I think I agree with him actually, how about you.? www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... and-policy

I think I agree with him actually, how about you.? www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... and-policy

Shouldn't all countries do the same? Including Australia and New Zealand.

Same old argument, we'll get the same old answers.

I agree with most of what he's saying, except his reasoning for Henderson.

There's two issues as I see it:

1 - Players changing the country they play for (Brough, Henderson, Hayne etc). Once you've represented a country at senior level, you shouldn't be allowed to change IMO.

2 - (and this is what Brown is getting at), Rangi Chase, Fa-asavalu, Manu - players who are qualifying to play for England on vague residency rules, and who are simply not Englishmen. Spending just three or four years in a country does not make you of that nationality, and let's face it, once they've finished playing they'll be going back to their home countries.

New Zealand & Australia are the main culprits.

Legally it can do (perhaps a bit longer), but I get (and agree with) your point

It just makes a mockery of the game imo, especially with the Henderson situation when you have someone like Danny Houghton waiting to be given a chance.

Lets be fair we are slagging mac off but Australia are worse than us for playing lads not from Oz so its a worldwide issue
about time the governing bodies get together and say
1, your country of birth
or
2, your current country of nationality

if they hold a passport they are british if not then adios amigo

feel bad for the likes of houghton i gotta say

I kind of agree with him.

It's down to specifics I think. Was it not Nigel Vagana that suggested the best idea. Once you are selected for a "major" national squad you can not switch to another "major" national team. So no Rangi Chase suddenly turning up in an England shirt. Residency rules should be rejected.

But, and here's the kicker, you could still be eligible and then play for a developing nation (outside the top ten shall we say for sake of argument) and vice versa. The problem is, of course, that for home nations some players might opt to hold out for an England shirt, rather than playing for one of the three others (which could be their loss big time). That'd be the time to bring up/back the GB lions on every second or third year to keep everyone happy.

Tickle would be closer, but Houghton would be no closer to the squad if you could only play for your country of birth.

I'd say outside the top four or five of Australia, New Zealand, England and France and probably PNG.

Otherwise, you'd have a situation where there are players who qualify for Ireland/ Wales/ Scotland who want to hold out and play for England, when you could have a Danny Brough or a Mike McIllorum playing for a developing nation and helping out younger players adjust to international rugby.

Brown is talking out of his hat. Henderson was born in England and is just as eligible to be selected as Luke Robinson.

The only problem that I have with Henderson playing for England is that he's already represented Scotland. I don't agree with players being allowed to switch national allegiances after representing a country, a problem that we see across the game.

I don't mind players like Reed or Widdop playing for England. They were born in England, have English parents, and it isn't their fault that their families emigrated when they were young.

I'd agree if he'd played for Aus or NZ, then tried to switch to England.

There's a bit of a myth about Australia selecting island players.

Apart from Uate, Civoniceva and Tuqiri, who were all born in Fiji but emigrated to Australia as children and came through their development systems, everyone else was born in Australia. NZ are the worst offenders.

As mentioned earlier, there are two main issues:
1. Nation swapping
2. Residency

Nation swapping is necessary I feel when we're a developing sport in many countries. If we want a remotely competitive international scene, the likes of Scotland, Ireland, Samoa, Tonga, etc. are going to have to borrow players from the major nations to compete.
However, the need to swap nations between the bigger nations is completely unnecessary. That's why I like the Vagana idea of selecting a major nation and minor nation.
At the end of the day, nobody bats an eyelid that nation swapping happens in athletics all the time, and that's a far bigger sport.

In regards to the residency rules, I think they're a joke. 3 years is not long enough to represent a country in sport. That's a short-term contract length. It runs the risk of buying players in for internationals.
People that have emigrated here early and developed here yeah, no problem. Someone like Harrison Hansen, who was born in NZ but has lived here as a child, I'd agree with being selected. But Fa'asavalu and Chase being selected were complete jokes.
But again, you only have to look at England RU and Cricket to know we aren't the only ones.

As for Brown's complaints about Henderson, you've got to laugh! "If he sounds like an Aussie and looks like an Aussie..." what does an Aussie look like?! A very stupid comment from him. Especially considering he was born in England to British parents! Did he just morph into looking like an Aussie?! Would he have turned black had he moved to Kenya?!

I'd say that in that case it's because it's mainly seen as an individual sport rather than a team one, so the change in nationality is rarely for competitive/career gain.

Though the residency rules were five years?

Unless your country of birth has ten faster runners than you, but the country you choose to adopt does not, of course...

In which case I doubt you're going to be in line for too much success either way, TBH.

Really? Competing in the Olympics is still a huge success.

Funding?

I imagine that GB's athletes, for example, are funded alot better than most others.

As Wellsy said, the honour of competing at the Olympics would be viewed as a success by many. That aside, the same principles apply here as for team sports. You could quite easily argue, for example, that Rangi Chase won't 'be in line for too much success' by switching his allegiance to England. But if he didn't switch, he wouldn't be playing international football.

As populations become more diverse and mobile, concepts of national identity have to become more flexible or die. Either/or for me.
You'll get the odd old fashioned flag waving patriot swimming against the tide, but patriotism will be a quaint but redundant concept in a few generations time, IMO.

Fair point. Although I'd still say that the nationality switching in athletics has no impact on the results or competitiveness of the latter stages, which is probably why people care less.

is he blasting England, or Steve Mac?

I completely understand Chase's reasons for doing so, and accept the point about going to the Olympics. I disagree with both if that's the reason for doing so. Like I just said to Wellsy though, I think it probably generates less criticism because a lot of the time you're not likely to be talking about medal hopefuls in those cases, whereas in RL you're talking about the 3 biggest fish in the pond.

Also, with a team sport, if you're not going to enforce enough eligibility criteria for a national side IMO it becomes a redundant concept, they're just club sides in another guise. You might as well scrap it in it's current form and either play club sides against those from other leagues, or SL v NRL representative sides, or even just leave it all together.

Blasting Steve Mac for not selecting Luke Robinson is the crux of his rant I reckon.