Should international players play in the country they represent?

First topic message reminder :

Something that has frustrated me for a while is the number of people, including international coaches, who insist on players playing in the country they represent. For England, Lancaster refused to pick players like Steffon Armitage as a result. Clearly, that's worked out fine, and I doubt many people would want SA to replace any of England's current team. But if players are able to get enough time off to train with the group, why is there such an obsession with this?

I know plenty of posters would agree with Lancaster's policy, and that of teams like the ABs, but why? Do you feel players need to be kept closer to the coaches so they can discuss their game more regularly, where they need to improve, what conditioning they want of them etc? Or is it something else? Is it the sense of players focusing on the money when they leave?

For my part, I think it's brilliant that more English players are playing over in France, and Haskell going to NZ. It seems to have given a number of them a new lease of life. When Haskell went to France I think he finally turned into a player capable of doing all the necessary jobs of a back-row player, despite everyone suggesting the French league focuses on power over fitness. He'll never be as a good as he should be, but he certainly improved imo.

Also, a number of players have taken sabbaticals or had gap years etc where they've gone and played in SH leagues for a while as young men. I'm pretty certain Launchbury, Easter and plenty of others have done this, and obvious Johnson did as well. No-one seems to bat an eyelid at this, and it's seen as a great way for them to learn a different style of the game. Why should that learning process stop in their early 20s? Isn't it a positive to see players soak up a new culture, different approach to the game and all that?

Would be good to hear people's thoughts.

Hood83 wrote: Ditto on Ireland, someone was talking about the pride associated with having Irish players coming through etc. - i don;t see how players going abroad stops that. But I can see it might temporarily jeopardise chances of winning silverware.

Personally, i'd still be very happy to see more English players have a year or two in France etc. especially props. Or at the least to extend these apprenticeship programmes where they go out young and play club rugby in SA and NZ.

Hood - just to elucidate for you. If players go abroad (and I repeat, in no way do I blame them or begrudge them the personal experience or the increased earning potential they might find)...but if they do go abroad and there is a very relaxed view on it by, well let's say Ireland (IRFU). They go abroad to play and are dragged back easily enough to represent Ireland at International level.

All is fine then.

Those players get to experience rugby in a different environment, they get to see how other nations prepare and train etc; - and they then also come home to help Ireland progress at International level. Grand.

But now the precedent has been set...the doors have been open. Younger players realise that they can chase after the potential big salaries and yet not suffer in their International aspirations. That means large French and English clubs come looking earlier for the academy guys that show promise at underage level and offer very lucrative packages.

That in turn theoretically then follows the path that bit by bit the streamlining of young players into Provinces and then International is disrupted.
That means Provinces begin to go downhill again.
That means crowds disappear.
That means funding dries up.
That means the IRFU become poorer.

And that means rugby in Ireland, and even the production factories that other nations might be relying on to subsidise their clubs, will also dry up as the professionalism and expertise in training will also chase away after the money.

Players playing abroad is good for the players who gain from it, want it and choose it. It is NOT good for the Nation that doesn't put controls on the principles of National representation. It helps Nations to strongly suggest that home players will get 'preferential' treatment for International duty. It's business...and good business.

Munster or Leinster or Ulster winning a European competition is infinitely more preferential as a business model for the continued development of Irish rugby than the idea that Irish fans should be satisfied that Irish players are doing well in Europe playing for external clubs.

Of course the other side of the coin is IF big money was`nt available in Japan or the NH.The so called has beens would just stay at home.
If you class Ben Blair,RikkiFlutey,Regan King,Bruce Reihana,Chris Masoe,Nick Evans to name a few.
Many of those had few if any AB caps but were quality players some have been considered the best in europe at various times.

emack2 wrote:Of course the other side of the coin is IF big money was`nt available in Japan or the NH.The so called has beens would just stay at home.
If you class Ben Blair,RikkiFlutey,Regan King,Bruce Reihana,Chris Masoe,Nick Evans to name a few.
Many of those had few if any AB caps but were quality players some have been considered the best in europe at various times.

so we need to punt the hasbeens to Europe and Japan whilst keeping the quality players in NZ. Though the hasbeens do have wise heads and their experience could help in the development of youngster playing alongside/against them.

The AIG money should help NZ keep our top players (though Kahui's departure is sad but his body could do with a less physical comp)

SecretFly wrote:

Hood83 wrote: Ditto on Ireland, someone was talking about the pride associated with having Irish players coming through etc. - i don;t see how players going abroad stops that. But I can see it might temporarily jeopardise chances of winning silverware.

Personally, i'd still be very happy to see more English players have a year or two in France etc. especially props. Or at the least to extend these apprenticeship programmes where they go out young and play club rugby in SA and NZ.

Hood - just to elucidate for you. If players go abroad (and I repeat, in no way do I blame them or begrudge them the personal experience or the increased earning potential they might find)...but if they do go abroad and there is a very relaxed view on it by, well let's say Ireland (IRFU). They go abroad to play and are dragged back easily enough to represent Ireland at International level.

All is fine then.

Those players get to experience rugby in a different environment, they get to see how other nations prepare and train etc; - and they then also come home to help Ireland progress at International level. Grand.

But now the precedent has been set...the doors have been open. Younger players realise that they can chase after the potential big salaries and yet not suffer in their International aspirations. That means large French and English clubs come looking earlier for the academy guys that show promise at underage level and offer very lucrative packages.

That in turn theoretically then follows the path that bit by bit the streamlining of young players into Provinces and then International is disrupted.
That means Provinces begin to go downhill again.
That means crowds disappear.
That means funding dries up.
That means the IRFU become poorer.

And that means rugby in Ireland, and even the production factories that other nations might be relying on to subsidise their clubs, will also dry up as the professionalism and expertise in training will also chase away after the money.

Players playing abroad is good for the players who gain from it, want it and choose it. It is NOT good for the Nation that doesn't put controls on the principles of National representation. It helps Nations to strongly suggest that home players will get 'preferential' treatment for International duty. It's business...and good business.

Munster or Leinster or Ulster winning a European competition is infinitely more preferential as a business model for the continued development of Irish rugby than the idea that Irish fans should be satisfied that Irish players are doing well in Europe playing for external clubs.

That seems fair enough Secret, i can see how that could come to pass. I suppose there is something of the 'if it ain't broke...' with Ireland as well. You're bringing on players, provinces are strong, if you had a decent international coach and more luck with injuries you'd be right up there in the 6Ns IMO as well.

red_stag wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
one thing which has to enter into the equation is that no New Zealander in my opinion can go overseas and get better coaching than he can in New Zealand, and since the All Blacks coaches are the best in New Zealand, then how can a New Zealander expect to improve by going overseas.

Munster - Rob Penney
Leinster - Joe Schmidt
Connacht - Pat Lam
Ulster - Mark Anscombe

We'll get there soon enough with our Kiwi/Samoan coaches.

Greg Feek, Jono Gibbs and hasnt Simon Mannix got a job with your team?

The Kiwi Coaches working in Ire................... I mean working 'abroad' ...well, they're like ancient Monks, going out into the world and spreading the good message.

Some of them will be given Saint's days by the natives due to their influence.
Some of them will not like the native days or the numbers of days that it rains! They'll go back before the proselytising is finished.

And unfortunately some of them will be hung and then cut to pieces as false prophets by the Native chieftains who remain suspicious of their ways.