Any reason why France? I was trying to work out who I want to win and even though I'm going to the Ireland-France match and half of my family is Irish) I really couldn't care less who wins. I was much the same with the England Australia match- not sure why- guessing it has something to do with it being a posh boys game in England and in Ireland- I need to get over my inverted snobbery or maybe not???
Purely because I know a few Welsh and Irish people (and work with a couple), and I play footy with some Kiwis and Aussies. They would all be unbearable if their team wins! The couple of French people I know aren't really interested in the rugby.
The policy on selecting overseas players has to be a good thing for the domestic game and in turn the national team. It's all very well saying but these two players should be let back in for the world cup but what of all the others who have continued playing in England on lesser wages? If you now removed the rule as a measure of hindsight, what would happen? All the best players would probably be snapped up by rich French clubs. Net effect, a talent drain from the English clubs, as a consequence the quality of rubgy declines in England. Possible effects could then be that with less quality here we either; plug the gap with foreigners (See football for some seriously detrimental effects to the national team) or the players all play in a lower quality league, then finding it harder to bridge the gap from club to country, which could lead to lesser fan interest and sponsorship further declining pay and further exodus of remaining talent. Would these possible (Certainly not definite) consequences have been worth it for two players, who left England for France knowing full well what it meant to their chances of playing for their country? Don't forget they have sacrificed that chance of playing for England for more money! I guess the only grey area for me is that neither of these players merited selection before they departed for France but have improved to a point where a squad place at least should have beckoned. But here's the rub. Armatige was being tipped for a move back to England so that he could play in the WC. That he didn't speaks volumes to me about what his true priorities are, maybe rightly, but I don't think he wanted to play enough. But maybe I have just swallowed a load of RFU bull. Bah!
General I take your point about the priorities of players but the reality is that with the salary cap imposed in England there is always going to be a tendency for the best players who will attract the highest wages to chase them overseas. I don't think that we should have changed the rule for the World Cup I don't think that the rule was sound in the first place. It is not just those two players - Sheridan effectively retired himself from the international game by going to France and I am sure there are others either of us could mention. It makes no sense to me for the RFU to try to modify player behaviour by effectively banning their top players from plying their trade overseas (which will probably improve their game to the benefit of the national team). This only weakens the national side and hardly shows loyalty to the players who have probably toiled in the Premiership over many years developing into the players they are now. I know that Ideally we would all love players to want to give themselves 100% to their country but if its a choice between your caps and maximising your money over what can be an extremely short career most players would take the cash. I am interested by your comparison with football. With the same data I'd draw the opposite conclusion - in the example of football the EPL is the highest paid league and so there is no motivation for our top players to leave the EPL for cash. Instead overseas players come here and develop with the result of strengthening their national teams. I would argue that the England football team is weaker as a result of our players not going off to play in other leagues which I suggest would also be the case in Rugby if our elite players are forced to ply their trade in England only. I would think that if half a dozen of our top players starting playing in Australia then they would learn a heck of a lot and improve their game which can only benefit the national team although if they did so now then they would not be able to play. I quite like the idea that in cricket our county players can play here in the summer and then go and play club cricket elsewhere in the world or play for one of the T20 franchises. I know that in rugby this would be more difficult due to the longer season and the greater need for rest and down time but it would be great to see some of our players going and playing a bit down under to see how they would compete.
General I take your point about the priorities of players but the reality is that with the salary cap imposed in England there is always going to be a tendency for the best players who will attract the highest wages to chase them overseas. Agreed as you say it is a short career and they need to make the most from it in financial and experience terms I don't think that we should have changed the rule for the World Cup I don't think that the rule was sound in the first place. It is not just those two players - Sheridan effectively retired himself from the international game by going to France and I am sure there are others either of us could mention. It makes no sense to me for the RFU to try to modify player behaviour by effectively banning their top players from plying their trade overseas (which will probably improve their game to the benefit of the national team). This only weakens the national side and hardly shows loyalty to the players who have probably toiled in the Premiership over many years developing into the players they are now. In Sheridans case I thought he was pretty much at the end of his career with injuries having taken there toll and getting one last pay day in France? I know he had issues with his neck but not sure how he performed in Toulon? No current England international has actually left for France as yet Haskell was probably the closest, and arguably no players that looked close have either. Both Armatiges were not making squads although Delon had several caps and impressed in a number of them (I think it was about attitude though that he was dropped from the set up) You are right on loyalty, the players get none for previous service, but just maybe everyone else domestically benefits? The clubs do, the fans do, the league does, the sponsors have their stars and the players still get handsomely rewarded. The salary cap is however a bone of contention, both good and bad. First the bad - It is harder to retain/get top players, it could prevent the teams growing stronger by in particular foreign recruitment, Some teams are rumoured to be finding ways to beat the salary cap and that's leading to inequality in the teams the money stays with clubs and not with the talent And the good - Rugby should not become a financial basket case like football, it keeps some degree of equality to the playing squad quality giving everyone a chance (At least in theory!) players are less able to hold clubs to ransom for pay. The clubs can spend extra money on youth development with the cap I know that Ideally we would all love players to want to give themselves 100% to their country but if its a choice between your caps and maximising your money over what can be an extremely short career most players would take the cash. I totally agree, but playing for England has it's own financial benefits in pay and sponsorship so it is not completely cut and dry as to simply being better off abroad. Afterall Haskell for one came back. I am interested by your comparison with football. With the same data I'd draw the opposite conclusion - in the example of football the EPL is the highest paid league and so there is no motivation for our top players to leave the EPL for cash. Instead overseas players come here and develop with the result of strengthening their national teams. I would argue that the England football team is weaker as a result of our players not going off to play in other leagues which I suggest would also be the case in Rugby if our elite players are forced to ply their trade in England only. The problem here though like football is that it's not about a vast sea of options, it is only France that can offer more money than the current English rubgy premiership (Real Madrid and Barcalona in football) and whilst I take your point that players might improve in a new cultural and rugby environment it is not nailed on. France is though a direct rival in European club competitions and the six nations and any help given to them could be detrimental to us. I would agree that playing abroad could help our players but I'm not sure that France will aid that, rumour has it that that training in France is a little bit lazier and behind the times. That is purely heresay from some rubgy forums but if any truth to it could indicate a detrimental effect. It is not about the players that go though it is about those that are left. If you let the best leave for foreign shores then your league deteriorates and if you play in worse company it becomes harder to become great. I would think that if half a dozen of our top players starting playing in Australia then they would learn a heck of a lot and improve their game which can only benefit the national team I completely agree with that, like Martin Johnson who played during some of his formative years in NZ. But the players won't go there because as I stated before, the money is in Europe. Why do you think the All Blacks only select from players plying their trade in NZ? Because they could all double/triple their money coming to Europe! Net effect being the domestic league would nosedive in quality, the national team would lose it's connection to the public with all it's best playing the other side of the world although if they did so now then they would not be able to play. I quite like the idea that in cricket our county players can play here in the summer and then go and play club cricket elsewhere in the world or play for one of the T20 franchises. I know that in rugby this would be more difficult due to the longer season and the greater need for rest and down time but it would be great to see some of our players going and playing a bit down under to see how they would compete Bah!
Final tomorrow and I guess I'll have to support the kiwis, I'm not sure there is a nation below the Aussies in the hierarchy of sporting hate. It's generally been poor from anyone from the six nations except maybe whales who did ok in a glorious failure sort of way! (How very British of them!) The gap between the all Blacks and the rest seems as big as it's ever been, let's hope they've got no one as good as McCaw and Carter waiting in the wings with their imminent cash missions to Europe. Otherwise we maybe waiting a while for our next win over them. Bah!
Overall a disappointing tournament for me as England were dismissed in the group stage and then the rest of the Northen Hemisphere out in the quarters. I watched the semis and will watch today but all of those games were or are in a couldn't care less frame of mind. I thought that England's group was certainly the hardest but really wonder if they were capable of getting to the semis even if the draw was fixed to give them every chance. Would we have beaten Argentina? The Puma's victory over Ireland was the telling victory reflecting the Southern Hemisphere domination. There were hard luck stories for the Scots and Wales but really the Aussies did what they had to do, as usual.
Dan Carter really was a class act this afternoon, the perfect was to bow out of the international game.
