New and Improved EPS Watch/Player Form Thread

[Captainhaircut]

Are we talking only about fringe players in the main? Have many 1st choice Lions XV players had dubious international backgrounds, for example?

In prior years probably not. I think it’s a growing issue and this year may be different. Lowe, Hansen, Tuipulotu, DVDM, Aki, Schoeman and Gibson Park could all start tests off the top of my head. We could even take 4 Aussies in the squad to tour Australia (Bealham, Tuipulotu, Hansen and Dempsey) and possibly the first 3 are in the 23.

[Mikey Brown]

There’s clearly not a simple answer. The crux of the problem for me though is that I want to see the sides that are successful at international level be a representation of the hard work that country has put in to develop players.

If Scotland won the six nations ahead of Ireland and France, would that be because the SRU had done better than them at developing players, building pathways etc? It wouldn’t- it would be because DVDM, Gordon, tuipulotu, White, Dempsey, Bayliss, Schoeman etc all just decided they were Scottish one day.

I think someone said earlier, it would be interesting to see the reaction of their fans if they weren’t doing well. I guess most fans just want to cheer on a team that wins regardless.

Do you feel like that is most people’s metric? Should France get first dibs on all the players they develop from other countries?

And what is ‘putting the hard work’ aside from pumping money in to it? Where does raw talent come in to it? Do Fiji simply deserve to be so far down the rankings, having incredibly talented players but no resources?

Another interesting question, separate from eligibility rules, is how a player like Chris Harris can be 20th choice (if he even registered at all) centre for England and end up being a deserving Lions tourist under the Scotland setup.

[Oakboy]

Another interesting question, separate from eligibility rules, is how a player like Chris Harris can be 20th choice (if he even registered at all) centre for England and end up being a deserving Lions tourist under the Scotland setup.

That was the sort of thing I was wondering. It's more or less 'win most, lose a few' as far as England are concerned, presumably. I suppose we are guilty of creating fewer opportunities by persisting with players past their top-level usefulness. IMO, the worst mistake is not identifying potential and taking the right sort of selection risks early enough but it's basically down to the HC's judgement. Apart from George (arguably), SB seems to be moving in the right direction on this.

[Puja]

There’s clearly not a simple answer. The crux of the problem for me though is that I want to see the sides that are successful at international level be a representation of the hard work that country has put in to develop players.

If Scotland won the six nations ahead of Ireland and France, would that be because the SRU had done better than them at developing players, building pathways etc? It wouldn’t- it would be because DVDM, Gordon, tuipulotu, White, Dempsey, Bayliss, Schoeman etc all just decided they were Scottish one day.

I think someone said earlier, it would be interesting to see the reaction of their fans if they weren’t doing well. I guess most fans just want to cheer on a team that wins regardless.

Developing players and building pathways is very much affected by money though. If France win, is that because they have got finely honed talent production skills or because they have a massive player base and all the money, so they can churn out in bulk?

We also want to be careful not to be constraining things that we want to keep (like a competitive Fiji and Japan) in the name of being irked about individual cases for T1 countries (especially since the majority of the names mentioned in your concern over Lions were "Project Players" from back when residency was only 3 years, something which has since been shut down, rather than symptoms of the current laws).

Another interesting question, separate from eligibility rules, is how a player like Chris Harris can be 20th choice (if he even registered at all) centre for England and end up being a deserving Lions tourist under the Scotland setup.

This is worth noting too. Scotland turned White and Harris into top-level internationals by focusing on them, something that England were never going to do. Similar with Will Rowlands for Wales. Is there no credit for development of adult players when it comes to "growing your own"?

Puja

[Captainhaircut]

Most of those names aren’t “project players”. I listed 7 and 2 were project players. The rest are some distant ancestry.

Since I appear in the minority here, I’d love to know what people think international sport should represent? People are comfortable with a side being called “Scotland” where half the squad didn’t actually live in country until into their 20s and in some cases never lived in the country. Where half the squad isn’t the product of how Scotland approaches rugby, develops rugby, support rugby?

Scotland is the same population as New Zealand, smaller than Eire (where vast majority of irelands players come from). They are a major economy. They are capable of having more than 2 clubs and investing in the sport properly which is what should be required to succeed.

They don’t though because they don’t have to. They can just run an “exiles program” and have half their squad paid for by English clubs who are bankrolled in large part by a huge EPS agreement.

[Cameo]

I've always thought the main issue was players changing allegiance. If you have always wanted to play for Scotland because your great uncle told you you were Scottish and gave you a kilt then I'm fine with you playing even if you don't have any close links. If you have tried playing for your preferred country, given up and then shopped around for somewhere that'll take you, I'm a bit more dubious that the rules should allow it (not blaming players for doing it under the current rules or countries from taking advantage of them, it's the rules I'm talking about).

I'd favour a rule that was very relaxed about birthplace or ancestry but just provided that every player has to choose at, say, 23 or when signing their first professional contract (whichever is later) what country they want to make themselves eligible for. Not sure how practical that would be, but might avoid all this poaching chat apart from for the real early developers who mainly have their pick anyway.

I think that strikes a fair balance between not making international rugby too mercenary (/keeping the idea of players playing for the team they love) while making some allowance for the complications of life and allegiance. Lots of players would have tricky decisions to make where they have split loyalties but I think I can live with that.

In that scenario, a player like Botha (or Nathan Hines or even Tom Jordan at a bit more of a stretch) is okay as they moved and made a new home before their first professional contract and the idea of playing international rugby really took hold, but someone like Jack Dempsey (or Rikki Flutey or Brad Shields) is not. I like Dempsey but him playing for Scotland makes a bit of a mockery of the international game.

I wouldn't be in favour of the suggestion above about providing that everyone had to have played in the country they want to play for. The finances of rugby just don't allow that in lots of cases. It also goes too far in implying that sporting allegiance equates to a sense of national superioty. I don't think you have to believe that Scotland is the greatest country in the world or the best country for you and your family to live in to be proud of playing for them. Taking Fergus Burke. I'm not sure he should be qualified for Scotland, I don't know him but haven't heard anything suggesting he had a great desire to play for Scotland before it became his best option. However, if that had in fact been his dream all along, I am not sure what would be proved by forcing him to take a lower offer to join a Scottish club if he wanted to achieve that dream.

Samoa and Tonga make this all a bit tricky. It's great for rugby when they are competitive, but in reality that generally relies on a bulk of kiwis with island heritage. The connection is definitely real so it doesn't feel wrong that they are playing even if the All Blacks was their first choice, but changing the rules to allow for switching there allows situations like Dempsey. Of course there have been plenty of players who were Tongan or Samoan first and foremost playing for NZ but many of them moved at a very young age (they'd definitely be caught out by the rule suggested above). No easy solution there - it's tricky with tiny islands with huge first, second and third generation expat communities - but it does raise a weakness in my proposed rule.

It's all just tricky.

I like the suggestion in your second paragraph though don't you mean 23 or when signing a professional contract whichever is EARLIER? A 19 year old can be good enough for international rugby, for example.

I was thinking later, but that if you actually played for a country earlier then you were committed.

My thinking is that a 19 year old getting picked for international rugby will invariably play for the team the want to. Scotland aren't poaching too many kiwis at 19 who have dreams of playing for the All Blacks. 23 also gives a bit of time for people to grow up and make this decision. It does allow scope for people to decide that they are not good enough for their first choice and will settle for someone else, but everything's a compromise and I can live with that if a firm decision is made at a fairly young age.

[Cameo]

Most of those names aren’t “project players”. I listed 7 and 2 were project players. The rest are some distant ancestry.

Since I appear in the minority here, I’d love to know what people think international sport should represent? People are comfortable with a side being called “Scotland” where half the squad didn’t actually live in country until into their 20s and in some cases never lived in the country. Where half the squad isn’t the product of how Scotland approaches rugby, develops rugby, support rugby?

Scotland is the same population as New Zealand, smaller than Eire (where vast majority of irelands players come from). They are a major economy. They are capable of having more than 2 clubs and investing in the sport properly which is what should be required to succeed.

They don’t though because they don’t have to. They can just run an “exiles program” and have half their squad paid for by English clubs who are bankrolled in large part by a huge EPS agreement.

They don't because rugby is a minority sport and there is not enough money. You think the money spent on exiles would fund a third pro team?

Yiur other question about what international rugby is all about is more interesting. If I'm being honest with myself, I don't think it's about anything. It's all a meaningless bit of fun.

What makes it great though is that it's a harmless and fun way in which we can suspend our disbelief for a bit and enjoy a battle of nations/identities/cultures. To keep some integrity (allow us to suspend our disbelief), we need some rules. And I think they should be a bit tighter. But to me turning it into some pure battle of the systems is sterile and practically would lead to a more boring landscape. What works depends on the sport. International rugby league is a joke, but it's hard to argue that it hasn't been improved by a generation of second generation pacific islands deciding that they want to represent Tonga and Samoa despite not having been in any way developed by their non existent systems. I wouldn't like rugby union to become so loose, because we don't need to, but I think we would lose a lot by becoming too puritan about it.

Yes, we know England, for all its faults, has a more productive rugby system than Scotland in terms of producing fully home grown players. That's obvious and has been for decades. Yes, Scotland should do what it can to improve. But I can still enjoy a team of players with a connection with Scotland (in most cases a strong one, even among some of the expats) competing with the best. I have no more issue with Cam Redpath representing that team than I do with Zander Fagerson. My preference for the latter is only because it gives me more hope that we'll produce more and because I also follow Scottish domestic rugby.

Basically, it's like Christmas. It's a nonsense, but it's fun. If you get rid of all the tradition (carols and jesus talk), it becomes sterile and meaningless, but if you cling too rigidly too it, you end uo in church all day feeling guilty and not having any fun.

I get really into development pathways etc., but if I focus too much on it I become jaded. I am not trying to hark back to an idealised amateur era, but when the focus of sport turns too much into the scientific quest to train up young people with the right genes into the perfect competitive machines, I fall out of love with it a bit. To me, the marginal gains of the Sky cycling team were impressive but left me cold. The same to some extent with the British olympic team. My dream sporting superstar is one who has thrived despite the system on sheer talent and bloody mindedness.

[Puja]

Most of those names aren’t “project players”. I listed 7 and 2 were project players. The rest are some distant ancestry.

Just for the sake of sheer pedantry, the list I was thinking of was: "Lowe, Hansen, Tuipulotu, DVDM, Aki, Schoeman and Gibson Park" and I was thinking of Lowe, Aki, Schoeman, and Gibson-Park as being uncapped, mid-20s players, signed to Celtic sides from the Southern Hemisphere very specifically on 3 year contracts. I'd say 4/7 is good enough to count as "most"!

What do you propose for players who genuinely have equal connections between 2+ nations? Like their mum is English and the Dad's Welsh? Do they still have to make a choice at 23?

Puja

[Cameo]

Most of those names aren’t “project players”. I listed 7 and 2 were project players. The rest are some distant ancestry.

Just for the sake of sheer pedantry, the list I was thinking of was: "Lowe, Hansen, Tuipulotu, DVDM, Aki, Schoeman and Gibson Park" and I was thinking of Lowe, Aki, Schoeman, and Gibson-Park as being uncapped, mid-20s players, signed to Celtic sides from the Southern Hemisphere very specifically on 3 year contracts. I'd say 4/7 is good enough to count as "most"!

What do you propose for players who genuinely have equal connections between 2+ nations? Like their mum is English and the Dad's Welsh? Do they still have to make a choice at 23?

Puja

In response to Captain Haircut, I would also say that it is ironic that four of those on the list are Irish imports given he was saying that they show how it is possible to produce your own.

In response to your question on my 23 rule Puja, my short answer is yes. They might have a tricky choice but most of them will have grown up supporting one country over another. I would like to preserve the broad idea of players playing for the team they would want to win whether or not they were playing.

I speak as someone qualified for four countries by birth and a fifth by residency, but who could put them in order (albeit it might be different for different sports). Appreciate others might find it harder but I don't think it is unfair. It is an accident of birth that means they are qualified for two (or more) countries. That's lucky for them. Having to pick when they are 23 seems okay to me - doesn't mean they hate the other country.

The 23 idea may be unworkable for Olympic and other reasons, but my main point is that I don't mind who you play for as long as it is genuinely who you wanted to play for not a reflection of a quasi transfer system.

Agree with you that the biggest issue was the three year residency rule, which has been fixed. I don't like the switching between countries, but it seems it might have to stay (I don't know if they could introduce a longer stand down period?).

[Oakboy]

Having been born in England, I've lived here all my life. Both parents and all four grandparents could have said the same. So, no debate. Others, as described above, have various nationality claims. I can see the arguments for how they can choose and make a decision. What I can't come to terms with is allowing them to change their minds later no matter what weird rules the Olympics or other organisations dream up. Initially an individual picks the sporting allegience that suits him/her best - a selfish but reasonable one-off decision. Allowing transfers at international level is nonsense, IMO.

[Captainhaircut]

Most of those names aren’t “project players”. I listed 7 and 2 were project players. The rest are some distant ancestry.

Just for the sake of sheer pedantry, the list I was thinking of was: "Lowe, Hansen, Tuipulotu, DVDM, Aki, Schoeman and Gibson Park" and I was thinking of Lowe, Aki, Schoeman, and Gibson-Park as being uncapped, mid-20s players, signed to Celtic sides from the Southern Hemisphere very specifically on 3 year contracts. I'd say 4/7 is good enough to count as "most"!

What do you propose for players who genuinely have equal connections between 2+ nations? Like their mum is English and the Dad's Welsh? Do they still have to make a choice at 23?

Puja

I didn’t propose choice at 23. I said a player should have to make a commitment to live or play in that country to play for them. I still think that’s fair.

I can’t abide the current scenario we have where the RFU (funded primarily by the England national team) pays the clubs and they develop players for other countries.

Particularly when you have then have those players attached to those countries blocking English players. Look at centre for example, Hartley and Ojomoh stuck behind Tompkins and Redpath. Freeman who should really be playing centre when everyone is fit (particularly to allow a Furbank, Hendy, Sleightholme back 3) not playing there because Hutchinson is.

Unfortunately world rugby aren’t going to do anything. They’ve already made it worse by allowing switching. The RFU should have pushed much harder on the latest EPS agreement but don’t have any stones. In fact they really should have just bought Saracens, Wasps, Worcester, London Irish and Falcons rather than renewing the EPS but that ship has sailed.

[Oakboy]

Most of those names aren’t “project players”. I listed 7 and 2 were project players. The rest are some distant ancestry.

Just for the sake of sheer pedantry, the list I was thinking of was: "Lowe, Hansen, Tuipulotu, DVDM, Aki, Schoeman and Gibson Park" and I was thinking of Lowe, Aki, Schoeman, and Gibson-Park as being uncapped, mid-20s players, signed to Celtic sides from the Southern Hemisphere very specifically on 3 year contracts. I'd say 4/7 is good enough to count as "most"!

What do you propose for players who genuinely have equal connections between 2+ nations? Like their mum is English and the Dad's Welsh? Do they still have to make a choice at 23?

Puja

I didn’t propose choice at 23. I said a player should have to make a commitment to live or play in that country to play for them. I still think that’s fair.

I can’t abide the current scenario we have where the RFU (funded primarily by the England national team) pays the clubs and they develop players for other countries.

Particularly when you have then have those players attached to those countries blocking English players. Look at centre for example, Hartley and Ojomoh stuck behind Tompkins and Redpath. Freeman who should really be playing centre when everyone is fit (particularly to allow a Furbank, Hendy, Sleightholme back 3) not playing there because Hutchinson is.

Unfortunately world rugby aren’t going to do anything. They’ve already made it worse by allowing switching. The RFU should have pushed much harder on the latest EPS agreement but don’t have any stones. In fact they really should have just bought Saracens, Wasps, Worcester, London Irish and Falcons rather than renewing the EPS but that ship has sailed.

You don't think IFW is 1st choice when fit??????????

[Mikey Brown]

Probably not for Northampton.

[Stom]

I’m theoretically eligible for 3 nations. So if I was asked to play international sport tomorrow by Ireland or Hungary, would I say yes?

Hell yeah!

Do I consider myself Irish or Hungarian?

No.

Because this is professional sport, not national identity.

[Mr Mwenda]

I am eligible for England, Sweden and Canada. Do I consider myself English, Swedish and Canadian? Yes, depending on the circumstances and my mood (sometimes also British). None are definitive. My national identity is multiple.

Young master Mwenda adds Finland to the pot. He probably doesn't feel so strongly about Canada, mind.

[Cameo]

Most of those names aren’t “project players”. I listed 7 and 2 were project players. The rest are some distant ancestry.

Just for the sake of sheer pedantry, the list I was thinking of was: "Lowe, Hansen, Tuipulotu, DVDM, Aki, Schoeman and Gibson Park" and I was thinking of Lowe, Aki, Schoeman, and Gibson-Park as being uncapped, mid-20s players, signed to Celtic sides from the Southern Hemisphere very specifically on 3 year contracts. I'd say 4/7 is good enough to count as "most"!

What do you propose for players who genuinely have equal connections between 2+ nations? Like their mum is English and the Dad's Welsh? Do they still have to make a choice at 23?

Puja

I didn’t propose choice at 23. I said a player should have to make a commitment to live or play in that country to play for them. I still think that’s fair.

I can’t abide the current scenario we have where the RFU (funded primarily by the England national team) pays the clubs and they develop players for other countries.

Particularly when you have then have those players attached to those countries blocking English players. Look at centre for example, Hartley and Ojomoh stuck behind Tompkins and Redpath. Freeman who should really be playing centre when everyone is fit (particularly to allow a Furbank, Hendy, Sleightholme back 3) not playing there because Hutchinson is.

Unfortunately world rugby aren’t going to do anything. They’ve already made it worse by allowing switching. The RFU should have pushed much harder on the latest EPS agreement but don’t have any stones. In fact they really should have just bought Saracens, Wasps, Worcester, London Irish and Falcons rather than renewing the EPS but that ship has sailed.

In contrast, I woulf love rugby in Scotland to be big enough that we could afford to develop loads of internationals for other countries while still having hundreds of Scottish qualified players playing in a vibrant pro league every week.

[Mikey Brown]

No Sale v Toulon thread. Just saw Ben Curry’s try. Can’t remember who it was questioning it when I mentioned him having an incredible attacking skillset a while back, but check that one out.

Is his form outstanding enough to give him a nudge into the 23 or has he underwhelmed too much in previous appearances?

[Stom]

No Sale v Toulon thread. Just saw Ben Curry’s try. Can’t remember who it was questioning it when I mentioned him having an incredible attacking skillset a while back, but check that one out.

Is his form outstanding enough to give him a nudge into the 23 or has he underwhelmed too much in previous appearances?

I don't feel like Ben Curry has underwhelmed, tbh. I feel like he's "whelmed". He's been...fine.

Because, to put it simply, the system sucks.

[jngf]

No Sale v Toulon thread. Just saw Ben Curry’s try. Can’t remember who it was questioning it when I mentioned him having an incredible attacking skillset a while back, but check that one out.

Is his form outstanding enough to give him a nudge into the 23 or has he underwhelmed too much in previous appearances?

I don't feel like Ben Curry has underwhelmed, tbh. I feel like he's "whelmed". He's been...fine.

Because, to put it simply, the system sucks.

I think an issue is does SB see B Curry as a carbon copy of his brother playing wise or is there a genuine point of difference in their respective styles? ( and that has been hard to discern in Ben Curry’s admittedly small number of test appearances so far ).

[Scrumhead]

I’d hope not as that would be a lazy and incorrect assumption. Genetically they are identical twins, but they don’t play in the same way and they’re not even physically the same anymore after Tom’s bulking regime.

From a style POV, Tom is more physical and probably more of a blindside these days, whereas Ben is a bit lighter more in the mould of a traditional ‘fetcher’ at 7. They’re both pretty skilful, but that isn’t the first time Ben’s shown some deft footballing ability.

[Mikey Brown]

Ben is still massive, to be fair, but yeah.

It’s hard not to feel the absurd amount of bulk Tom put on his limited his mobility a bit.

[Danno]

Probably didn't do his hip any favours but what's done is done

[jngf]

Probably didn't do his hip any favours but what's done is done

Sadly reminds me a bit of what might have been had Tom Rees not been plagued with injuries - his ball carrying and attacking dynamism were a beauty to behold in the short tells he got to show it on the test stage.

Regarding Tom Curry ,It might have meant a watering down of the Kamikazee Kids approach but one does wonder what might have been had Eddie Jones moved Underhill to blindside ( who for me had more of the raw materials for it not to mention club experience of playing 6 for Ospreys with Tipuric at 7 ) and T Curry had been left to develop into a lighter but more attacking and linking focussed 7. ( even wondered what if Robshaw was played at 6 and Wood at 7 rather than the way round that Burt persisted in selecting them - heigh ho! )

[Mikey Brown]

[Mellsblue]

Careful.