Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
costa

Ratu Naulago for GB?

Recommended Posts

Presume he's eligible. 

Sure he's raw, but undoubtedly talented.

Plays same side as Makinson - could be an issue? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope there's lots more to come. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

9s World Cup for mine 

Assuming he doesn't make the GB team then that's a no brainer. He is tailor made for 9's.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How does he qualify for England/GB? An honest question.

He's in the British army , so possibly ' residence ' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, costa said:

Presume he's eligible. 

Sure he's raw, but undoubtedly talented.

Plays same side as Makinson - could be an issue? 

Possibly.

But having just watched the WC cricket semi final and I see that the 'England' captain was born in Dublin. And a nice soft brogue he has. But born in Dublin as he was, he plays not simply for 'GB' but for 'England'. He has an English mother.     Meantime we ourselves have this question, this ambivalence, over whether we in RL should have GB or England.  

Should we really worry too much about where people in GB & I come from, when cricket have people from all over the place and still play for 'England'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, costa said:

Presume he's eligible. 

Why do you presume he’s eligible? I’m not saying he is or he isn’t, I just find it curious that you presume he is.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said:

He's served in the military so good luck to him with whatever he chooses, but Fijian born and bred... Would rather he play for them myself.

Me to, sorry I don't care how good a player is if you have some other person/player worthy of selection i.e. a player born and bred then he should take preferance in my opinion, I also feel exactly the same about all the other RL playing nations and also other sports and countries who continue to fabricate a way of getting 'foreigners' into their national teams, and that is said with no racial undertones at all before someone accuses me of being so, it is just a way I feel about this matter of international selection in sport.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said:

He's served in the military so good luck to him with whatever he chooses, but Fijian born and bred... Would rather he play for them myself.

I think he’s been in England 9 years and could’ve applied for British residency.  Yes, I agree with Fiji but we know the way things are these days.  Mason was born in NZ but ended up playing for Tonga and Australia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's more to do with England being a strong rugby league country, Fiji a developing one, than a question of identity. Ultimately it's up to him, but I'd hope English authorities aren't in his ear... Just as the Radrada Kangaroo selection disappointed me. As a strong nation, we have an obligation to not poach. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Me to, sorry I don't care how good a player is if you have some other person/player worthy of selection i.e. a player born and bred then he should take preferance in my opinion, I also feel exactly the same about all the other RL playing nations and also other sports and countries who continue to fabricate a way of getting 'foreigners' into their national teams, and that is said with no racial undertones at all before someone accuses me of being so, it is just a way I feel about this matter of international selection in sport.

The problem is that in the modern world 'born' and 'bred' are often different things.

Let's say George Burgess moves to Super League and plays out his career here and then stays in England (his native land).

Which country should his kids play for? They were born in Australia but bred in England.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said:

For me it's more to do with England being a strong rugby league country, Fiji a developing one, than a question of identity. Ultimately it's up to him, but I'd hope English authorities aren't in his ear... Just as the Radrada Kangaroo selection disappointed me. As a strong nation, we have an obligation to not poach. 

I would rather being born in a country meant you could represent it and would want to, but we have rules and if these rules allow a player to play for another to benefit that team, coaches can and will select them.

Makes you wonder what the RU coaches at Bath we’re looking at when he played as a Guest player for them.  ‘Guest player’? Will that be the next step up from Marquee 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

The problem is that in the modern world 'born' and 'bred' are often different things.

Let's say George Burgess moves to Super League and plays out his career here and then stays in England (his native land).

Which country should his kids play for? They were born in Australia but bred in England.

Yes Dunbar, as in anything there will always be "grey" areas, which this you quote is undoubtedly one, should allowances be made in some cases, yes, I think they should, but and I think you know that I am relating to those who have spent  most of their life in the country of their birth and their chosen profession takes them to another country and 3 years later they can represent that country, sorry but for me that is a complete load of tosh. 

I am as fervent about watching GB/England as anyone and previously have made trips down under and I am even contemplating going this year (fortunate enough to be able to afford it and retired) but if my international team started filling the team up with 'residents' or those under the 3rd generation rule who may have never set foot in the UK that would be me done, I would disown the team and not attend again, how those who watch that other oval ball game at Twikkers or Murrayfield can delight in the teams their selectors put out to represent them I just cannot understand or comprehend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I would rather being born in a country meant you could represent it and would want to, but we have rules and if these rules allow a player to play for another to benefit that team, coaches can and will select them.

Makes you wonder what the RU coaches at Bath we’re looking at when he played as a Guest player for them.  ‘Guest player’? Will that be the next step up from Marquee 😀

If our national team included say 6 or 7 of those you describe in your first paragraph, firstly would you attend, secondly could you take satisfaction from a victory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes Dunbar, as in anything there will always be "grey" areas, which this you quote is undoubtedly one, should allowances be made in some cases.

And this is one of those cases. This bloke isn’t some random Fijian who has come over here to play sport. He’s a man who has pledged allegiance to fight and die for this country if required; served in Cyprus, Afghanistan etc. If he decides he wants to play for England, IMO he’s more than earned his right to do so. 

(But I don’t think he’ll be picked for any rep side).

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

And this is one of those cases. This bloke isn’t some random Fijian who has come over here to play sport. He’s a man who has pledged allegiance to fight and die for this country if required; served in Cyprus, Afghanistan etc. If he decides he wants to play for England, IMO he’s more than earned his right to do so. 

(But I don’t think he’ll be picked for any rep side).

So if at any point do you draw a line in the sand, or are you happy whoever wears the shirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So if at any point do you draw a line in the sand, or are you happy whoever wears the shirt?

If we are going by the book, the eligibility criteria is the line in the sand. It works for other sports, so why not RL? What makes us so different than football or cricket? If we went solely on where you were born, the likes of John Barnes, Kevin Petersen et al would have never played for our national sides.

So where do I stand? I guess if people meet the eligibility criteria and make a commitment to this nation, then that's good enough for me - hundreds of thousands have done it in the past and continue to do it today in my line of work; fought and died for this country despite having not been born here. So for me, it's more than acceptable in the sporting world as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

And this is one of those cases. This bloke isn’t some random Fijian who has come over here to play sport. He’s a man who has pledged allegiance to fight and die for this country if required; served in Cyprus, Afghanistan etc. If he decides he wants to play for England, IMO he’s more than earned his right to do so. 

That's a fair point

For consistency, anyone saying he shouldn't be picked to play rugby for England should also presumably saying he shouldn't be in the British Army?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes Dunbar, as in anything there will always be "grey" areas, which this you quote is undoubtedly one, should allowances be made in some cases, yes, I think they should, but and I think you know that I am relating to those who have spent  most of their life in the country of their birth and their chosen profession takes them to another country and 3 years later they can represent that country, sorry but for me that is a complete load of tosh. 

I am as fervent about watching GB/England as anyone and previously have made trips down under and I am even contemplating going this year (fortunate enough to be able to afford it and retired) but if my international team started filling the team up with 'residents' or those under the 3rd generation rule who may have never set foot in the UK that would be me done, I would disown the team and not attend again, how those who watch that other oval ball game at Twikkers or Murrayfield can delight in the teams their selectors put out to represent them I just cannot understand or comprehend.

In general I agree with you.  I would prefer that the heritage rule was parents and not grandparents and I would also prefer that 3 years playing in Super League is not enough to warrant an England/GB place.

And then something like the Naulago situation comes up.  The guy is allowed to serve Britain in the armed forces and yet we may not allow him to represent the same nation at rugby... that feels wrong somehow... it's complicated.

At the moment though, I think he is miles behind the likes of Makinson in the pecking order so we don't have to worry about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

How does he qualify for England/GB? An honest question.

Does it matter, happens in every sport!! Totally irrelevant question 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are rules obviously and you’d be daft not to pick whoever is best within those for your team. Winning is everything isn’t it. 

You might not like those rules and choose not to watch or support, and the game should respect and consider these views but not necessarily how to them. 

Nationality is a complex thing and some of the above makes me feel quite uncomfortable as though only some people can claim allegiance to a country and not others. I’m not for nation hopping or second choice nationals, nor am I for very tenuous links, but you don’t have to be born somewhere to have that country as the most appropriate place for your nationality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

In general I agree with you.  I would prefer that the heritage rule was parents and not grandparents and I would also prefer that 3 years playing in Super League is not enough to warrant an England/GB place.

And then something like the Naulago situation comes up.  The guy is allowed to serve Britain in the armed forces and yet we may not allow him to represent the same nation at rugby... that feels wrong somehow... it's complicated.

At the moment though, I think he is miles behind the likes of Makinson in the pecking order so we don't have to worry about it.

It's five years residency now Dunbar.

  • Thanks 1

rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...