RugbyRebels

It’s getting ridiculous. It feels like if you hit 23, you haven’t been capped and there’s a granny in the mix, Wales or Ireland or Scotland are trying to turn your head. It’s unedifying to say the least.

I’ve got no interest in Tommy Reffell. Not because he’s not a good player, but because he is Welsh and I am happy for him to stay that way. Hopefully he achieves his dream of playing for his country and players like Willis do the same with England.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:What's the solution to players like Tompkins turning out for Wales, do we simply remove qualification based on parents and grandparents? That would have some consequences.

I thought there used to be a gentleman’s agreement. If there isn’t, then I guess the RFU could start playing hardball on cash. Say that they want a bigger share of 6n money unless the home nations start acting like gentlemen again.

We'd take players going the other way, and I don't know I love the idea of trying to bully other nations of the sharing of cash even if we wouldn't. We're signed up to the same rules, if we don't like them we should lobby to get them changed.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:What's the solution to players like Tompkins turning out for Wales, do we simply remove qualification based on parents and grandparents? That would have some consequences.

I thought there used to be a gentleman’s agreement. If there isn’t, then I guess the RFU could start playing hardball on cash. Say that they want a bigger share of 6n money unless the home nations start acting like gentlemen again.

We'd take players going the other way, and I don't know I love the idea of trying to bully other nations of the sharing of cash even if we wouldn't. We're signed up to the same rules, if we don't like them we should lobby to get them changed.

We didn't break the "gentleman's agreement", though, did we? If there was one to begin with.

It's not a rule, because many EQP, WQP. SQP and IQP are also eligible for at least 1 other home nation as, well, we're 1 country! Or will be unil Boris finishes his masterplan.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
I thought there used to be a gentleman’s agreement. If there isn’t, then I guess the RFU could start playing hardball on cash. Say that they want a bigger share of 6n money unless the home nations start acting like gentlemen again.

We'd take players going the other way, and I don't know I love the idea of trying to bully other nations of the sharing of cash even if we wouldn't. We're signed up to the same rules, if we don't like them we should lobby to get them changed.

We didn't break the "gentleman's agreement", though, did we? If there was one to begin with.

It's not a rule, because many EQP, WQP. SQP and IQP are also eligible for at least 1 other home nation as, well, we're 1 country! Or will be unil Boris finishes his masterplan.

‘Say that they want a bigger share of 6n money unless the home nations start acting like gentlemen again.’
Sounds very much like a Brexiteer tactic. Boris might go for it. Surprised you’re suggesting it though....

Age grade ties you to that country. Job done.

*puts down can opener*

I assume Reffel qualifies on residency, having been in England for the last 4/5 years? At least he is a part product of the English game and owes his development to an English club.
I think England's claim to his services are greater than Ireland's to Willis, as he has played all his rugby in England. Ireland have done nothing to develop him into the player he is.
That's what irks me about some of the players who have opted to play for another country. We do all the graft, put them through an academy, develop them in our club system and someone else cashes in.
That just isnt right to my mind.

If it's about other institutions doing the graft does that mean we never allow another rugby league convert? I mean okay sometimes they play cruel practical jokes like Joel Tomkins, or don't stick around to develop like Burgess, but Robinson did okay for us. Or are they all okay because they're English?

If that lot are okay what of the likes of Te'o, Hartley, Flutey, Stevens, Catt, Shaw, Ojomoh, Ubogu, Waldrom, Abendanon, Rokoduguni, Hape, Botha, Tony Underwood, Vainikolo, Solomona, Sheilds, Heinz, Barritt?

Or even what of the Vunipola's and Cokanasiga?

There are problems in who can pick which players which can seem unfair, I just don't know how we correct that without also seeming unfair. We've just have a change as regards residency, I'm happy to see how that plays out over the coming decade, there are some reasonable shouts being made about qualifying via grandparents that I'd be okay and maybe even happy to see some changes made around also.

It does feel at times like it's okay when it works in our favour and wrong when it doesn't, but that's a hard system to codify unless every other nation loses the plot.

Accept that no system is going to be perfect. And yes making a change might mean it adversely affects a group of players, or possibly a nation/nations. Solving one issue might well lead to the creation of another.
If changes meant we couldnt have picked some of the players listed, then so be it. I think a 3 year residential qualification is way too short, and there is surely a case for a player like Shields, who is the product of NZ rugby, to serve some period in the domestic game before he can play for England.

twitchy wrote:Age grade ties you to that country. Job done.

*puts down can opener*

Not even I'm biting on that rancid bait!

Puja

But we have changed the 3 year residency rule, it's already been agreed to extend that to 5 years, albeit that change has been delayed for 12 months with the IRB citing Covid as the key factor in that delay.

Also how much time in the domestic game is required, in what sport, and at what level? And if other nations don't have a comparable professional level are we only talking about a stipulation for tier 1 nations?

Who developed Tony Underwood?

Digby wrote:If it's about other institutions doing the graft does that mean we never allow another rugby league convert? I mean okay sometimes they play cruel practical jokes like Joel Tomkins, or don't stick around to develop like Burgess, but Robinson did okay for us. Or are they all okay because they're English?

If that lot are okay what of the likes of Te'o, Hartley, Flutey, Stevens, Catt, Shaw, Ojomoh, Ubogu, Waldrom, Abendanon, Rokoduguni, Hape, Botha, Tony Underwood, Vainikolo, Solomona, Sheilds, Heinz, Barritt?

Or even what of the Vunipola's and Cokanasiga?

There are problems in who can pick which players which can seem unfair, I just don't know how we correct that without also seeming unfair. We've just have a change as regards residency, I'm happy to see how that plays out over the coming decade, there are some reasonable shouts being made about qualifying via grandparents that I'd be okay and maybe even happy to see some changes made around also.

It does feel at times like it's okay when it works in our favour and wrong when it doesn't, but that's a hard system to codify unless every other nation loses the plot.

My views on this are pretty simple. I’d remove the grandparent rule and I’d raise residency (as WR are already doing) to 5 years. I’d also make entry in to an ‘exiles’ program solely player-led. Situations like Tompkins’ really shouldn’t happen. The fact that he didn’t seem to be aware of his heritage suggests to me that he has no connection to Wales and did not in any way identify as Welsh until he was approached. This absolutely goes for us too.

A parent (or parents in Shields’ case) is obviously quite a different story, but even then I think a lot depends on the individual. Ben Te’o was only ever a merc who simply used the fact he had an English mother. He’d have had no qualms turning out for Ireland on residency. I don’t want that kind of player.

I have no issue with players who have moved to England as children and have grown up here and developed in the English system. For example, I think we have an entirely legitimate claim to Cokanasiga being ‘one of our own’. I’m not denying his Fijian heritage and the fact that it is clearly important to him, but having lived more than 90% of his life here and having only developed in our age grade/club system, there’s no grounds for argument IMO.

With the amount of economic migration, it’s inevitable that we’ll see more examples like Obogu or Ojomoh. Again, I’m OK with it as they spent a significant amount of their life (not just their career) in England and until the likes of Nigeria have a test side, it’s a non-issue provided they meet residency criteria. I’d say that’s pretty similar to kids migrating with their families from the PI’s to NZ. Fifita is in a minority as most move a lot younger.

Bobby Bridge, Wasps' tame reporter, reckons Willis got 5 turnovers, bringing him to 38. On top of that, he was top tackler for Wasps according to the stats, and only Launchbury carried more (once more, 9 vs 10).

What I love about Willis is the fact that his turnovers don't seem to detract from the rest of his game, they're genuinely a bonus addon. Got a similar view on him when I've done the odd ruck marks, his workrate is fantastic.

You can never quite tell how someone will adapt to test rugby, but right now you could easily mistake Willis for a 70 cap Springbok playing club rugby that’s just a bit too easy for him.

Everyone and firing would you guys have him and curry 6 and 7? With Billy 8. Or would you still want underhill tackling like a mad man with curry at 7? Or take away billy's carrying at 8 and have a crazy mix and match back row? It's a nice "problem" to have.

twitchy wrote:Everyone and firing would you guys have him and curry 6 and 7? With Billy 8. Or would you still want underhill tackling like a mad man with curry at 7? Or take away billy's carrying at 8 and have a crazy mix and match back row? It's a nice "problem" to have.

Honestly, I'd go Willis, Underhill, Curry.

Curry is fast enough off the base to do well enough. We lose a bit of a carrying threat, but have a significant jackal threat at that point, and better ruck support of our own ball.

Raggs wrote:

twitchy wrote:Everyone and firing would you guys have him and curry 6 and 7? With Billy 8. Or would you still want underhill tackling like a mad man with curry at 7? Or take away billy's carrying at 8 and have a crazy mix and match back row? It's a nice "problem" to have.

Honestly, I'd go Willis, Underhill, Curry.

Curry is fast enough off the base to do well enough. We lose a bit of a carrying threat, but have a significant jackal threat at that point, and better ruck support of our own ball.

That is extremely tempting and then you get billy coming off the bench and bashing everyone with his bible.

twitchy wrote:Everyone and firing would you guys have him and curry 6 and 7? With Billy 8. Or would you still want underhill tackling like a mad man with curry at 7? Or take away billy's carrying at 8 and have a crazy mix and match back row? It's a nice "problem" to have.

I have to say, I'd probably pick Cunderhillis for a test tomorrow. It's aggressively disruptive, especially under the new regulations and all three of them are more than handy carriers. I think BillyV might benefit from being dropped and having to fight his way back into the team and I think there's definite benefits to bringing him off the bench.

Puja

Curry and Underhill have been two of our best players, even at a time when the team’s been playing well. So I’d be inclined to keep them both (especially Curry, obviously). I also think there’s good carrying in the team generally outside of Billy, so I’m not overly concerned about a lack ballast of he’s not there.

So for me it’s between Willis and Billy, and Willis is the form player, in any position, in the league. How many other players are as consistently impactful as he is? I’d get him in and see what he can do, and bring Billy on for late stage smashing

Hopefully Eddie feels the same ...

The 8 Nations tournament is a one-off so I don’t see why we couldn’t use it as a bit of an opportunity to experiment.

Is that thing seriously going ahead? Seems like a stupid idea. Figured it had been abandoned already?

I feel like you guys are all forgetting about Brad Shields anyway.

Raggs wrote:Bobby Bridge, Wasps' tame reporter, reckons Willis got 5 turnovers, bringing him to 38. On top of that, he was top tackler for Wasps according to the stats, and only Launchbury carried more (once more, 9 vs 10).

What I love about Willis is the fact that his turnovers don't seem to detract from the rest of his game, they're genuinely a bonus addon. Got a similar view on him when I've done the odd ruck marks, his workrate is fantastic.

Has to be in Eddies squad, and starting with Curry for me. Who plays 8 depends on the overall plan I’d think.

Timbo wrote:You can never quite tell how someone will adapt to test rugby, but right now you could easily mistake Willis for a 70 cap Springbok playing club rugby that’s just a bit too easy for him.

Yep.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Bobby Bridge, Wasps' tame reporter, reckons Willis got 5 turnovers, bringing him to 38. On top of that, he was top tackler for Wasps according to the stats, and only Launchbury carried more (once more, 9 vs 10).

What I love about Willis is the fact that his turnovers don't seem to detract from the rest of his game, they're genuinely a bonus addon. Got a similar view on him when I've done the odd ruck marks, his workrate is fantastic.

Has to be in Eddies squad, and starting with Curry for me. Who plays 8 depends on the overall plan I’d think.

Agreed. I still see Willis as potentially our best flanker. He needs to play to prove it (or not). Curry is currently our best proven international flanker and adequate at 8.

What are the current thoughts on a 6:2 bench split? Having 2 locks (somebody + Lawes) has some merit if the backrower on the bench is lighter - Underhill, Simmonds etc.