What changes with Eddie Jones

[TRF_Olyy]

but my concern with picking overseas based players is that you sacrifice future long term success, for short term gain

Absolutely this!
The amount of people I've seen on social media today saying that Jones is missing the "bigger picture" is really making my head hurt. If anything he's 100% got his eyes ON the big picture, the mass of difficulties that would arise from selecting France based players.

 

[Tony Manx]

Absolutely this!
The amount of people I've seen on social media today saying that Jones is missing the "bigger picture" is really making my head hurt. If anything he's 100% got his eyes ON the big picture, the mass of difficulties that would arise from selecting France based players.

We can but agree to disagree.......

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What's to disagree on? Losing players to France would be a huge ball ache for England, and for rugby in England.
A Journo said at the end of the world cup that France based players would only be available for 5/8 of the remaining tests this season, and also miss (I think) three weeks of training.
Why would we want that?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Had the breakdown and Lancasters refusal to select a proper 7 been such an issue, I doubt there would have been this clamour to get SA into the England squad. For any who want him, he doesn't give 2 ****s about England and I think he would poison the atmosphere.

 

[Shaggy]

What's to disagree on? Losing players to France would be a huge ball ache for England, and for rugby in England.
A Journo said at the end of the world cup that France based players would only be available for 5/8 of the remaining tests this season, and also miss (I think) three weeks of training.
Why would we want that?

Exactly, from a national team perspective (as opposed to a players' or clubs perspective), it adds extra complications into the selection process

 

[j'nuh]

Honestly, I don't understand what the bigger picture is that people think Eddie Jones is missing? Literally the only pros coming out of selecting overseas-based players is that we can use Armitage and Abendanon. And even then, they are 30 and 29 respectively. I wouldn't be surprised if they were on their way out over the next few years. Particularly in regards to Abendanon, why would we back up our 30 year old fullback with a 29 year old fullback? It would be succession madness. As for Armitage, how much of an upgrade is he on Kvesic?

The bigger picture is the reasons not to do it:

• We open up the possibility of losing heaps of players to France. There is a lot of big picture involved in this single issue. Losing players to France causes release issues and makes it more difficult to guarantee rest periods. You weaken Premiership squads resulting in a not-so-elite environment for other players to work in. The head coach has even less control on how players are developed and used at club-level. Losing our best players to France devalues the English domestic game, causing less money to feed into the game and weakened infrastructure. Our clubs need to be competitive and our domestic product needs to be well-watched in order to guarantee interest in the sport for future generations.
• We pee off the English-based players who turned down the money of France in order to play for England, only for us to relax the rules anyway
• Commitment to the international game (in particular the rigours of fitness training that comes with it) is a big deal, and those that chase money over international honours don't really show a great deal of it. (Which is fine, no criticism of their choice, but I want players playing for England who are 100% committed.)

 

[Peat]

We can but agree to disagree.......

You might think it's the wrong decision Tony, but I don't see how you can disagree that there's a lot of difficulties that arises if he'd said he was going to pick foreign-based players, first and foremost being that he probably wouldn't have got the job, because the second issue would be he'd have metaphorically urinated in PRL's face and the English rugby team needs them in the current set-up.

Had the breakdown and Lancasters refusal to select a proper 7 been such an issue, I doubt there would have been this clamour to get SA into the England squad. For any who want him, he doesn't give 2 ****s about England and I think he would poison the atmosphere.

Had Lancaster insisted on a proper 7 and attending to the breakdown, I think he'd have been leading the clamour to get Armitage into the England squad - just by getting him to move back.

 

[stus768]

Honestly, I don't understand what the bigger picture is that people think Eddie Jones is missing? Literally the only pros coming out of selecting overseas-based players is that we can use Armitage and Abendanon. And even then, they are 30 and 29 respectively. I wouldn't be surprised if they were on their way out over the next few years. Particularly in regards to Abendanon, why would we back up our 30 year old fullback with a 29 year old fullback? It would be succession madness. As for Armitage, how much of an upgrade is he on Kvesic?

The bigger picture is the reasons not to do it:

• We open up the possibility of losing heaps of players to France. There is a lot of big picture involved in this single issue. Losing players to France causes release issues and makes it more difficult to guarantee rest periods. You weaken Premiership squads resulting in a not-so-elite environment for other players to work in. The head coach has even less control on how players are developed and used at club-level. Losing our best players to France devalues the English domestic game, causing less money to feed into the game and weakened infrastructure. Our clubs need to be competitive and our domestic product needs to be well-watched in order to guarantee interest in the sport for future generations.
• We pee off the English-based players who turned down the money of France in order to play for England, only for us to relax the rules anyway
• Commitment to the international game (in particular the rigours of fitness training that comes with it) is a big deal, and those that chase money over international honours don't really show a great deal of it. (Which is fine, no criticism of their choice, but I want players playing for England who are 100% committed.)

Also it the main carrot the RFU can use during EPS negotiations with the clubs. Keeping it maintains the relationship and allows the greater access agreement to continue.
It would increase the cost of English players as well reducing their value.

It annoys me when people mention the new Australian rules and ask why England can't do it. So stupid. Even Tom May mentioned it in his espn column. What rule could we put in to not cover everyone but allows us to pick SA and bendy?

 

[Peat]

Also it the main carrot the RFU can use during EPS negotiations with the clubs. Keeping it maintains the relationship and allows the greater access agreement to continue.
It would increase the cost of English players as well reducing their value.

It annoys me when people mention the new Australian rules and ask why England can't do it. So stupid. Even Tom May mentioned it in his espn column. What rule could we put in to not cover everyone but allows us to pick SA and bendy?

Head coach is given a wildcard allowing selection of two foreign-based players?

In fairness, I would not be opposed to that rule, but am not for it that strongly either.

 

[Tony Manx]

You might think it's the wrong decision Tony, but I don't see how you can disagree that there's a lot of difficulties that arises if he'd said he was going to pick foreign-based players, first and foremost being that he probably wouldn't have got the job, because the second issue would be he'd have metaphorically urinated in PRL's face and the English rugby team needs them in .

Can understand all the arguments that the majority of people use to justify non selection of players not playing in England but just happen to feel that the best team should be selected within international rules.

This is not a pro argument in relation to any individual player but as a general rule!

There is no international rule banning selection of players for one country who play in another to my knowledge!
Indeed, Wales, Ireland and Scotland all benefit from there being no such rules!!

I also would select any qualified player provided his qualifications were in accord with international rules and he was good enough!!

It is a difference in ideology I suppose!!

In addition, I have severe doubts about the integrity of a guy who wrote in a newspaper during the RWC that he would have picked Armitage, for example, only to obviously change his mind a few weeks later just to snare a high paying job!

Almost as bad as Blair pretending NOT to be Catholic so he could be elected Prime Minister!!!

 

[McTallshort]

Bet we see Martin Johnson back in some way shape or form

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's a shame he never went into coaching at a lower level after (or instead of) his England gig.
Potentially could have been a very good forwards coach, but doubt he'd want to after that ordeal.

 

[bazwaz]

Not sure if it's a case of EJ flip flopping about saying he would of chosen overseas based players ...more of a case he is now an employee and must back his employer and conform with existing policies...just like any other employee / employer relationship isn't it?...

 

[Which Tyler]

I still think it was a case of Eddie Jones enjoying throwing a verbal bomb in England's direction at no cost to himself (at the time).

Again, does anyone really believe the rubbish all of these guys say to the press? Either when they're simply trying to disrupt someone else, or when they're towing the party line. Do we really believe that Campese thinks that Lancaster is a better rugby coach than Jones? Do we really think that SCW would have selected... whatever batshit crazy selection he's pushing this week to be forgotten about next?

 

[McTallshort]

Dont forget EJ has worked in the premiership and is probably a little more understanding of their needs and concerns.

 

[bazwaz]

...Interestingly, despite all the turmoil and uncertainty around who would be coaching England, England have remained favourites with the bookies to take out the 6 Nations...Ireland second favourites followed by Wales and then France...I bet the Scottish will have something to say about that...

 

[stus768]

Head coach is given a wildcard allowing selection of two foreign-based players?

In fairness, I would not be opposed to that rule, but am not for it that strongly either.

That would be interesting! Potential to cause a lot of problems though.

Prem clubs still able to lose their best players. As it would be the England coaches decision who these people r it could lead to some ****** off DORs.

Eg if Manu is offered a contract in France then England would have to state whether they would pick him.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I bet the Scottish will have something to say about that...

Probably "Oh no, we've come 5th/6th again!"

 

[bazwaz]

...and their favourite ref Craig Joubert officiating in Scotland's 6 Nation game in Dublin against Ireland - what will they be saying about that I wonder?..

 

[McTallshort]

...and their favourite ref Craig Joubert officiating in Scotland's 6 Nation game in Dublin against Ireland - what will they be saying about that I wonder?..

Probably another out pouring of self pity, Scotland is becoming the new Liverpool.

As for the bookies putting odds on England, well that just shows how much the bookies understand rugby.