incumbent national team head coach, but there isn't the same level of planning that you see from some other nations.

The players who have played for England through residency in recent years either qualified as children and then came through the system: (Tuilagi, Vunipolae, Clifford, Yarde) or they were independently recruited by clubs, played well and then came onto the England radar (Harrison, Hughes, Rokoduguni, Rhodes, Solomana). The most obvious instances where players were ear-marked for international honours before being eligible (based on England selection criteria of playing in England, not international-eligibility) were Shields and Te'o, but both of those players qualify for an English passport, which in my eyes make them different from a pure mercenary like CJ Stander, Cornell Du Preez, Bundee Aki, WP Nel, Tim Visser or Hadleigh Parkes.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think you're possibly missing the point slightly. The RFU doesn't recruit non-English qualified players to premiership clubs with a view to them qualifying on residency. Other nations, e.g. Scotland have a programme specifically for this purpose. The RFU also doesn't actively finance the recruitment of english-qualified players from other nations and has limited influence in facilitating those decisions. Sure, players may contact or be contacted by the incumbent national team head coach, but there isn't the same level of planning that you see from some other nations.

The players who have played for England through residency in recent years either qualified as children and then came through the system: (Tuilagi, Vunipolae, Clifford, Yarde) or they were independently recruited by clubs, played well and then came onto the England radar (Harrison, Hughes, Rokoduguni, Rhodes, Solomana). The most obvious instances where players were ear-marked for international honours before being eligible (based on England selection criteria of playing in England, not international-eligibility) were Shields and Te'o, but both of those players qualify for an English passport, which in my eyes make them different from a pure mercenary like CJ Stander, Cornell Du Preez, Bundee Aki, WP Nel, Tim Visser or Hadleigh Parkes.

No, I'm disputing exactly that. Hughes et al are no different than Stander or Aki, they were allasigned by clubs served their time and played international rugby, exactly the same. The unions sign players who qualify and don't play just like the English clubs it's just less common because they take in less foreigners.

Fwiw I think any criticism over eligibility is bogus once it's within the rules but statements like "we're not as bad as you because we only do it because we have a fraction of the population" or "our union is better because they don't actively go searching for players" irk me because outside of maybe SA and NZ* I don't see any unions not taking advantage of the 3/5 year rule or granny rule.

*And if these two had the economy to do it they definitely would too.

 

[curtbob7]

Just for Fun, a 23 from the non-selected group.

1.Rapava-Ruskin
2.Taylor
3.Cole
4.Slater
5.Spencer
6.Armand
7.Graham
8. Ewers
9.Robson
10.Cipriani
11.Holmes
12.Eastmond
13.Hill
14.Wade
15.Goode
16.Cowan-Dickie
17. Bateman/Barrington
18. Cooper-Wooley
19.Green/Williams
20.Thompson
21.Spencer/Care
22.Smith
23.Trinder

 

[Mumbles119]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45963345

Baxter for England post Jones?

Just read the same report and came to exactly the same conclusion...

Will assume the common consensus/expectation will be Baxter; but the reality becomes McCall.

 

[Chief Pete]

Will assume the common consensus/expectation will be Baxter; but the reality becomes McCall.

McCall to Ireland IF Schmidt leaves after the world cup....