The clamour for England to relax their rule on picking foreign-based players has reached a new nadir in recent weeks, firstly with the form of Nick Abendanon, and most recently the news that Australia will now pick players based abroad, if they have 60 or more caps and have played seven years of their rugby within Australia.
I mention Abendanon in isolation there deliberately – he has been added to a shortlist of France-based players that many people think Stuart Lancaster should pick for the World Cup. The only other player on that list is Steffon Armitage, a man who has been consistently excellent for the past few seasons.
I do think Abendanon was unfortunate not to have won more caps during his time playing for Bath – he has always been one of the finest counter attackers around. But he only managed two, so at the age of 28 he headed abroad to experience a different rugby culture and, of course, earn himself a bit more money – a very sensible decision given that international rugby seemed like a dead end for him.
One good performance in a big European game does not elevate him to the same league as Armitage, however, who has been one of the best players in Europe for at least two years. To be honest, though, that is really beside the point.
The real issue comes with drawing comparisons between the ARU’s decision, and RFU’s own stance on foreign-based players. Australia relaxing their rules has lead to many people saying England should do the same, foremost amongst them Sir Clive Woodward who has used the news to get back on his soapbox and call for Lancaster to pick English players abroad.
But the two situations are chalk and cheese. The ARU is a sinking ship, a recent report showing they are haemorrhaging money. They need to get bums back on seats for international games and make the Wallabies a valuable product again, to attract sponsors and fans alike.
The best way to do that, of course, is to make the national side as good as it can be. And what better time to show that off than at a World Cup? The cynic in me wants to say that the 60 cap figure was decided on just so that Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell, two key individuals in one of the best teams in the world right now, would be available for the World Cup later this year. For reference, Mitchell has 63 caps – surely not a coincidence.
England and the RFU are not in the same boat. The RFU consistently makes a profit, so there is no financial incentive to change things, for a start. Rugby union does not have to compete so hard with other rugby codes in the UK as it does in Australia, where league and Aussie Rules so often steal the best athletes.
The RFU also has a very strong relationship with Premiership Rugby which, for the most part, keeps everyone happy. If the RFU suddenly decided players could move abroad and still play for England, we’d undoubtedly see a talent drain. Premiership bosses would see their product diluted and the relationship would sour. You only have to look at how the France team are currently faring to see how dangerous a poor relationship between club and country can be.
More to the point, if the RFU implemented the same rule as the ARU, then Armitage and Abendanon would remain unavailable as neither have anything close to 60 caps. In fact, there is no English player playing abroad that would be eligible.
In many ways, it is a shrewd move from the ARU, who are ensuring their best players give the majority of their careers to the Australian game, before they are then allowed to leave and earn a bit more money, while still playing for their country. Younger generations can learn from the more experienced guys, and then step into their shoes and if and when they leave.
There are a myriad of other contradictions between the two countries and situations – central contracting, for example – so to use one as an argument for another is just lazy.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
13 replies on “Cross country comparison is pointless – England’s foreign player rule must remain”
Very good point about the relationship with the clubs.
Much as it may seem counter intuitive, I think England’s position is taking both a long and a short term view to putting the best team out on the pitch – which might not be the same thing as putting the best players out.
I think Tom Youngs’ comments about the effect allowing foreign-based players into the squad are perfectly valid – if certain players are being seen to be given special treatment it could certainly cause resentment and poor performances on the pitch.
This probably wouldn’t be a problem if there were no rule against it, but the support gained from the clubs (who will always provide the bulk of the team) by helping ensure their best player stay with them surely offsets that.
I agree with every point made, however, there is one flaw – it won’t shut Sir Clive Woodforbrains up.
Let’s try to silence him by copying the Aussies – all those with 60 caps and 7 years can play!
The Aussie 60 cap rule was cynically devised to allow them to pick their best people playing abroad without giving England an excuse to do the same.thing. And even if you disagree with him, why rubbish the most successful England coach of the professional era?
devised in part
Sir Clive isn’t helping England’s cause by being so willfully cockeyed in his article. Yes he led us to a world cup, and his opinion is absolutely valid, but his argument makes no attempt to be level headed. Australia changing their policy ‘leaves England looking old fashioned.’ Does it? Or does it leave Australia looking desperate while England stick to their (well founded) guns? Just one example. Not helpful.
Why have an exceptional circumstance clause if you won’t use it? If the leading European turnover machine in the last two years is not enough of an exceptional circumstance, when your current back row has limited ability in this area, then good luck to the RFU. They clearly don’t know what “exceptional” means.
The Tom Youngs comments above are ridiculous. The best players should play international rugby. Wouldn’t you want the best teammates if you were involved? Shame that members of the England squad appear jealous, or are briefed superbly by admittedly a great RFU, clubs and Premiersbip Rugby PR machine, of fellow countrymen playing so well and achieving great things in France.
Therein is where you may get disagreements over the definition of exceptional, personally I view the clause as allowing them to get themselves out of the same kind of hole the kiwis were in last time round and pick Stephen Donald because all the other fly halves of note were crocked.
That is the beauty of the “exceptional” clause – it is completely ambiguous. Some assume it means if there is a long injury list, some take it that is a player is “exceptional”; as you seem to have.
Greenwood considers that fact that it is a home WC that the circumstance is “exceptional” (a viewpoint that hadn’t even crossed my mind previously).
The point is – that is how they want it.
The RFU want what is best for English rugby long term, not just today. They will always make decisions with that in mind.
The exceptional circumstances rule was probably put in place for the sole reason of including Wilkinson into the EPS.
Spot on Jamie. Too many think this is just about technicalities. About whether the “special circumstances” can be justified. That is limited and narrow thinking. No matter what the technicalities the clubs need to be kept on side and that cannot be done by simply pointing out that rules were obeyed. If England want the clubs to keep developing England players then those clubs will demand payback such as limiting domestic salaries by ensuring that it is more than just cash that stops a player from going to France. It’s a simple equation. Annoy the clubs and your national team will suffer.
It’s all about getting access to players. The RFU spent a lot of time and effort to reach agreement with the English clubs to get extra access to players outside the nominated IRB (sorry, World Rugby) International release windows. They also get much more access during the season anyway, and have agreed rest requirements during the AP blocks of games to ensure that players in the EPS are not run into the ground.
They have no such access or control over players based outside the English system. They can’t be guaranteed release for a French/Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Italian-based player for the additional
training camps that the England team now run. Nor can they guarantee that a French/Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Italian-based player will be rested at all during the season.
During the 6-Nations, you had some of the French club owners screaming blue murder about how they weren’t allowed to have their players playing in the French National team back to play in games on the fallow weekends during the competition. What makes you think they’d be any more likely to be flexible for a player playing for England?!?
Armitage made his decision on his own priorities last November when he agreed to a 3 year contract at Toulon. He knew the rules in place for EPS eligibility, but decided that he wanted to stay in Toulon. Since then, we get tale after tale of how he wants to be treated as an exceptional
case, no wait, he wants to qualify for France through the 7s route, wait, now he wants to come back to England to qualify here again, no, he’s staying in France, but he should be an xceptional case. He needs better advice on career planning.
As for whether he’s that much better than other players I am still not convinced of either. People tout that he’s the “European Player of the Year”; well, that selection is made only from players in teams that have reached the QFs of the top level competition. It excludes any player, however good, in any other team. That makes the selection pool artificially small, and is hardly representative. Yes, he looks good behind a dominant pack, where he’s allowed to roam out defensively looking for turnovers. But that isn’t the way England have built the current team. England play the back rows more traditionally, and it works. Look at Robshaw’s stats, and what he offers, and that’s easily as valuable as whatever Armitage offers at the breakdown.
Thank you Fred, I made a similar point about Armitage and this “European PLayer of the Year” anamoly on here a while back, I’m glad there is someone else who is of the same mind that its maybe not quite the accolade that some make it out to be in support of this campaign to have Armitage as the “exceptional case”.
I’m in 100% agreement with the RFU stance, I would be gutted if we changed it.
Here is the perspective of someone who knows what he is talking about
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/32419707
I’m sure the ARU would like to keep all their best players in country – they can’t afford to. This is a logical step for them, but it isn’t the blueprint for England.