Have you seen the England Squad?

[Rupert Prince]

On 04/03/2020 at 16:50, Harry Stottle said:

Opinions Princey, some agree with it others don't, I don't watch union but my son sent me a link from the recent World Cup of the Japanese team, about 7 player's 6'-8" Caucasians what's all that about, laughable.

Only about 13 local born Japanese in their WC squad.   And their coach was not Japanese.   This is the way of modern sport.  The point is,  for us, are the available players good enough?  If people are qualified (and to be frank I do not agree with modern rules...) then they should be selected  IF  they are good enough.

In the case of cricket and Ben Stokes of course he is easily good enough... should England ignore a suitably gifted RL player??

[hunsletgreenandgold]

7 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Only about 13 local born Japanese in their WC squad.   And their coach was not Japanese.   This is the way of modern sport.  The point is,  for us, are the available players good enough?  If people are qualified (and to be frank I do not agree with modern rules...) then they should be selected  IF  they are good enough.

In the case of cricket and Ben Stokes of course he is easily good enough... should England ignore a suitably gifted RL player??

I get your point overall - it's been discussed many times by many of us on here. I don't see the comparison with Ben Stokes however. He's not a Kiwi who qualified for England on some tenuous family link or a Jofra Archer who qualified on residency rules - he's lived here since he was 12. Done all his training in England and he's identified more as English than a New Zealander when the time came to pick. The closest to that in RL terms is Gareth Widdop who, if he had decided to, would've been eligible but for Aus, but opted to play for England. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Only about 13 local born Japanese in their WC squad.   And their coach was not Japanese.   This is the way of modern sport.  The point is,  for us, are the available players good enough?  If people are qualified (and to be frank I do not agree with modern rules...) then they should be selected  IF  they are good enough.

In the case of cricket and Ben Stokes of course he is easily good enough... should England ignore a suitably gifted RL player??

Good debate answers,

You do not agree with modern rules just as I don't, but I cannot bend enough as you seem able to do to accept the qualification rules which brings me into my interpretation of how it should be marshalled, you single out Ben Stokes, òn the residency rule I would accept anyone who has got a minimum of 10 years plus of living in any country foreign to their birthplace, but would I respect Joffery Archer who had not been in the country less than a year not in a million years, that says to me the country is very desperate or the player has mercenary values. Which brings me round nicely to Hastings and Austen, they are playing the grandparent rule, both only setting foot in the UK for a short period, before selection in Hastings case 18 months before and Austen less than a 12 months for selection, both lads dyed in the wool Australian born and bred and learned there trade there, are they suiable enough to represent their own country not in a million years, are they suitably gifted RL player's over and above what we can offer, on the evidence of how they performed on the tour I would certainly challenge their selection.

It is a very moot point Princey, their are those who can either side with the "qualification" criteria, select foriegners and rejoice in any victory that may accur, but I would sooner win with those who's birth right selects them without question and say this is England or GB no outside influences we have done it with our own, I would sooner be a gallant loser than an assited winner.

My views of course, but I would sooner put faith in our own than lend on outside influences.

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I get your point overall - it's been discussed many times by many of us on here. I don't see the comparison with Ben Stokes however. He's not a Kiwi who qualified for England on some tenuous family link or a Jofra Archer who qualified on residency rules - he's lived here since he was 12. Done all his training in England and he's identified more as English than a New Zealander when the time came to pick. The closest to that in RL terms is Gareth Widdop who, if he had decided to, would've been eligible but for Aus, but opted to play for England. 

Fair comments, perhaps Eoin Morgan is more realistic. 

[Rupert Prince]

Mr Stottle, again fair comments.  We may not like grandparents rule and residency etc.   But cricket England fans and Barmy Army cheer on Archer.  He has a world cup medal...

[longboard]

50 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Mr Stottle, again fair comments.  We may not like grandparents rule and residency etc.   But cricket England fans and Barmy Army cheer on Archer.  He has a world cup medal...

TBH, eligibility rules do not reflect the major challenges affecting team sports, but they are easy issues for people to grouse about.

[Rupert Prince]

27 minutes ago, longboard said:

TBH, eligibility rules do not reflect the major challenges affecting team sports, but they are easy issues for people to grouse about.

When your premier record breaking fast bowler is injured it's always a good thing to avoid immediate challenges by fast tracking in some one who can sling them down at 99mph!

[longboard]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

When your premier record breaking fast bowler is injured it's always a good thing to avoid immediate challenges by fast tracking in some one who can sling them down at 99mph!

Perhaps so, but in the long run such options run out. 

[frank]

Hell of a pack with Hill and Farrell in it.The Aussies will be delighted.