Wane

[Hela Wigmen]

I want England to win a World Cup and to be in the top two nations on the planet. In order to do this, I couldn’t care less whether all of the players are from Outer Mongolia as long as they can play the game and win high pressure matches.

You get exactly the same for winning a game with 6 Australian born players in the side as you do from winning a game with everyone coming from England. You only have to look at England World Cup wins in Cricket and Rugby Union to see the uplift those games had, despite some of the birthplaces and origins of their players. An uplift in Rugby League participation and engagement due to a World Cup win would be far greater than losing a semi-final with everyone farmed in Wigan. 

 

[Click]

Reading his quote and seeing the "World Cup and have done it with all purely English-born players." -

I feel like it doesn't read particularly well - But he was clearly talking in the context of England and Australia - Our game isn't on an international level to start talking about players that have grown up in England, but were born or spent a couple of years in another country in Europe. 

I feel like he was clearly referring about those "Australians with English Heritage" playing for England, nothing else.

[Lowdesert]

9 minutes ago, Click said:

Reading his quote and seeing the "World Cup and have done it with all purely English-born players." -

I feel like it doesn't read particularly well - But he was clearly talking in the context of England and Australia - Our game isn't on an international level to start talking about players that have grown up in England, but were born or spent a couple of years in another country in Europe. 

I feel like he was clearly referring about those "Australians with English Heritage" playing for England, nothing else.

The qualification rights are here and I'm sure Wane will take advantage of them if he needs to.

Were it went astray under Bennett were the choices of good, but no better than English, players from the NRL.  

[Martyn Sadler]

There seems to be an element here of taking quotes out of context to create controversy where none should exist.

With reference to Victor Radley, Wane said that he wants to select players who are committed to England, regardless of the qualification criteria.

Players who have lived in England for virtually their whole lives, but were not born here, didn't come into the discussion.

Wane was clearly differentiating himself from his predecessor, who was happy to select Australian-born players who qualified on ancestry grounds for England or Great Britain but who were Australian at heart.

Having said that, i think the qualification criteria for international selection should be that you hold a passport of the country you want to play for.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I’m hoping it flies under the radar after that daft Union players comments yesterday. 

Didn't see it Hela?

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Didn't see it Hela?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8427783/amp/England-rugby-star-Courtney-Lawes-slammed-tweet-Marcus-Rashford.html

Apologies, it’s Daily Mail. 

[Harry Stottle]

35 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There seems to be an element here of taking quotes out of context to create controversy where none should exist.

With reference to Victor Radley, Wane said that he wants to select players who are committed to England, regardless of the qualification criteria.

Players who have lived in England for virtually their whole lives, but were not born here, didn't come into the discussion.

Wane was clearly differentiating himself from his predecessor, who was happy to select Australian-born players who qualified on ancestry grounds for England or Great Britain but who were Australian at heart.

Having said that, i think the qualification criteria for international selection should be that you hold a passport of the country you want to play for.

Please enlighten me as to the qualification criteria required to hold any particular passport Martin, it is a genuine question I am not trying to catch you out.

[Pulga]

The more ridiculous thing is winning the WC. 

I don't think England has been in a worse position for decades.

I could see PNG, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji beating them on a good day.

[Dunbar]

While his comment was initially taken out of context and made to look worse than it was, Wane needs to be careful with his language.

Saying something like "purely English-born players" even if he was speaking with reference to Victor Radley does have implications for the likes of Mikolaj Oledzki even though I believe that Wane is happy to have him in his squads.

It was lazy by Wane and he should be coached to be more articulate in this area in the future.

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Pulga said:

The more ridiculous thing is winning the WC. 

I don't think England has been in a worse position for decades.

I could see PNG, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji beating them on a good day.

I think we have the players, don't get hoodwinked by the style of play Bennett had them performing and the selections he made, also absent are Jamie Peacock great international player but that is where he shiukd have finished and Kevin Sinfield who never ever meshed beyond the domestic game,  also in the psychological dept, Mr Wane will have them running through walls, you are going to witness a far different team from these shores than you have witnessed for a long time.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

While his comment was initially taken out of context and made to look worse than it was, Wane needs to be careful with his language.

Saying something like "purely English-born players" even if he was speaking with reference to Victor Radley does have implications for the likes of Mikolaj Oledzki even though I believe that Wane is happy to have him in his squads.

It was lazy by Wane and he should be coached to be more articulate in this area in the future.

Yep, he needs some of those there 'execusion' lessons.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think we have the players, don't get hoodwinked by the style of play Bennett had them performing and the selections he made, also absent are Jamie Peacock great international player but that is where he shiukd have finished and Kevin Sinfield who never ever meshed beyond the domestic game,  also in the psychological dept, Mr Wane will have them running through walls, you are going to witness a far different team from these shores than you have witnessed for a long time.

I agree with this and despite this storm in a teacup, Wane is the man for the job.

And on a wider note, maybe Samoa, Tonga, PNG and Fiji can beat England.

But they could also beat New Zealand as some them have proved recently.

And Tonga can beat Australia as they have proved recently

I would argue this is tremendous for the international game.

[Welsh RL & RU watcher]

21 minutes ago, Pulga said:

The more ridiculous thing is winning the WC. 

I don't think England has been in a worse position for decades.

I could see PNG, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji beating them on a good day.

PNG could have beating England in 2008. S Hayne gave a dodgy forward pass call against PNG at the start of the 2nd half, he couldn't have bn 100% it was forward, benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacking side. 

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There seems to be an element here of taking quotes out of context to create controversy where none should exist.

With reference to Victor Radley, Wane said that he wants to select players who are committed to England, regardless of the qualification criteria.

Players who have lived in England for virtually their whole lives, but were not born here, didn't come into the discussion.

Wane was clearly differentiating himself from his predecessor, who was happy to select Australian-born players who qualified on ancestry grounds for England or Great Britain but who were Australian at heart.

Having said that, i think the qualification criteria for international selection should be that you hold a passport of the country you want to play for.

The conversation was initially about Radley, and I think he's entitled to have his view on the issue of picking Aussie born, England-eligible players. We've been round that one many times on here. 

But then he went on to use phrases like "pure-born English" and "I know what an Englishman is, I know what an Englishman is" which at best are very careless, as they imply he only sees people born here as English and his own personal views on Englishness are driving his selection. Both of these would be unacceptable.

If I'm being charitable I'd say he wasn't considering the exact meaning of the words he was saying, but people's off the cuff speech often gives a good guide to what they really feel. 

I like Shaun Wane, I heard one of his speaking engagements in the City and it was very interesting and captivated many types in the room who wouldn't have cared much for rugby league to put it lightly! 

But I'd expect the England head coach to consider his words more wisely and understand the responsibility he has which goes beyond putting the team on the park, that's part of the job of a national team coach. I wouldn't expect Gareth Southgate for instance to get in such a muddle. 

Frankly, going back to the Bennett era and then now, I don't know why it's even the coaches that seem to have a say on selection criteria. The RFL - the national governing body - should be the ones publicly stating eligibility and then the coaches should just get on with it. 

[Martyn Sadler]

34 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Please enlighten me as to the qualification criteria required to hold any particular passport Martin, it is a genuine question I am not trying to catch you out.

Passport qualifications are not a subject in which I have any expert knowledge.

But the point is that obtaining a passport is a sign of commitment to a particular country, rather than saying that a mere three years living there entitles someone to represent it.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Passport qualifications are not a subject in which I have any expert knowledge.

But the point is that obtaining a passport is a sign of commitment to a particular country, rather than saying that a mere three years living there entitles someone to represent it.

While I understand your point, obtaining a passport through residency, parentage or marriage varies from country to country, as does the ability to gain citizenship.

I would argue that bringing this degree of variability into international selection would complicate it far more than it is today.

[Toby Chopra]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

Passport qualifications are not a subject in which I have any expert knowledge.

But the point is that obtaining a passport is a sign of commitment to a particular country, rather than saying that a mere three years living there entitles someone to represent it.

It's not as clear cut as that. Victor Radley could get a British passport easily without setting foot here as his dad was British citizen born in UK.

So arguably those who have played here for a certain amount of time have shown more comittment to the country than lucky passport holders.

I think 3 years is too short - it's just the length of a single contract - but 5 years I think is a decent measure of a deeper connection. 

[OMEGA]

I think we all know what Wayne means and it’s not some far right, EDL, Nationalism driven agenda is it!

He doesn’t want plastic Englishmen who only choose to be English because they can’t get into the Australian team.

Bennett went crazy as soon as he got the England job and tried to get the Morris twins, Ben Hannant, Trent Hodkinson, Chris Heighington, Chris McQueen etc to play for England. Throw in the stupidity of Rangi Chase’s selection under Steve McNamara and you can understand where Wayne is coming from.

Suggesting that he doesn’t view Oledski as English by emphasising the phrase ‘Pure bred Englismen’ is just agenda driven gaslighting by the OP.

[Martyn Sadler]

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The conversation was initially about Radley, and I think he's entitled to have his view on the issue of picking Aussie born, England-eligible players. We've been round that one many times on here. 

But then he went on to use phrases like "pure-born English" and "I know what an Englishman is, I know what an Englishman is" which at best are very careless, as they imply he only sees people born here as English and his own personal views on Englishness are driving his selection. Both of these would be unacceptable.

If I'm being charitable I'd say he wasn't considering the exact meaning of the words he was saying, but people's off the cuff speech often gives a good guide to what they really feel. 

I like Shaun Wane, I heard one of his speaking engagements in the City and it was very interesting and captivated many types in the room who wouldn't have cared much for rugby league to put it lightly! 

But I'd expect the England head coach to consider his words more wisely and understand the responsibility he has which goes beyond putting the team on the park, that's part of the job of a national team coach. I wouldn't expect Gareth Southgate for instance to get in such a muddle. 

Frankly, going back to the Bennett era and then now, I don't know why it's even the coaches that seem to have a say on selection criteria. The RFL - the national governing body - should be the ones publicly stating eligibility and then the coaches should just get on with it. 

The problem is that in these days of social media we all need to be as wise as Socrates in choosing our words carefully for fear that someone will accuse us of an offence that we had no intention of committing.

It would be wonderful if Shaun had a command of the language and was able to use it as precisely as an Oxford Professor of English Language.

But he's a Rugby League coach, who is employed not for his mastery of English phrasing but for his ability to coach and motivate a team.

I have some sympathy with your final point, which is why I think a national passport should be the criterion for selection.

 

[Martyn Sadler]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

While I understand your point, obtaining a passport through residency, parentage or marriage varies from country to country, as does the ability to gain citizenship.

I would argue that bringing this degree of variability into international selection would complicate it far more than it is today.

The qualification process for a passport would be complicated, as you suggest.

But the question of whether you have one or not is not complicated. It's either yes or no.

[Martyn Sadler]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

It's not as clear cut as that. Victor Radley could get a British passport easily without setting foot here as his dad was British citizen born in UK.

So arguably those who have played here for a certain amount of time have shown more comittment to the country than lucky passport holders.

I think 3 years is too short - it's just the length of a single contract - but 5 years I think is a decent measure of a deeper connection. 

Victor could get a passport, and if he did he would qualify to be considered for England under my selection criteria.

Given that we are not using the possession of a passport as the relevant criterion, however, I think that the residential qualification should ideally be based on the player having lived in the country prior to making his professional debut.

[OMEGA]

IMO, qualification should be pretty strict, I’d drop the Grandparent qualification and strictly adhere to one of the following Born in the Country in question / Parent(s) / Passport Holder.

 

[Dunbar]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

The qualification process for a passport would be complicated, as you suggest.

But the question of whether you have one or not is not complicated. It's either yes or no.

I can apply for an Italian passport through marriage without ever having lived there.

Other countries do not allow this.  The whole concept would be fraught with inconsistency.

[Tre Cool]

I'm pretty disappointed with his comments.  It smacks of flag waving nationalism where some people are considered more English than others based on some weird ideals.  If he said he'd prefer not to use grandparent rule for Aussie born and raised players then fair enough but it's not ok to tell players who may have been born outside England to English parents, or who moved to England at a young age from another country that they aren't English enough for his teams.  Especially in the current climate it's not unreasonable to expect our national team head coach to be more careful with his words.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I can apply for an Italian passport through marriage without ever having lived there.

Other countries do not allow this.  The whole concept would be fraught with inconsistency.

Yes, but it's for individual nations to decide who qualifies for their passport, not for sporting authorities.

The inconsistency would be between nations in how they view citizenship.

The sporting bodies would have to accept the criteria set out by their national governments.

But there would be consistency, in that they would select people holding their passports.