Quote ="RL13"That's okay. You did most of the research.'" It was as well researched as most tabloid articles- I just typed "black friends" and then a few racists names into google. It is on Urban Dictionary though, so it must be true: www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... %20Friends

Quote ="RL13"That's okay. You did most of the research.'" It was as well researched as most tabloid articles- I just typed "black friends" and then a few racists names into google. It is on Urban Dictionary though, so it must be true: www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... %20Friends

The guy is as ELIGIBLE under the rules as anyone else. He's also the BEST of the ELIGIBLE players available in his position. He's obviously made a choice and in doing so made a commitment. What's the problem? Lets all have a brew and calm the f#@k down.

I'm not sure what we are worrying about. The aussies have precedent, so do the union boys, so do the cricketers, even the footballers once or twice. We've not exactly got the strongest international game going in the first place so we need all the help we can get. As long as the national team is mostly english we can afford to take on the odd foreign born player who sees his future here without destroying the international game.

At the end of the day we're up against huge odds.

So I say welcome Rangi, well done to you feller. You're alright by me.

Misguided whim? I'm saying whether he qualifies or not, and it's great to have Rangi in SL, I'd rather see a kid from our development system - the one we're supposedly building and spending money on - get the chance at the highest level. What's wrong with that?

The argument that they're not good enough just doesn't stand up. How will they ever be good enough. For me, this isn't about Chase, or any other single player. It's about the shift away from what, for me, is the whole purpose of having top flight international sport. Otherwise, don't we get better in the short term, and risk getting much worse in the longer term?

When does Michael Monaghan become available?

last year

Get him in over Robinson then.

well Mcbanana asked matt king who knocked him back...and rumour has it brent webb has been asked too

The same Matt King who has 10 caps for Australia?

Didn't stop Tonie Carroll switching from the Kiwis to the Aussies did it?

Id rather Rangi Chase played for England than didnt count on the quota.

If we didnt have so much dross masquerading as non-quota and fed trained players in SL, we would need or want Rangi Chase. We are capable of producing better half backs than him, and have done in plenty of cases and would do more so if we stopped bringing over players who couldnt get a gig in Australia and went out and scouted, coached and blooded our own players.

If Chase feels he is English, good luck to him. Im not him, I wont speculate on whether he is right. Either way, it doesnt cover up for the fact we had to pick him because there are so many overseas halfbacks in this country.

"... but not English"

Seriously, why not pack England full of Aussies/NZers? Would you continue to support the team? I know I wouldn't.

You cant argue that Chase is not good for Super League though. Yes he was let go from the Dragons but why should that mean that we shouldnt have people of his quality in Super League.

The bare facts are that we do not have enough quality home grown players to replace the players from NRL coming over. People should moan about the coaching in this country before anything else!

A minor point. Did you miss my link? He was sent to Oz by his dad aged 15. Hardly brought up over here. He went to school in Australia, therefore he can play for the Australian schoolboys.

McBanana is probably scouting the globe as we speak, looking for sufficient additions.

Where did you hear that?

King I could believe, Webb?! That is how you can tell your talking out your bum hole. Webb barely passes for a SL fullback most games. He is a bloody liability

"You're good, but to play for England you have to be the best."

It's all well and good saying the likes of Lomax and Gaskell aren't good enough for International Rugby, but how do we know that exactly? They've played the same amount of International Rugby as Chase, yet most think he should walk into the side. Also where are we going to play Chase exactly? We've been complaining for years about not having any NRL-quality backs, now we have a number 6 for the minor premiers, and yet we'd rather see someone else in their place. There's no point playing Chase at 7 either, if that's not his regular club position.

How is Lomax supposed to improve if he doesn't get a chance to play? You never know, he could be man of the match in wins over NZ and Australia and be MOTM in the final, but if he isn't given a go, we'll never know.

I thought part of McBanana's plan was to develop the squad for the World Cup? Well, pretty much this is the final BIG opportunity we have to test players before it comes around. What's the point of putting the likes of Lomax et al. in the World Cup squad, if they haven't played against the big guns before? It seems that we're ditching future development for get-quick-rich schemes, which aren't even guaranteed to create success, and that could hurt us in the long term.

I know most won't agree on here, but I'd rather play Widdop and Lomax in the halves and lose in the Four Nations, than trying to throw them in at the deep end come WC time. At least then, we'd know where they need to improve and they will be much better players for the experience. Putting them in for the Knights against Ireland and Scotland isn't going to do anything for their development.

Just my two cents.

What are you twittering on about.

For a start you're talking as though Chase will only play this 4n. He is still young and so can and will continue to play for England in the World Cup. He can be very much a part of the future.

Second, Widdop. He isn't an English trained lad- so why is he getting a game instead of anther young English trained player? He doesn't inspire young players any more than Chase does. Unless we want all of our youngsters to move over to Aus to play NRL.

Third. Widdop, Lomax and Gaskill will get a chance in the 4n. I can guarantee it. It is the oldies that McGuire that might miss out. And considering his no showing against the Aussies in the past that is hardly a loss.

Fourth. The Knights are good enough for other young developing talent- why not Gaskill, Widdop or Lomax?

Finally, we don't know if any of these players are good enough for international rugby. Of the players you mentioned only Widdop is capped. However one of them just won the Man of Steel award. That makes him the best player in England right now. And he has declared himself English. If it was a 30odd year old who had just won it but he was born in England would you be saying don't play him? Play a kid because he is the future. Should we sack off all the players who most likely wont feature in the World Cup? Peacock wont make it, lets bin him. Morely too... People wonder why the racism card is getting played. Because with logic like yours it is difficult to see any other motive.

What rot.

How have you got all that rant from;

"You're good, but to play for England you have to be the best."

Does it say anywhere in that sentence "Rangi will walk straight into the England starting 17, the rest are just rubbish, bin the lot and get more Aussies"? No, it says;

"You're good, but to play for England you have to be the best."

That doesn't suggest that McNamara should pick two halves for the squad and stick with them and only them forever and that all other players are useless. He needs a selection of halves. Those halves need competition. And, those halves will all be tested on the pitch and in the training paddock at various points.

Calling up Rangi is the most exciting thing to have happened to the national side. For years. We, the fans, have bemoaned previous national coaches for picking the same players with little competition for places. When a coach finally strikes away from that attitude and lays down a marker for the highest possible performances we moan again.

"You're good, but to play for England you have to be the best."

This means if any player, ANY PLAYER, wants to pull on the England shirt they have to play better than anyone else, not just be handed one out of benevolence because they worked hard during the season. The competition for places doesn't end at the final whistle of the Grand Final, it continues into the England RL training paddock and onto the pitch.

If Lomax, Gaskell, Myler, whoever want to get into the starting 17 they have to be better than Super League's Man of Steel. Does that not strike you as a good thing for them as individuals and for the England team's perofrmance?

Yes but following this through to it's logical conclusion could see us with an England team full of non-English players. To me it seems nothing more than supporting a club - the manager goes out and tries to sign the best players available, and so what if it's the best of the NRL vs 2nd best of the NRL. To me this just doesn't appeal and is not what representing your country is all about IMO.

You've isolated one thought process, followed it to its extreme and ignored all other conflicting factors. That's not necessarily very logical way to come to a conclusion.

The eligibility rules reflect the make up of England. England isn't made up solely of British born and bread individuals of Anglo-Saxon origin. England is made up of a broad plethora of individuals from different backgrounds.

You might have a view of what it is to represent England, but other people from other social groups will have different definitions. The rules therefore need to reflect these definitions to emcompass all and to not disciminate.

Also, England is a sporting club. Whereas a domestic club represents a town or region, a national club represents a nation. The point of the coach's role is to pick the best possible players available to them, whether that be based on their budget or based on eligibility.

But it's a possibility, one that you conveniently choose to ignore. Having Rangi in the squad doesn't really alter my support for the team that much, but having a team full of non-English players, who have developed their game outside of England would. Where/how do you draw the line?

It's not the even fact that there are non-English players playing for England that bothers me. Supporting England is much more than that - proving to the world that English RL is capable of producing the best players in the world, seeing juniors progress through the clubs/system and represent their country against the best, proving to Aus/NZ that we are a great RL playing country. Signing any player from the NRL who we can bend the rules for goes against all that, it kind of feels like cheating. Yeah we won the 4N, but with a load of NRL rejects, great!

This isn't a Rangi bash, I'm just not keen on this new approach that we seem to be taking - England are crap at RL so lets scour the NRL for any players who might be available (Reed, Heighington, Johnson now Rangi). We might as well give up playing RL anywhere else and have world cup of NRL teams.

The key part is in bold, and it's the part that people seem unable/unwilling to answer.

Where the current international eligibility rules say you can, in the same way that other nations do.

I don't recall all this furore when the Kiwis selected the Cairns-born Brent Webb, or a lad born in Suva, Fiji became the cornerstone of the successful Australian pack for years.