How is picking Chase damaging in the long-term? If a better, true-blue English lad comes through, he'll get picked ahead of him. Same goes for Widdopp or anyone else. Far more damaging to the development of youngsters is the massive array of untalented Aussies/Kiwis in SL who stop kids even getting a game at club level. That has already caused long-term damage IMO.

McNamara has the task of making England competitive. He's had a look at what's available and decided that short-term he simply doesn't have the players available to him (Exiles game anyone?). So he's looking to increase the squad of quality players. He will also have had the complete backing of the RFL before going down this route - having a go at him individually for it is just silly.

The good news is that we seem to at last to be producing some promising backs. Add them to what we currently have, and our NRL exports (Ellis, Burgess, Graham etc) and we should be in a much better position than we have been in the very recent past. I don't think we'll beat Aus/NZ this year, but hopefully we can get a genuinely competitive team out at the World Cup.

Really interesting link re. footballers playing for more than one country. www.englandfootballonline.com/Te ... biliy.html Alfredo Di Stefano played for three countries!!

Really interesting link re. footballers playing for more than one country. www.englandfootballonline.com/Te ... biliy.html Alfredo Di Stefano played for three countries!!

The problem is not the rules, but the amount of crap quota players and those on European passports filling up Super League squads, and in the Championship too. That stunts progression, not Rangi Chase getting a call up.

Nail hit square on. A Trin fan talking sense. It is late... maybe I'm hallucinating...

Quote ="rhintintin"Really interesting link re. footballers playing for more than one country. www.englandfootballonline.com/Te ... biliy.html Alfredo Di Stefano played for three countries!!'" I do presume you carried on reading to where it says, FIFA put an end to that in the 60's?

Quote ="rhintintin"Really interesting link re. footballers playing for more than one country. www.englandfootballonline.com/Te ... biliy.html Alfredo Di Stefano played for three countries!!'" I do presume you carried on reading to where it says, FIFA put an end to that in the 60's?

My problem isn't with qualifying for a country, I hate it when players change from one to another.

Well said that man

What's pleasantly surprising to me is that apart from a few vocal opposers, which are fair enough (and I don't consider them "racist" because that's absurd logic when we're dealing with national teams, the whole concept is "racist" if you are prepared to use that faulty logic) the majority of the game from what I can tell are supportive of Rangi.

If this was an unprecedented move and we were the only England team doing this there may be question marks but we're not. If the rules were harsh enough to only consider country of birth without exception this would not be an issue but that would be a very unfair way of working things. As it stands we've got a guy who wants to represent for us and it's within the rules so why not? He's clearly good enough and if it's okay for the aussies and the kiwis to field islanders then it's okay for us to field Rangi Chase. It just shows that castleford have done a terrific job in making him feel at home which is one of the reasons he's just signed a new contract for them.

Exactly. People should look on the Casforum (Man of steel announcement) about his upbringing...its a very humbling read.

He feels at peace here now.

The article is from 2007. I can't find the original link as it's now gone from the website.



You can see why he said he wants to stay in England and doesn't want to go back to NZ.

McBanana explains all on the beeb - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 200328.stm ...and his summation of what Chase will add to the England team: "He's (Rangi) got something different to a lot of most players. He's certainaly a very attacking player; brings a lot of new dimensions to some things we could possibly do if he makes the team, and would certainly make an impact." Well, I guess he's entirely unique then - cos we have nobody who can attack or offer anything a bit different?! Don't get a job in marketing or PR, will ya Steve!

McBanana explains all on the beeb - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 200328.stm ...and his summation of what Chase will add to the England team: "He's (Rangi) got something different to a lot of most players. He's certainaly a very attacking player; brings a lot of new dimensions to some things we could possibly do if he makes the team, and would certainly make an impact." Well, I guess he's entirely unique then - cos we have nobody who can attack or offer anything a bit different?! Don't get a job in marketing or PR, will ya Steve!

Pretty hard not to feel inspired by that.

Quote ="oxford-pie-eater"McBanana explains all on the beeb - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 200328.stm ...and his summation of what Chase will add to the England team: "He's (Rangi) got something different to a lot of most players. He's certainaly a very attacking player; brings a lot of new dimensions to some things we could possibly do if he makes the team, and would certainly make an impact." Well, I guess he's entirely unique then - cos we have nobody who can attack or offer anything a bit different?! Don't get a job in marketing or PR, will ya Steve!'" That's an unfair summation of what he said. Implying that he has something different to other players (which is entirely justified) and then making the connection that it is because he is an attacking player and they aren't is a connection you have made not him.

Quote ="oxford-pie-eater"McBanana explains all on the beeb - news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 200328.stm ...and his summation of what Chase will add to the England team: "He's (Rangi) got something different to a lot of most players. He's certainaly a very attacking player; brings a lot of new dimensions to some things we could possibly do if he makes the team, and would certainly make an impact." Well, I guess he's entirely unique then - cos we have nobody who can attack or offer anything a bit different?! Don't get a job in marketing or PR, will ya Steve!'" That's an unfair summation of what he said. Implying that he has something different to other players (which is entirely justified) and then making the connection that it is because he is an attacking player and they aren't is a connection you have made not him.

He's quoted, word for word man?! Sorry for making a connection between two things that have come out of his mouth, one after the other! How exactly would you interpret what he says?

My point being, when you attempt to sell an idea or concept, you normally fall back on what is unique about it, and how it's going to add to what you've already got. If what you're saying is different about him, is that he's different, that doesn't work. You might as well say, he's different because he's a kiwi.

Get him in the government - he talks as much waffle as they do.

And to think I was looking forward to hearing his thinking behind Rangi's selection...

I thought I'd just mention the bits that suit my own argument like everyone else on here!

Sporting nationality is about much more than places and dates, where were you born, how long did you live in this place or that.

It's about feeling like you belong somewhere, like you want to represent that place on a sports field.

If Rangi Chase genuinely feels that he's English and the RLIF rules say he's entitled to do so, I've no problem with him pulling on and England shirt. I'd feel the same way if Gareth Widdop had said he felt more Australian than English and declined to play for England.

Right. I was hoping you'd say that. Because in your quote, you make out that he made the sentence that Chase brought something new to the squad, and then in the next sentence went on about his attacking abilities and you yourself have made the implication that one follows on from the other whereas it is reasonable to assume they didn't.

It's a classic case of someone trying too hard to find fault in someone where none exists.

Sorry. "Reasonable to assume?" You don't have to "assume" anything - just watch the video.

Fortnuately, I have better things to do than look for reasons to find fault in McNamara, and he does a good enough job of providing them on a plate anyhow

Then stop doing it.

I'm sure you speak with all the wit and sophistication of Oscar Wilde btw.

Except this isn't a discussion about how much better a public speaker I am than Steve McNamara, or Oscar Wilde is it? If you're gonna bother posting, at least stick to what we're discussing in this thread and respond to the salient points of the argument.

Clearly, you interpret McNamara's comments quite differently to me - I'm just keen to understand how that could be, and for a laugh, what your understanding is. As a reminder, this is precisely what he said, and in this order, so please let me know where I'm going wrong.

[i"He's got something different to a lot of most players. He's certainaly a very attacking player; brings a lot of new dimensions to some things we could possibly do if he makes the team, and would certainly make an impact."[/i

"If I'm gonna bother posting"? Who the do you think you are? The board police? I'll post if I want.



I already did let you know where you went wrong. You wrongly assumed because he said Rangi Chase had something different and went on to praise his attacking ability that it meant none of the other players had any attacking ability. Playschool stuff really.

Laugh away, laughing boy.