Toulon’s Australian winger Drew Mitchell has branded the RFU’s policy on not picking English players plying their trade abroad a ‘cop-out’, calling those that have backed the rule – such as Northampton’s Tom Wood and Leicester’s Tom Youngs – ‘naive’.
Mitchell is a teammate of Steffon Armitage, the man around whom this debate consistently centres. The back-rower won the European player of the year award in 2014, and is shortlisted again this season. His advocates argue England should be picking the very best players available to them.
The likes of Youngs and Wood have said they would be disappointed if someone playing abroad took their spot for the World Cup after fully understanding the rules when they left England, but Mitchell suspects they have more selfish motives.
“To be honest I think that’s a bit of a cop-out,” says Mitchell. “I think that’s just people who are based in England and who are raising queries because they or someone they are close with friendship-wise may be the ones to miss out if Steffon comes in.”
Many believe bringing Armitage in now would disrupt the culture in the team that Stuart Lancaster and his coaches have worked so hard to engender. Mitchell, however, believes that is just another excuse.
“Regardless of whether it’s Steffon or it’s a bolter who hasn’t been in the England squad, there’s going to be someone who hasn’t been around that environment for a great amount of time,” he said.
“You always hear of bolters coming from nowhere being picked in squads, not just England, and having to adapt to that type of climate. If one guy can come in and is capable of really disrupting the group culture, then the focus would have to go back on how strong is that culture.
“Steffon’s a really adaptable guy, he’s a very likeable guy, he can adapt in any group I’ve seen him in, and he’s a very well-liked member of our squad. To say that he would disrupt the environment or the culture of the squad and the group I think is quite naive.
“What he brings on the field is world-class and also off the field he’s also a really good bloke as well.I think that would be a real shame if they use that as an excuse not to pick him.”
The Australia Rugby Union recently relaxed their own selection rules to allow those with more than 60 caps to be picked for Australia no matter where they are based, having previously refused to pick players playing abroad. Mitchell, conveniently, is one of three players currently based outside of Australia to whom this applies.
His Toulon teammate, Matt Giteau, is another who has become available under the relaxed rules, and Mitchell compares his compatriot’s situation with that of Armitage – despite the Englishman possessing just three caps to the Australian’s 92.
“Steffon Armitage is probably the guy who has been in a similar position to Matt Giteau where England are concerned,” said Mitchell. “Steffon’s not only been knocking on the door this year, he’s been doing it over a number of years.
“And to have that type of player, if you look at the England squad they probably don’t have anyone who plays his type of game, that high turnover rate and he’s a strong ball-carrier too.
“He’s always on the ball, he’s got a very good running game, links well with the backs and forwards. I think he would really add some value to the English squad.
“Part of me hopes he’s not included because it’s a pretty tough pool with England, Australia and Wales all together, but Steffon is a mate of mine and I’d really like to see him get what he deserves and play again for England.”
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
56 replies on “Mitchell brands RFU’s foreign player policy a ‘cop out’”
oh well if Drew Mitchell thinks it’s a good idea then I guess that’s decided!
Yeah my first reaction was, “What the f*ck’s it got to do with him?”
Seriously, until we hear something new – and official! – from the RFU on this subject, is there any danger you could put this overly-flogged dead-and-buried horse to bed (until after the World Cup at least)?
The ARU is practically insolvent, so had to lie to its players for 3 years that they had to accept low wages, only to welch on the deal, in the run-up to RWC.
The RFU has the finance and, hopefully, the integrity to stick to it’s policy.
Are you stating then that England can ‘afford’ its ‘integrity’, but Oz can’t?
Hmmm £ talks it seems, as I’ve been opining in the ARU blog.
Steffon Armitage is the kind of player who makes you win a WC, it is a 9 points / game player with Toulon this year, stealing countless balls and forcing numerous penalties per game. And what about Nick Abendanon tearing apart Northampton … Even Australian is now changing the rules, stupid policy.
If they want to play for england then its simple move back to the Prem! The rule has not suddenly come in.
What happens if the RFU open it up
-More playes will move to france, potential compromising there ability to do training camps and out of international window matches like the welsh.
-Prem clubs get in foreign imports, less space for england potential players to come through. like with football.
-The Premiership becomes devalued as the public can not got see as many of the england internationals, week in week out.
-Players loyalty will be to the french clubs not england, this is already happening with the french rugby and SA and NA are examples of this if they wanted to play for england then move back. their loyalty is the their clubs. SA has already tried to play for France!
The RFU need to stick to its policy and need to clarify that the clause can only be used where no other players are available in england, ie if all tight heads in eng are injured and one is playing in france. That is a exceptional circumstance.
The players who have committed to eng clubs and turned down big contracts from france will be rightly really pissed off! Mitchell is just trying to help a friend.
Armitage would surely be an exceptional circumstance, not at all the catalyst for some sort of Welsh style exodus.
No I dont think he does, JW, DC, RM and KR are are some of the few people in rugby who should ever qualify as “exceptional”. The players in england are much more likely to move to france if SA gets in.
Exceptional circumstance, not simply an exceptional player, i’d say that we don’t have anyone nearly as good as SA… Personally I don’t think SA in form would look too out of place in that little list anyway.
WOW. SA is now way near as good as Richie or Kieran. I personally think Calum Clark deserves a chance.
Last time SA played agains an international team was South Africa
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1yvw68_south-africa-vs-world-xv-1st-half-rugby-game-1-june-2014_sport
and he got completely out matched.
It was 1 game. Does it constitute a trend? Maybe he got the Euro player of the Yr award for consistently good performances. Unlikely by fluke, or based on 1 game. Besides which English back rowers were outstanding v NZ, SA over the last 2 yrs?
Tom wood, Chris robshaw and Ben Morgan.
and if the NZ players do come to europe its after establishing themselves as internationals, SA has not.
Never heard of Fritz Lee, Scott Hamilton, Thomas Waldrom, Nick Evans, Glenn Jackson, Jimmy Goppeth e.g.?
Yr comment is unfounded.
Also… Why on earth would they want to make their rule more clear? It has clearly been designed with some room for interpretation from the coaching staff, seems sensible, changing that would be pretty silly wouldn’t it?
No it wouldnt, by making it more clear that it is only to be used in an injury crisis would stop people going on about it.
I don’t think SL and his team would be very interested in the media or fan centred discussion anyway, I could only see it potentially binding their hands in the future.
I think if a few players are moaning about it then there is something to it.
This is a so old way to see things. In football for example it is exactly the other way around as all the players are coming to England.
Don’t you think that the RFU should ask themselves “Why the players prefer to play in Top 14 than in PL”? It is also maybe the time to make PL more attractive, to renew stadiums (you have amazing soccer stadium but years behind for rugby), it is not just about money your clubs pay even less taxes than the French ones.
By keeping this way of thinking you will keep having a PL living in the past … French rugby was late 10y ago but they changed things, invested in stadiums, looked at new financial models and how to develop this sport to a bigger audience.
These kind of “rules” are a clear sign of the weaknesses of your system, nothing more.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the stadiums; I actually think the rugby stadiums in the UK are of a pretty good standard.
It is all about the money, let’s be honest. Some claim the lifestyle is appealing to, living abroad etc.
Either way, English clubs are not able to compete with either of those two so I don’t think they can do much about it.
However, they can rely on the RFU enforcing this rule to keep their best players here.
“It is all about money” that is right but my question would be why your soccer teams are 10 times richer than the French ones and why the french rugby teams are richer than the rugby ones? And it is a relatively healthy system as we have a strict control of debts for sport teams. French rugby teams are building a very strong economical model with new stadium (Bordeaux, Racing Metro coming, Toulon upgrading …) with a strong marketing campaign for TV and fans, English teams should do the same. Not saying that your tax system is less aggressive than in France as well.
Thats an interesting statement Chris. To me, this rule is a “sign” of the strength of the English system, not a weakness.
Both Armitage brothers, Wilkinson, Kennedy, Abendanon, Balshaw, Sackey, Sheridan, Shaw and probably more that don’t immediately spring to mind, all went to France without disrupting or weakening the England team. Of these, all England Internationals, probably only Sheridan was a first pick when he went – and he was so often injured he missed more than he played. One may argue, even Toby Flood.
So this highlights the strength, not the weakness, right?
“These kind of rules..” – what are the other rules that you refer to?
I am seeing it with my French angle but 10 years ago the English teams were generally stronger than us (Leicester is probably the best example of a team who made the wrong turn). For me a rule like that is not the right answer but RFU should try to rethink the current system to make the english teams more competitive. We did that in France (only in Rugby unfortunately) with guys like Guazzini or Mourad who really changed the old way we had of seeing rugby in France. There were pros and cons but at the end our teams are getting stronger and can attract better players. It is not just about weather, nobody wants to play soccer in Marseille even if it s sunny right 🙂 I am just seeing that RFU should take this problem or debate with a different angle, instead of taking out players like Armitage (not his brother) or Abendanon they should try to see how to make the Premiership more attractive. (Btw I can tell you that Armitage would be a big plus in the English team, his is for me the most important player in Toulon today).
I was mentioning the stadiums because French teams are upgrading a lot of them, or playing in big football stadium for big games (UBB Bordeaux played in front of 25,000 supporters at least for all the games they played in the football stadium). French teams are for once being creative, I have the feeling that RFU and his way of managing rugby is still 10y in the past. What has changes in PL within the last 10 days? Rugby is now professional, like it or not but it is simply reality
I think Chris, that linking the “rule” not to pick Armitage/others to the fact that Premier Rugby is not considered as entertaining/effective/good as Top14 rugby is a bit of a stretch.
I would suggest that prem Rugby is more entertaining than Top14 Rugby. I do not watch a great deal of Top14 but when I do i find it very attritional. Lots of big, bruising play interspersed with flashes of brilliance. A bit like watching Leicester (but with bits of brilliance of course).
Bath, Northampton, Harlequins, Wasps, Exeter, even Newcastle of late, and sometimes Gloucester, all play good, entertaining rugby.
This is not, of course, the same as reaching the final of the Euro Cup, but this is cyclical, and the English sides will come again.
Toulon are the current strongmen of Europe. Before them Leinster, before them it was Munster and Wasps, then previous to that it was Toulouse and Leicester. There will be another one along soon, Clermont perhaps but no “rules” imposed by either the RFU or PRL will cause it to be a French club.
Don’t forget that Perpignan and Biarritz had a strong euro showing for a while (Stade F also?) but they have dropped out even from the Top14 (I think).
So my assertion is that the “rule” has absolutely no bearing on;
(a) quality of rugby on display or
(b) who wins the Euro Cup
I would also add that it also has no bearing on the size of crowds at Prem games.
I love your examples of Biarritz and Perpignan. Why did they go to second league? Simply because they lived in the past and got distanced by more creative model such as SF, Toulon or Racing metro. They did not invest in stadium, did not try to develop their economical model + as well some internal mess due to bad management. SF hasn’t dropped they have a new stadium this year (a pure beauty) and the team is back to top 6. Toulouse was also struggling for the same reason and they are now ringing up the changes as well. This is cyclical but is it not “by chance”, rugby is now professional and if you are not innovative enough, you are going down. Clermont understood it, Biarritz and Perpignan did not.
Look at Pau, same story, was a strong team, went down, changed a lot and will be back next year in Top14 with such a strong team that they can honestly claim a top6 spot.
As a matter of direct comparison on this season (from Wikipedia);
Average tries per match
Premiership; 5.07
Top 14; 3.8
This may be influenced by London Welsh, but is counterbalance by Leicester who manage less than 2 a game, and only a couple more than LW.
Average attendances;
Premiership – 12,796
Top 14 – 13,065
Thats not so significant, particularly when one bears in mind that Newcastle ans Sale play in non-Rugby areas, no-one is interested in watching London Welsh lose every other week in Oxford.
Interestingly, the average in the Premiership is higher than the capacities of six of the teams’ home grounds!
Quality of rugby is not just the number of tries scored … if so we would say that ITM or Currie cup are the most entertaining leagues in the world. Don’t take me wrong I am not saying that PL is not entertaining I am enjoying watching Wasps and Exeter this year but i am saying that it seems to me more dynamic now in France than in PL. You are talking about attendances, have a look of the French figures from the last 4 years, you will see the growth and the trend even if this year we are penalized with a team like Oyonnax. And don’t forget that for example UBB is playing officially in a stadium with less than 10,000 seats but played 70% of their game in a football stadium (they are moving there next year).
You mention the strength of the French club sides but completely ignore what is happening with the French national team.
The French club game may be really strong but the national side has been awful by French standards for the last 4 years, I don’t think it is a coincident that this has coincided with the huge rise in money and consequently strength of the French club game, they are bringing in loads of foreigners (especially Toulon) and as a result the national side is suffering. I don’t think this is the only reason the French national team is suffering, just a significant contributing factor.
Let’s be honest players went to places like Toulon in the first place for the money and as result they’re winning a lot of trophies, now players go for the money and have a great chance of winning trophies as well and these are the only reasons players ever move to the big clubs, money or trophies.
If as you suggest the RFU should concentrate on making English clubs more competitive (personally I don’t think they’re that uncompetitive anyway) then the only way to do this is to increase the salary cap. As spending money would appear to be the only way to be able to compete for the big players and therefore trophies.
Personally if I’m the RFU and there is even the slightest possibility that increasing the salary cap might lead to a dip in the national team I am giving this idea a massive thumbs down.
If you can think of another way to increase the competitiveness of the English teams I’d be glad to hear it.
The problem with the French national team is mainly due to a very poor staff, and again if the French players are good enough they would play in our big teams I see again the problem from a reverse angle. Take again a soccer example, countries like Germany or Spain have a lot of money, a lot of foreign players but national teams are still competitive. The other problem with French rugby is that despite having very strong club presidents and structured teams, the French federation is driven by terrible people … and they are messing up our national team with stupid rules such as the JIF.
Clubs and national teams are for me two separate topics, and if you look at Toulon, they still provide half a dozen of French International players so …
We also have a salary cap in France and a very strict regulation on debts. You would be surprise to hear that Toulon for example did not loose a single euro last season and even made small profits. It is not just about increasing the salary cap but also making the competition, marketing, TV rights more attractive for the teams. As well a lot of players signed in Toulon despite the fact that they were having better financial offers from other teams.
Regarding English teams I don t have answers to everything but my question would be “What has changed from the last 10y?”. Honestly I see a brilliant future for Wasps because they try to change things with a bigger stadium (but again they can’t sell it out). In France Racing Metro is building a new stadium, Stade Francais got a new one last year, Toulon is renovating as well, UBB is taking over the 35,000 football stadium with almost 25 to 30 000 of people going to stadium every week. There is a huge effort to develop rugby in regions where it was not so popular, Lille will get to the top 14 within the next 5 years I guess, it is no longer only the small villages in the south.
France have been hit by poor management, agreed but I do think that spending lots of money on the best foreign players is or will have a negative effect on the French national team.
They actually have relatively few foreigners in Spain and Germany compared to England, where our national team is poor, so your argument could actually work against you there.
You do have a salary cap but it is higher than ours and so clubs like Toulon can afford to bring in all these big names where English clubs can’t. Toulon do provide internationals but none of them were developed by Toulon as they are mostly bringing in already developed big name players and not developing their own. If all the teams in France start doing this then the national team is going to have a problem.
You see a similar problem in the premier league. It is the wealthiest league in the world but with all that money being put in, owners expect instant results and therefore your Chelsea’s of this world just buy in the best players and young English players don’t get a chance. Young players get given very little game time to develop and improve, the result being that potentially very talented aren’t fulfilling their potential. I think there is a possibility that a similar thing may happen in French rugby if they’re not careful.
These are not two separate topics when commenting on an article about the RFU’s approach with this rule. I agree that improving stadia etc may improve the clubs positions (especially financially) but this has nothing to do with the RFU and in fact neither does the salary cap so in fact the RFU can do nothing on these fronts to increase competitiveness, so if you’re the RFU you can keep this rule or lose it for one player and run the risk of possibly losing several players to France. Which by the way would actually decrease the English teams ability to compete.
I also see a brilliant future for Wasps, I really think they’re going to be challenging up the top very soon.
I think Chris that the comparative support between Football and Rugby in England is greater than in France (although I may be wrong).
the likes of Sale and Newcastle pale into insignificance when compared to the support of their footballing neighbours. The capacities of Saracens and Harlequins together is less than 25k, which when compared to the London football clubs is laughably small.
It may be true that “if you build them, then they will come”, but the clubs themselves are not certain of that.
The other issue in England (not sure that its the same in France) is the massive volume of players. This will be Don P’s cue to criticise the England team, but the real effect is that thousands of players play each week instead of watching the local “big” team.
Not players who are pushing selection for England, but players who play with their Dads, sons, mates, and are pushing for selection to their local village side, or 4th XV.
This is what the Clubs are fighting against. Bristol is a fine example of this. There are 53 clubs in and around Bristol (not 53 teams, but 53 clubs, most of which will run at least two teams every Saturday). Bristols travails have been caused – in part – by the inability of the club to attract this enormous rugby public along to the (traditinally) Memorial Ground. It may change now that they have a far bigger stadium, it will be interesting to see.
My point is that building a bigger stadium does not automatically lead to bigger crowds, more money, better rugby and a European Cup hegemony.
Obviously not ‘English’ – even if yr name is a give away. Yr comments ring so true. A breath of fresh air.
The English hang on to the past & rules which may or may not have any basis in reality.
Their game needs better basic skills & tactics other than sticking with the set piece, maul & kicking for the corners, yet the side issue Armitage thing has got more clicks than a sheep shearing competition. Talk about fiddling whist Twickenham burns.
It’s too late for Armitage now anyway, so all the attention he engenders is actually irrelevant.
Mind you I’m as guilty as the nxt geezer. Maybe we all need the attention!?
As stated elsewhere, comments akin to yrs are fear based. There’s no actual evidence that a mass of English players will go abroad. For a start it’s questionable that they are good enough. 2ndly, there’s a presumption by some that it’s only the club country deal that IS keeping them here.
Besides I predict that between future WC’s players will likely play away for a couple of yrs or so, then return home for patriotic, personal (Jerome Kaino?) or profile reasons (Money Bill?).
Besides players may even improve skills abroad. Maybe good for the future?
Nick Abendanon has been tearing apart English defences for years!
try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-OUd6LIoB4
or some of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWkXfsJLM8
Just because he has moved to France, doesnt change his position in the England full-back pecking order, and as a long term Bath supporter I reluctantly recognise that for all his attacking genius there were some weaknesses in his overall game that kept him on the fringes of the squad rather than at the middle of it for quite a few years!
Lets copy Australia then. Any player playing abroad with 60+ caps can play for England at the world cup. The only player who fits that bracket is Flood.
Agree, but rules is rules. You know this makes sense.
My impression was that Mitchell was calling the comments by T Youngs and T Wood a ‘cop-out’ rather than the RFU’s policy itself (although he obviously disagrees with that as well). I agree that, although they may feel aggrieved in private, the England players shouldn’t be coming out publicly and moaning about possible overseas players coming into the squad and should relish the competition instead.
As for the policy itself, I completely agree with it, as it’s about much more than one or two players not being picked – its about the relationship between the RFU and clubs, the salary cap and the sustainability of a very competitive premiership.
My prediction though is that Armitage will get called into the World Cup training squad as a one off ‘special circumstance’ but not make the final squad on the basis that he’s not fully integrated into England’s systems, therefore trying to placate both sides of the argument but actually causing more uproar.
I think they can have a bit of a moan as they could of potential lost out on lots of £/€. If they had known that they could get selected if they played in france then they may of taken an offer to play there.
Agreed, and that I think is the point about disrupting the squad. I don’t think anyone’s worried about a personality clash as Mitchell has interpreted it.
Armitage knows the rules. If he wants to play for England – play IN England. No further discussion necessary.
correct.
So why are you commenting then? It’s been done to death a million times already.
Besides you seem to think it superior strategy to go into a WC with rigid thinking & yr 2nd string.
G’luck cobber.
So why comment @ all then? Yrs is hardly the 1st comment in this vein is it?
My guess is that the reason people keep saying it is that this argument keeps getting brought up. You know, by people like you
Are England not more likely to win the WC with Armitage than without him?, it seems fairly obvious from where I’m sitting… The current occupants of the shirts may not like the idea from their personal perspectives but as a fan I would like our national team to be as strong as possible for this summer, I don’t see this group professionals getting upset and sulking through the world cup as people seem to be implying. Access concerns are understandable but I don’t see how the players’ availability for the WC can be influenced by their clubs.
Actually, no, and I think you’ll find others who agree with me here that don’t think England are not more likely to in the world cup with SA than without him, he is a decent open side operating in a very strong team playing against invariably weaker club sides, he is not in the same class as some of the game’s absolute superstars and as such is unlikely to make that much of a difference to England’s performance.
Euro Player of the Yr, because of being in a Golaith club v David clubs? Well Golaith may have disagreed with you… if he could have.
‘Steffon Armitage, the man around whom this debate consistently centres’.
Gawd, I’ve just come off a marathon blog about the man on the ARU rule change! And now this!
Surely this sIte should be wealthy enough by now, following more blogs on Armitage than there were people in the cast of ‘The 10 Commandments’, to buy out his contract, pay his wage bill & bring him back to England in time for the flippin’ WC!
Then we could get on with, er… rugby!
I’m going to the pub!
Anyone else think this might just be the start of the inevitable mind games in the run-up to the “group of death” at the World Cup?
I didn’t hear Mitchell calling for SA’s inclusion before he got his shoe into the Wallabies squad. The optimist in me hopes he’s genuinely barracking for his team-mate, but the cynic suspects a cheap shot at the RFU and TY etc.
Are you assuming that Mitchell reads this site then? Ha, ha.
Can’t quite understand why the sports sections are reporting this comment by a minor international player as if it matters. Who the hell cares what Drew Mitchell thinks?
I can only imagine that he’s been put up to it by:
A. Steffon Armitage
B. The ARU
C. A desire to be the next Campo
D. All of the above
His comparison of Giteau to Armitage tells you all you need to know about the worthiness of this comment. One is a seasoned, respected 92 cap international. The other has 3 caps, none of which he shone in.
Of course, it may be that Drew Mitchell has spent the past few months studying the state of English rugby, going over the agreement with the clubs and the RFU with a fine toothcomb and has finally come to the hard-earned conclusion that gambling the stability of the English club/country system on one decent club player with no international record to speak of is a good bet.
I doubt it though
Don’t you think you’re being a mite defensive? Why not simply ignore Mitchell’s comments if you deem them unworthy?
As for ‘the (actual) worthiness of his comment’, is it any more or less so than yrs, esp, presumably, as you have NO caps at all? Comments either stand on their own merits or not, no matter who issues them.
Don – not defensive, just irritated by the media treating this as worthy of making their sports sections.
And if we were to ignore comments we deem unworthy, this and any other blog with an active comment section would either fall deathly quiet or be full of people agreeing with each other – how tedious
Finally, of course comments stand on their own merits. However, if you’d bothered to read what I’ve written, I don’t dimiss Mitchell’s comments due to HIS number of caps but due to his claim that Armitage and Giteau are in the same position when it is clear to anyone in their right mind that they are not.
That’s from Pablito by the way – pasted the wrong thing!
Gathered. Who’s Rose? Not nicking the girlfriend’s pocket are you?
You reffed to Mitchell as a ‘minor international player’ And there are some similarities to the positions of Armitage and Giteau besides the possibility that the former has almost zip chance of playing in the WC.
picking