Just watched Rabbitos vs Raiders (cracking display by Raiders & their two Englishmen btw; woeful display by Rabbitohs & their two Englishmen).

During commentary one of the guys said the rumour is that Blake Austin could well be playing for England this autumn, as he qualifies apparently. Two thoughts:

1) would we want an Aussie playing at 6 for us (as it stands, our current 6 has never played top grade RL in England)? The question may be moot as he may decide that he will wait to see if the Aussies come calling.

2) Austin is an absolute cracker & takes the line on (something very few do nowadays). He would be in my top 3 or 4 half backs currently playing (all in NRL unfortunately).

in what way does he qualify?

he is a fine player and if he really wants to throw his hat in the ring foregoing the chance to play origin, I'm all for it. doesn't stop the Aussies with the South sea islanders so why should it us?

Don't know how he qualifies, pretty sure he's played for Portugal before.

Cracking player, Mot sure if he's an international player though. In terms of whether I'd want him if he's put his hand up, maybe more than others named mainly because he's younger, hasn't really been capped (Portugal doesn't count really) and would be turning his back on other opportunities that mig by come his way which might at least mean he's committed to the cause.

Cracking player. Get him in.

The namesh Aushtin, Blake Aushtin.

If he declares for England and says he doesn't want to play for Aus or NSW then no problem, as long as he qualifies.

However if he is only playing because the new rules say he can still play for NSW and Aus if they pick him next year then no thanks.

Is he eligible?

Is he better than any of the other alternatives in his position?

If the answer to both is yes, then get him in. Stuff the little Englanders.

I read the other week that he's got an English grandparent. The article was about him being eligible and asking if he was interested. The main thing was that just with the Morris twins, Bennett hadn't actually spoken to him.

Although he's a bit up and down, at his best he's a far better attacking prospect than Widdopp, but not as good a defender.

I don't think think many people would have such a problem if the eligibility rules hadn't been changed.

For all we know he identifies as english, but we need some conformation of this.

What happens if we pick him, but next year he decides he wants to play origin and so makes himself eligible for Australia and NSW instead?
The England team and England RL in general wouldn't live it down, and we would be confirmed as the Aus B team

Who cares? Seriously?

Do people slag off Tonga, Fiji and Samoa as "Australia/New Zealand B"? Of course they don't.

You play by the rules of the game. If the rules of the game allow you to fight with both hands, why would you tie one behind your back? They don't hand out trophies for moral victories.

Much to the dismay of Shaun Wane

If they beat Australia when it counts, so long as they were eligible I wouldn't care if the whole team were called Bruce and wore cork hats on the field. Making international RL a big event won't come from insisting everyone was born and bred within 10 miles of the M62 but from England being competitive. Being honest, nobody outside core RL supporters would know that the Morris twins, Austin, Hodkinson and co aren't pureblood English, and they'd care even less.

The idea that fans are so obsessed with narrow definitions of nationality drives me nuts. As far as I'm concerned Wayne Bennett has been tasked with making England a genuine top tier team. If he thinks that's only possible with a few plastic poms then sobeit.

When is the last time any of those teams beat Australia or NZ?
I certainly can't remember it happening

That is because the players form Aus DO teat it like a B team, and whenever they are good enough to play for Aus or even play origin they stop playing for Samoa/Fiji etc. see Milford recently
Do you want England to be on the same level and in the same situation as these teams?

You are still ignoring the major issue here!
The RU captain was actually born in NZ, but most union fans don't really care because he can ONLY play for England, and couldn't with to the all blacks if they wanted him

Would you really be okay with say Austin playing for us this year in the 4 nations, but next year he has a great year and Cronk gets injured so Aus want him and he plays for them in the world cup?
Don't think he wouldn't because the Australian players get paid more, and if he does play for us it will likely be for the money

There needs to be some way that players are aligned to certain nations other wise the 'internationals' will just be a bunch of post season friendlies
In football you can only play for one country and have to be legally a resident, in RU you have to play in English League to play for England

So why not get 16 Aussie NRL players and James Graham representing England - is that really what international RL is all about?

There is difference with the SSI players as most have been brought up or lived exclusively in Australia or NZ. Some of these Aussies commentators are saying qualify have never set foot in the UK.

leedsnsouths - right now I couldn't care less what the criteria are so long as they are applied. Using grandparents etc is fine by me. If and when England ever get competitive then agitate for a change to the criteria. But we're not ompcetitive, and we don't produce enough players via SL to be likely to for the foreseeable future. What I think is absolutely bizarre is seeking not to use the criteria that exist (flawed or otherwise) for some notion of purity which like I said only RL fans seem to care about.

You could also add that the scenario you paint about Austin is very unlikely. He hasn't even been talked to by Bennett as far as we know. Bennett is a seriously good manager of people and I would think he'll talk to existing England players as well as any NRL players who put their hands up before deciding on them. I doubt he'd pick a player knowing he might change loyalties later. McNamara didn't do that when clearly he could have, and probably for same reason, the impact it would have on the rest of the team.

International RL is the one area where our sport can grow and make itself bigger. We can go on losing badly and occasionally narrowly to Aus. What we need is to get back to a position where we lose narrowly and occasionally win. Competitiveness is what will sell international RL in the long term. Like I said, I think attempts to get England NOT to apply existing criteria for some mythical purity is just madness.

I am just annoyed that the criteria has been loosened this year, a lot of it to seemingly appease Bennet by the rfl. Its not just RL fans, I think you would see similar backlash if, for example, fifa decided to apply the rugby union eligability rules, and allowed any premier league player to play for england.

I just think it is part of a worrying trend that is actually decreasing the importance of test matches. I am sure you have noticed in recent years that if a player needs surgery he will do it over the international period, which in theory should be the most important time for a player.
The main reason that test RL isn't growing is because it is not taken seriously enough in Aus. I think that it will be taken even less seriously if the 'England' team field a team where nearly everyone plays in Australia and many of the people were born in Australia.

I think most peoples biggest complaint though is that they want the people who play for England to WANT to play for England, and not just play for us as a second choice, if he is out of favour in the australia team, like the Morris twins.
I have no problem having a kiwi as an RU england captain because he decided to play for England when he decided to play in the premiership.

This cannot happen now.

The new rules that apply or at least are being brought in mean that once you've played for one tier A team (England, New Zealand, Australia and I cannot remember if any other Nations are included) you cannot play for another tier A team, which is why the RFL came out the other month to diffuse all the uproar when it came out that Bennett was sounding out the Morris twins, then they announced the above, confirming that neither of the Morris twins could play for us because they've already played for Australia.

So, so long as Austin or whoever hasn't represented Australia, if he played for England he couldn't then go play for Australia 2 years down the line

This is a really good point. I was watching a programme on sky about English cricket in the 90's. They became the lowest ranked test team and Nasser Hussain said the change in fortunes came when central contracts were introduced. This changed the mindset of their county teams being the most important to it being about playing for your country. Now I can't see the RFL bringing in central contracts, but something needs to happen to the whole game to make international rugby the pinnacle again. This needs to include better marketing of the international game to get it out there and in the public eye. It's not an overnight fix but we need an internationally body focused on expanding the game and growing the international game. I know there's lots of nations playing, but it's small time.

Test RL will not be taken seriously until England compete with Australia. That means that England need to be able to beat them, and for it not to be a complete shock if they do. Uncertainty and tight contests is what makes international RU a sporting event.

Central contracts etc etc won't make squat difference ATM because SL just doesn't produce enough good players. We're struggling to find a single quality halfback and have full back options a million miles behind Australia. Yet our backline options now are better than they have been in years, at least 2-5.

But if we pick Australians more and more then that takes even more pressure off the rfl to encourage the production of quality young players, meaning that in the long term it would only decrease our competitiveness

Also, the Australians didn't take it seriously when the Kiwis beat them three times in a row, and even declined to take part in any post season fixtures, so why would us beating them (especially with a team full of players who may never have been to England before) make any difference?

International RL won't be taken seriously until we have several more top nations competing, not if/when England beat Australia.

People who think the international game can get anywhere when it basically consists of 3 teams needs to give their head a shake. International RU and cricket would struggle if it was only really made up of Eng/NZ/Aus with all the others well below them.

Exactly. Something needs to be done to develop the game in this countries dipping their toes in the water.

In terms of producing players. Our youngsters regularly compete and beat their counterparts. It seems we're struggling turning these kids with potential into top quality players

Not this year they don't. Getting tonked for the second week in a row at the minute. Physically and technically miles behind in the one and a half games of this series so far.

I believe we beat them earlier this year though when the Aussie schoolboys came to England. I agree though that the Aussie backs look better than ours.

A positive from a Leeds perspective though is that Oledzki looked good and was getting on top of his counterpart, in fact the England pack struggled a lot when he went off. Looks like he should be in the first team squad next year.

The Australian backs look good because they're playing off fast ball from their forwards winning collisions. When they put their foot on the gas we don't look quick enough or strong enough to cope with it.

Oledzki went ok, but he needs to work on his lateral movement in defence. Too many times he plants his feet then can't adjust his body if the target moves. Must have been getting fatigued though, IIRC he played the first 30 minutes straight.