so origin is bigger to the english players than playing for england and great britain?

nowt wrong with fa'asavalu playing for england....he qualifies exactly the same way as petro civonciva does



i'll grant you manu though....switching is the problem..not residency players or even grandparent players

Petro Civonciva moved to Australia before he was one, imo that would make him more of an Aussie. Fa'asavlua moved to England when he was around 24(?) and has absolutley no English heritage, it was just that he had been here for 3-4 years. Not really comparable. IMO theres everything wrong with Fa'asavalu playing for England.

As you said switch is a problem, I think everyone can agree on that, but I dont like residency players. Ive got no problem with those who have a heritage for a nation they play for, such as Richards who's parents were both born in Ireland.

I agree there BW. What's to stop a player of Island heritage playing in the NRL for an Aussie club for three years, moving to the Warriors for three years then moving to the SLE to play for an English club for three years and then finishing off at the Dragons for three years. He could have legitimately played for five different nations at the end of his career!!! Unlikely but possible. Could England now select Brent Webb?

It's simple.

You play for whatever country you are born in.

No exceptions.

The trouble with England is they have to rely on foreigners in their sporting sides because they can't produce enough quality ones of their own.

Look at the Cricket team. Its like South Africas second string.

Australian sports have NEVER used foreign players in their teams have they Bazza? By your rules it would have been bye bye Civonaceva, Tuqiri, El Masri, Fulton, Roberts etc. etc.