English rugby strength in depth - Reality or just an illusion

Simple question as posed in the title.

Has England got real strength in depth or not...

If they have, why keep poaching players from other nations, other sports.

I actually think that England do have strength in depth. However, how annoyed would you be if home grown talent is overlooked for Fijian Wingers, Samoan Centres, Tongan forwards and now a Yorkshire man who chose to play Rugby League in Australia. If I was English and playing first class rugby, I'd wonder why bother, as the chance of wearing the red rose would be limited by all the foreign imports.

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeaky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I really hope he doesn't feature in the RWC Welsh squad as I'm fed up with Granny Gate 2...

Its got to be time the qualification rules are tightened again... Anyone else agree with me or completely disagree.

What would need to be strengthened? From an English persepective the last instance that I thought went too far was Waldrom discovering his granny. I have no issue with people like Rokoduguni or the asylum seeker Ewers before we get onto that. Are we really saying that it's poaching for Bath to sign a Yorkshireman? Why not focus on someone else?

I have similar reservations about some selection decisions. It seems despite the coaches talking about how great the side is, they're strangely happy to grab a nobody from nowhere with no track record and cast out the incumbent as though he's a stop gap last resort in the hope said player X will turn out to be world class.

How many New England caps are own by academy players and how many are, as you say, some Fijian, Samoan,
Tongan or rugby league convert. It looks like the coaches and selectors are grasping at straws and the only way to cement your place in the team is for you Dad to be the coach!

Nice one Ghostie.

Does it say something about the ability of the "culturally" or "indigenous" English to excel at the game? Or is there some other reason why they are so over looked both domestically and abroad?

I can name only Haskell, North and Cipriani in modern times who've been deemed good enough to play overseas, French club debacles aside. Am I merely lacking knowledge?

Borderline racist.

Why so? You can say the same of many nations. Take America
For example. The culturally indigenous Americans (American Samoa aside) infrequently feature at eh highest level and I can point to the clear reasons for that. Whereas it's obvious the indigenous and culturally Samoan for instance are widely heralded for their natural ability and despite a tiny population are over represented throughout club and international sides.

Probably the because of the way you were brought up. Education is what you need.

Ok then educate me, I'm always keen to learn and gain new knowledge and insight. Why is it?

Think you need professional help!

England do have depth and the "foreigners" that you've mentioned have been in England since their early teens. Hardly poaching. I just hope the bulk of the U20's can step up into the seniors at some stage. The days of Flutey,Hape,Vainlikolo are hopefully long gone altho selecting Waldrom leaves a sour taste.

TobyBryant wrote:Does it say something about the ability of the "culturally" or "indigenous" English to excel at the game? Or is there some other reason why they are so over looked both domestically and abroad?

I can name only Haskell, North and Cipriani in modern times who've been deemed good enough to play overseas, French club debacles aside.  Am I merely lacking knowledge?

Well, there was a fine physical speciman of an Englishman by the name of Andy Goode......

Is it true his middle name is Knowel?

A Yorkshire man who's been to Australia may be picked for England. Sounds like something the Daily Mail need to hear about.

I was going to try and come up with some witty comment about empty barrels and scraping, but then I thought, if these wums can't make the effort why should I?

What is the purpose of this thread? Aside from Wumming the usual S-H-I-T-E against the English.

Wheres the one questioning particular areas of the the Welsh or the Irish or the French or the KIwis etc.

In fact i might complain about this.

TobyBryant wrote:Does it say something about the ability of the "culturally" or "indigenous" English to excel at the game? Or is there some other reason why they are so over looked both domestically and abroad?

I can name only Haskell, North and Cipriani in modern times who've been deemed good enough to play overseas, French club debacles aside.  Am I merely lacking knowledge?

Mods....please ban this muppet!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:Does it say something about the ability of the "culturally" or "indigenous" English to excel at the game? Or is there some other reason why they are so over looked both domestically and abroad?

I can name only Haskell, North and Cipriani in modern times who've been deemed good enough to play overseas, French club debacles aside.  Am I merely lacking knowledge?

Mods....please ban this muppet!

+1

And its great that some players do go, but you can understand why many dont want to, given its probably going to be for less money on the other side of the world, and I believe many of the top teams have restrictions on the numbers of foreigners they can play.

As has been mentioned before, there are schemes for young players to spend time in NZ. From England notable players to have done so are MJ and Tom Wood. There is also nibbler Yates and Goode.

SH club rugby is distinctly second rate. It's an empty stadium time-filler between international matches. So if there's also no more pay, who in their right mind would go? mJ was 18. Haskell clearly had wanderlust.

Quins, could you be so kind as to elaborate a little on your judgement of SH rugby please, you have only made a statement which is easily counter argued, but I feel like a decent debate this morning, be so kind as to provide more info please.

one bad wum deserved another. was not a serious comment biltong. was merely highlighting how ridiculous a couple of the earlier posts on this thread were, by making an equally ridiculous subjective claim in the opposite direction.

the reality is that there is far more money in NH club rugby, so English players wont leave England as they would have to take a paycut, unless they have finished their England careers and then they might consider going to France if the price and opportunity was right...wilko, flood, etc.

england have massive strength in depth. that is not in doubt. but we are lacking "truly world class" players in many positions. but i think the likelihood of rectifying that is improving as the coaching setup looks to be bringing through some great u18s and u20s. many of whom are now included in the EPS most recently announced. marler, slade, nowell, brookes, farrell, ford, joseph, kruis, kvesic, launchbury, lawes, marler, may, thomas, billy v, waller, watson, yarde. all of whom came through the u20s in the last 4 years. you could make a pretty decent team out of that lot. puts the lie to the OP i reckon.

from the RFU 2013 annual report, the numbers...in england we have...

2,500,000 rugby players
2,000 clubs
3,200 member schools
6,800 non-affiliated schools
200 colleges
130 universities
helped by 60,000+ volunteers

RFU invested GBP63.7m in operating the English game at all levels. a lot of that would be RFU payments to clubs to incentivise using english players, and academy funding.

Problem with 'World Class' is that its incredibly hard to be thought of as such when you first start playing internationals. We have some players (Launchbury for one) who might well be that good but its still too early to say. It comes down to the lack of caps in the team. The most experienced guys arent far off

Its a horrible phrase anyway, and very overused in some parts

I think there strength in depth is good. Very good infact.

Their problem is that their league is quite strong and has quite a few foreigners in it. Takes longer for youth players to get exposure. You don't see that in Ireland, Wales etc and that's where they make up the balance.

Even in SA we see many players moving to Europe and Japan.. it frees space up which otherwise would have taken years to stake their claim to.

In England you get foreigners coming in aged 26-28, at the top of their game... how are kids going to compete against that?

Its probably why England has great depth but only a handful of truly great world class players.

For instance I think ENG vs. WAL in terms of their first XV are very close in match. In terms of the 2nd XV I think ENG vs. WAL wouldn't even be a contest.

Tuilagi, Vunipola's, Hartley... they more than qualify so not issue with them. The rest are pretty English so what's the beef?

The fijian winger.. in the end he lives in England, serves in the British army so for me he's British, he's earnt his bread, more so than some kid who happened to be more in the country for me. We can't chose where we are born or who are parents are. I doubt he joined up for the passport. I think its a right of passage for many Fijians to come and serve in the British army. Long tradition.

The fijian winger is the only guy qualified on residency who came here as an adult. The guy about whom there are the most questions is Waldrom, who did technically qualify by residency but who also found an English grandparent. I'd guess most if not all posters here would be happy if he didnt play for us again

In answer to the OP - and just the question not the obvious WUM attached to it - England has strength in depth - but only in certain positions. Prop is a position where England have good strength for example - the two best Corbs and Cole both out injured, and frankly haven't been badly missed. 12 is the biggest issue for me. Hopefully Eastmond or 36 will live up to their potential. Wings are now decently covered. 13 is still a potential issue although I am hoping JJ can make a good case for himself, then having Manu back fit and either Barrett, Slade or Burrell also as decent players...Full back sorted. Second row and hooker fine.

Flankers is a harder one as selection is potentially skewed by the captain at 7.

No9 wrote:Simple question as posed in the title.

Has England got real strenght in depth or not...

If they have, why keep poaching players from other nations, other sports.

I actually think that England do have strenght in depth. However, how annoyed would you be if home grown talent is overlooked for Fijian Wingers, Samoan Centres, Tongan forwards and now a Yorkshire man who chose to play Rugby League in Australia. If I was English and playing first class rugby, I'd wonder why bother, as the chance of wearing the red rose would be limited by all the foriegn imports.

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeeky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I really hope he doesnt feature in the RWC Welsh squad as I'm fed up with Granny Gate 2...

Its got to be time the qualification rules are tightened again... Anyone else agree with me or completly disagree.

For me coming over as a child is better than parental/grandparent qualification.

i.e. The vunipola brothers supersede the case of say brad barritt.

Given that I don't see why England are so bad. Who in there side qualifies such?

Rokoduguni??? He's earned his citizenship the hard way.

Nevertheless I've always said the following about Brad Barritt... British people from Natal are quite possibly the most british people you will ever meet. Loyal to the crown, they still take afternoon tea, many join the UK army and many of the old timers joined up in WWII to fight for mother Britain. He qualified via his parents but he is as British as anyone you'll ever meet. Don't let an accent disguise the fact.

If you ask them where they are from they'll say, oh I'm from South Africa... but I'm English.

nobbled sums it up nicely.

You could also there is depth but not strength.

10 is not looking so rosy at the moment - even though there are some options -

Farrell is woefully out of form and match practice, - hasn't played well since the 6 nations.

Ford is still very inexperienced at international level - is his kicking good enough?

Cipriani - hasn't played an international game in a long time and even then he only had one good game.

Myler - unproven at international level.

I would worry whoever starts vs NZ.

In the centres - plenty of options but not any outstanding ones.

Wing - again plenty of options but not many fill me with confidence. It just shows you how weak we are in this area that Rokodiguini is practically a shoe in to start despite having no caps. Also that supposedly the other starter will be Yarde - who is woefully out of form and only has a handful of caps.

lostinwales wrote:Problem with 'World Class' is that its incredibly hard to be thought of as such when you first start playing internationals. We have some players (Launchbury for one) who might well be that good but its still too early to say. It comes down to the lack of caps in the team. The most experienced guys arent far off

Its a horrible phrase anyway, and very overused in some parts

+1 to that. "World class" is a phrase that should be used sparingly if at all. Rugby's a game of combinations and teams, and very few players look good without being part of an effective unit.

When a team starts to click, then suddenly loads of players start to look "world class". England have the players to get there - if they can just play the same basic backline for enough games in succession.

Addressing the original question seriously, I think for England the question is less strength in depth than experience in depth. Right now, they have that in the front row, back row [1], 9 and 15. Second row is probably OK if Parling comes through. At 10, we have the same issue we have at 7, but worse because at least at 7 we can turn to Wood or Haskell. We have plenty of individual players with talent and experience in the centres, but few settled combinations. Wings are all very raw, but wings are the easiest part of a team to change.

For the future, though, you only need to look at the JRWC squads for the last few years to see the answer. English clubs and the England coaches have proven to be pretty adept at bringing players through the age grades and into senior contention, and the pipeline of talent is impressive. And all of them have at least spent their formative years in England.

[1] though as nobbled has noted, slightly exposed at 7 simply because only one player has played more than a couple of matches there in the last 3 years. The corollary of that, though, is that he's not a player whose prone to injury or swings in form.

fa0019 wrote:I think there strength in depth is good. Very good infact.

Their problem is that their league is quite strong and has quite a few foreigners in it. Takes longer for youth players to get exposure. You don't see that in Ireland, Wales etc and that's where they make up the balance.

Even in SA we see many players moving to Europe and Japan.. it frees space up which otherwise would have taken years to stake their claim to.

In England you get foreigners coming in aged 26-28, at the top of their game... how are kids going to compete against that?

Its probably why England has great depth but only a handful of truly great world class players.

For instance I think ENG vs. WAL in terms of their first XV are very close in match. In terms of the 2nd XV I think ENG vs. WAL wouldn't even be a contest.

In days gone by, it's probably true that young English players had difficulty in breaking through early, but I don't think that's the case anymore. It does vary from club to club, but England has 12 elite teams with over 70% EQP - that's roughly 8 EQ teams worth of players compared to the 4 that the Irish and Welsh have to shoehorn their youngsters into.

The pathway has improved as well - the early season A games allows academy lads to play with and against senior fringe players and injury returnees. The LV Cup is another step up, and the team's announcement for this weekend in a few minutes will see a host of 19 and 20 year olds, and a smattering of 18 year olds. Most academy players will be dual-registered with Championship clubs, with many playing week in week out at a lower level, but still against a mix of gnarled veterans, Tier 2 internationals and a few ex-lions and internationals. None of these test players for international level, but they do showcase their talents and suitability for the step up to Premiership.

JWC graduation can be misleading, because the truly exceptional players, like the Georges North and Ford, tend to miss out on U20's, going straight to senior club rugby (Ford played his U20 games at the age of 17-18). However, looking at the "Class of 2013", there are 4 players in the current England training squad (including Ford) and another 2 who toured NZ with the seniors. Admittedly, probably only Nowell and Ford have a decent chance of selection. It's probably too early for the "Class of 2014", but Watson only missed JWC2014 because he was touring with the seniors.

Most of the JWC2013 winnng team have played for their clubs at senior level, and not far off half of the starting XV are regular starters in AP.

fa0019 wrote:

No9 wrote:Simple question as posed in the title.

Has England got real strenght in depth or not...

If they have, why keep poaching players from other nations, other sports.

I actually think that England do have strenght in depth. However, how annoyed would you be if home grown talent is overlooked for Fijian Wingers, Samoan Centres, Tongan forwards and now a Yorkshire man who chose to play Rugby League in Australia. If I was English and playing first class rugby, I'd wonder why bother, as the chance of wearing the red rose would be limited by all the foriegn imports.

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeeky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I really hope he doesnt feature in the RWC Welsh squad as I'm fed up with Granny Gate 2...

Its got to be time the qualification rules are tightened again... Anyone else agree with me or completly disagree.

For me coming over as a child is better than parental/grandparent qualification.

i.e. The vunipola brothers supersede the case of say brad barritt.

Given that I don't see why England are so bad. Who in there side qualifies such?

Rokoduguni??? He's earned his citizenship the hard way.

Nevertheless I've always said the following about Brad Barritt... British people from Natal are quite possibly the most british people you will ever meet. Loyal to the crown, they still take afternoon tea, many join the UK army and many of the old timers joined up in WWII to fight for mother Britain. He qualified via his parents but he is as British as anyone you'll ever meet. Don't let an accent disguise the fact.

If you ask them where they are from they'll say, oh I'm from South Africa... but I'm English.

Many might think he's wumming but hes got a valid question. England has the biggest player pool in the world but they do seem to field a lot of players who are british by residency and qualifying through Grandparents. Not that its a problem or anything but it does make you wonder why when England should theoritically be able to field a bunch of teams with 100% born and bred Englishmen


*** Correction that should read , England more than anyone else should be able to field a bunch of teams

And its worth remembering that it usually takes a lot longer for forwards to break through from junior ranks than backs.

Bullsbok wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No9 wrote:Simple question as posed in the title.

Has England got real strenght in depth or not...

If they have, why keep poaching players from other nations, other sports.

I actually think that England do have strenght in depth. However, how annoyed would you be if home grown talent is overlooked for Fijian Wingers, Samoan Centres, Tongan forwards and now a Yorkshire man who chose to play Rugby League in Australia. If I was English and playing first class rugby, I'd wonder why bother, as the chance of wearing the red rose would be limited by all the foriegn imports.

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeeky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I really hope he doesnt feature in the RWC Welsh squad as I'm fed up with Granny Gate 2...

Its got to be time the qualification rules are tightened again... Anyone else agree with me or completly disagree.

For me coming over as a child is better than parental/grandparent qualification.

i.e. The vunipola brothers supersede the case of say brad barritt.

Given that I don't see why England are so bad. Who in there side qualifies such?

Rokoduguni??? He's earned his citizenship the hard way.

Nevertheless I've always said the following about Brad Barritt... British people from Natal are quite possibly the most british people you will ever meet. Loyal to the crown, they still take afternoon tea, many join the UK army and many of the old timers joined up in WWII to fight for mother Britain. He qualified via his parents but he is as British as anyone you'll ever meet. Don't let an accent disguise the fact.

If you ask them where they are from they'll say, oh I'm from South Africa... but I'm English.

Many might think he's wumming but hes got a valid question. England has the biggest player pool in the world but they do seem to field a lot of players who are british by residency and qualifying through Grandparents. Not that its a problem or anything but it does make you wonder why when England should theoritically be able to field a bunch of teams with 100% born and bred Englishmen

Does nobody read anything? How many current squad players qualify through residency or grandparents?

Of those who have qualified through residency how many learned their rugby overseas?

Its 'percieved knowledge' based on some high profile cases in the past. It just isnt the case now, certainly no worse than any other team.

lostinwales wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No9 wrote:Simple question as posed in the title.

Has England got real strenght in depth or not...

If they have, why keep poaching players from other nations, other sports.

I actually think that England do have strenght in depth. However, how annoyed would you be if home grown talent is overlooked for Fijian Wingers, Samoan Centres, Tongan forwards and now a Yorkshire man who chose to play Rugby League in Australia. If I was English and playing first class rugby, I'd wonder why bother, as the chance of wearing the red rose would be limited by all the foriegn imports.

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeeky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I really hope he doesnt feature in the RWC Welsh squad as I'm fed up with Granny Gate 2...

Its got to be time the qualification rules are tightened again... Anyone else agree with me or completly disagree.

For me coming over as a child is better than parental/grandparent qualification.

i.e. The vunipola brothers supersede the case of say brad barritt.

Given that I don't see why England are so bad. Who in there side qualifies such?

Rokoduguni??? He's earned his citizenship the hard way.

Nevertheless I've always said the following about Brad Barritt... British people from Natal are quite possibly the most british people you will ever meet. Loyal to the crown, they still take afternoon tea, many join the UK army and many of the old timers joined up in WWII to fight for mother Britain. He qualified via his parents but he is as British as anyone you'll ever meet. Don't let an accent disguise the fact.

If you ask them where they are from they'll say, oh I'm from South Africa... but I'm English.

Many might think he's wumming but hes got a valid question. England has the biggest player pool in the world but they do seem to field a lot of players who are british by residency and qualifying through Grandparents. Not that its a problem or anything but it does make you wonder why when England should theoritically be able to field a bunch of teams with 100% born and bred Englishmen

Does nobody read anything? How many current squad players qualify through residency or grandparents?

Of those who have qualified through residency how many learned their rugby overseas?

Its 'percieved knowledge' based on some high profile cases in the past. It just isnt the case now, certainly no worse than any other team.

Always has to be someone who decides to not answer the question but still posts a reply anyway . Its a question that can be asked for a few English sports actually, cricket especially . Arguably the most registered players in any one country yet still questions like this are always being asked

bullsbok.

Which players then?

I think its unfair to count guys who moved to England as kids. They moved there, were brought up there. Its natural for them to play for England... like many Samoans who represent NZ, like many kiwi's who represent AUS.

In that case the only players who qualify via resendency are

Barritt (parents)
Rokodugini (residency and service in British Army)

Now that's not bad to be honest.

quinsforever wrote:from the RFU 2013 annual report, the numbers...in england we have...

2,500,000 rugby players
2,000 clubs
3,200 member schools
6,800 non-affiliated schools
200 colleges
130 universities
helped by 60,000+ volunteers

RFU invested GBP63.7m in operating the English game at all levels. a lot of that would be RFU payments to clubs to incentivise using english players, and academy funding.

Reading those figures, you would think that England should have a vast pool of players to chose from (and compared to some places we do). In reality those numbers just show that a lot of unfit people who like to run around a bit before having a beer do so, or that a lot of children are made to play it at schools.

Yes there is a broad base of amateurs in the country (although in London a huge number of those registered players aren't English) but there actual development pathway is pretty new and until recently didn't work at all. Now there is a better set up in terms of regional academies and the U20's etc. and I think we will start to see evidence of that in the coming years.

I have to be honest, these quoted figures about how many people play rugby in a country means little if it isn't broken down into age groups, professional, fish and chips teams etc.

I phoned our unions a few years back to get the actual figures, and none could break it down into grades, it is simply players that had registered, some might even still be on even though they no longer play. Some farms have registered rugby teams/clubs, which really just mean it is a social team.

Bullsbok wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No9 wrote:Simple question as posed in the title.

Has England got real strenght in depth or not...

If they have, why keep poaching players from other nations, other sports.

I actually think that England do have strenght in depth. However, how annoyed would you be if home grown talent is overlooked for Fijian Wingers, Samoan Centres, Tongan forwards and now a Yorkshire man who chose to play Rugby League in Australia. If I was English and playing first class rugby, I'd wonder why bother, as the chance of wearing the red rose would be limited by all the foriegn imports.

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeeky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I really hope he doesnt feature in the RWC Welsh squad as I'm fed up with Granny Gate 2...

Its got to be time the qualification rules are tightened again... Anyone else agree with me or completly disagree.

For me coming over as a child is better than parental/grandparent qualification.

i.e. The vunipola brothers supersede the case of say brad barritt.

Given that I don't see why England are so bad. Who in there side qualifies such?

Rokoduguni??? He's earned his citizenship the hard way.

Nevertheless I've always said the following about Brad Barritt... British people from Natal are quite possibly the most british people you will ever meet. Loyal to the crown, they still take afternoon tea, many join the UK army and many of the old timers joined up in WWII to fight for mother Britain. He qualified via his parents but he is as British as anyone you'll ever meet. Don't let an accent disguise the fact.

If you ask them where they are from they'll say, oh I'm from South Africa... but I'm English.

Many might think he's wumming but hes got a valid question. England has the biggest player pool in the world but they do seem to field a lot of players who are british by residency and qualifying through Grandparents. Not that its a problem or anything but it does make you wonder why when England should theoritically be able to field a bunch of teams with 100% born and bred Englishmen


*** Correction that should read , England more than anyone else should be able to field a bunch of teams

Why would you exclude someone just because they're not born and bred? You wouldn't/shouldn't just on that basis which is probably your answer.

Broadly speaking, there have been three phases in the England setup in the recent past.

Up to 2003, the squads reflected the old amateur game. The RWC squad had Catt (English mother, had been resident in England for 3 years before playing for England and over 10 years by the time of the World Cup) and Dallaglio (Italian father, but born and raised in England).

Then we had a phase where the clubs bought in foreign talent rather than systematically developing their own. Big names = bigger gates, and the English economy meant that Kolpak players could be enticed over for comparatively modest wages. Even in that period, the number of foreign born players was never as large as WUMs make out.

Since about 2006 the clubs have been incentivised by the RFU to develop EQPs and strong academies. The academy model is probably only just reaching maturity - people I know who are associated with it say that the current generation of kids emerging have far better basic skills and reading of the game than the generation before them.

You will always be able to WUM by picking players with foreign names or foreign parents in the England squad. Off the top of my head, an England XV of fairly recent vintage with WUMmable players:

Corbisiero / Vunipola; Hartley; Stevens
Botha, erm...
Armitage, Kvesic, Vunipola / Morgan
Care (Yorkshire counts, apparently)
Cipriani
Barritt Tuilagi
Rokoduguni, Armitage, Nowell (if Yorkshire counts, so must Cornwall)

But it's easier to do an all English (and nearly all Academy) option:
Marler - Webber / Youngs - Wilson
Launchbury - Lawes
Wood - Robshaw - Easter (unless the past is another country?)
Youngs / Dickson
Farrell / Ford / Burns
Twelvetrees / Burrell
May, Brown, Goode

Aren't Dickson and Burrell Yorkshire born, and Farrell and Ford come from League stock, so they're disqualified?

Dickson is Germany so you can whack him in the overseas along with Yarde. Myler is a league boy. If we can go back to the big Kenyan Simon Shaw job done. I've seen Morgans name thrown as foreign born as he nearly chose Wales as well, funny.

Not posted for a while but I just want to put this nonsense to bed for once and for all.
Current eps - d attwood, k brookes, m brown, l burrel, d care, k eastmond, o farrel, b foden, g ford, a goode, j joseph, j haskell, g kruis, j launchbury, c lawes, j marler, j may, b morgan, m mullan, s myler, j nowell, c robshaw, h slade, h thomas, b twelvetrees, a waller, a watson, r webber, r wrigglesworth, d wilson, t wood, b youngs ALL BORN AND BRED IN ENGLAND

l dickson, m kvesic - born in germany to ENGLISH PARENTS, educated brought up in england, (army parents I think)

m yarde, d hartley, b vunipola, d ewers - all moved to england AT A YOUNG AGE, educated and came through the youth system

B Barrit, s rokodugni - there you go. that's it. TWO. TWO? now please put this nonsense to bed 4.8% of the 41 could be questioned on their eligibility.

Now stop. otherwise I'll have to do it for other countries and it takes some time!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dickson is Germany so you can whack him in the overseas along with Yarde. Myler is a league boy. If we can go back to the big Kenyan Simon Shaw job done. I've seen Morgans name thrown as foreign born as he nearly chose Wales as well, funny.

Well the name Morgan sounds Welsh

If you count northerners who don't fit into ra ra stereotypes then you might have a case but otherwise the strength in depth is looking good. Now if you want to get into genetics of a particular race/culture then I'm calling racism right at you.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dickson is Germany so you can whack him in the overseas along with Yarde. Myler is a league boy. If we can go back to the big Kenyan Simon Shaw job done. I've seen Morgans name thrown as foreign born as he nearly chose Wales as well, funny.

Well the name Morgan sounds Welsh

Nah, it sounds like a Pirate, so he must be Cornish.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dickson is Germany so you can whack him in the overseas along with Yarde. Myler is a league boy. If we can go back to the big Kenyan Simon Shaw job done. I've seen Morgans name thrown as foreign born as he nearly chose Wales as well, funny.

Well, quite. He's as Welsh as North and Warburton are English. Come to think of it, I'm technically Welsh, as my father was born in Cardiff. But his dad was a Scots civil engineer working on a project in Wales, so maybe I'm actually Scottish. And my mum's from Yorkshire, but grew up in Ulster and her dad played league for Wigan.

So I definitely shouldn't play rugby for England. Good job I was a cr*p player really. Shame about my kids, though. They show some promise.

Most of this stuff is just internet-enabled WUMming, anyway. I can't remember anyone ever criticising Mike Catt for not being English. Though I can remember plenty criticising him for not being good.

I never really understand the "England has the largest players pool, they should be able to select sides without picking furriners".

1) The player pool includes foreigners. Not every amateur player in England is English.

2) Is the suggestion that eligible players should not be selected for England because they don't meet someone's standard of 'Englishness'? Er...no thanks. Racism pure and simple. The fact that guys like Corbisiero or Kvesic get lumped in with these goes beyond UKIP into BMP territory.

Campaign for the eligibility criteria by all means. Expect national coaches to apply their own judgement of Englishness? GFY And for the record I would make it 5 years residency and two grand parents right now.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dickson is Germany so you can whack him in the overseas along with Yarde. Myler is a league boy. If we can go back to the big Kenyan Simon Shaw job done. I've seen Morgans name thrown as foreign born as he nearly chose Wales as well, funny.

Well, quite. He's as Welsh as North and Warburton are English. Come to think of it, I'm technically Welsh, as my father was born in Cardiff. But his dad was a Scots civil engineer working on a project in Wales, so maybe I'm actually Scottish. And my mum's from Yorkshire, but grew up in Ulster and her dad played league for Wigan.

So I definitely shouldn't play rugby for England. Good job I was a cr*p player really. Shame about my kids, though. They show some promise.

Most of this stuff is just internet-enabled WUMming, anyway. I can't remember anyone ever criticising Mike Catt for not being English. Though I can remember plenty criticising him for not being good.

Touch harsh as at least North abd Warburton have a Welsh parent! All in jest though!

Losing sight of the spirit in which the question was asked. NO ONE said they dont deserve to be playing for England because they were not born here. The question was how come , with the number of players England supposedly has, are/have they been a suprisingly high number of "foreigners" ie Players who could be said to have been eligible for a different country based on birth .

And once again i repeat i'm not questioning anyones eligibility thats not the point and is irrelevant here seeing as they've already played for england which makes them eligible