glasso wrote: » Have they ever started 5 southern hemisphere transfer players in one game like Ireland are doing this weekend? That's what I obviously meant. I'd be surprised if they have
sydthebeat wrote: » They have 1500 players to choose from. We have 150. One thing is not like the other.
glasso wrote: » Actually if the subs go the wrong way - 10, hooker and prop and more than half the team on the field would be non-Irish :eek: England vs the Baba's?
glasso wrote: » Wakes or Scotland haven't either It's quite jarring on this occasion as a "national team" and there are no two ways about it.
Squidgy Black wrote: » Scotland had 16 foreign born players at the RWC, Wales had 11, Ireland had 8.
sydthebeat wrote: » youre starting point is a fallacy... therefore everything else forward from that is an error
glasso wrote: » Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening
glasso wrote: » Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening 5 lads starting, none of whom had set for in Ireland until they were in their 20's and not one Irish granny between them
glasso wrote: » Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening 5 lads starting, none of whom had set foot in Ireland until they were in their 20's and not one Irish granny between them
aloooof wrote: » You implied that England, Wales and Scotland don't use as many non-home born players as us. That facts provided above don't bear that our. Are you at least going to acknowledge that? As fas as I can see, there's only one person in this argument closing their eyes.
IAmTheReign wrote: » Huh? Some of Englands best players are foreign born. Off the top of my head the 2 Vuniploas, Tuilagi, Willi Heinz and Joe Cokanasiga are all foreign born. Tuilagi was an illegal immigrant when he signed for Tigers and almost got deported but the RFU intervened. He's probably the only Samoan asylum seeker in the UK. Can't say I've ever heard that get brought up when he lines out for England.
glasso wrote: » no. that's not what I implied I implied that if one of Eng, Wales, Scotland were starting a team like Ireland are this weekend that there would be piss taking of that fact As said - a team with 5 players starting (1/3 of the team obviously) who only came to Ireland in their 20's, afaik have zero Irish heritage. We all know that the same rules apply to each country and in the future with the 5 year rule that this will be different but the fact remains that it's a jarring lineup and really on this occasion calls into question the concept of a "national team"
sydthebeat wrote: » so theres 7 foreign players in an english squad... who have exponentially more of a selection than we have
Interested Observer wrote: » Nobody cares about foreign born though really. The Vunipolas came to the UK as kids, went to school there etc. Hartley has English parents, was always a UK citizen, saw himself as English etc. Rokoduguni wasn't a pro rugby player when he came to the UK, he was a soldier playing a bit of club rugby. There aren't project players.
glasso wrote: » Actually if the subs go the wrong way - 10, hooker and prop and more than half the team on the field would be non-Irish :eek:
Dog Botherer wrote: » France have a ****ing as academy in Fiji purposely created to funnel Fijian kids into the French setup!
OneLungDavy wrote: » The difference is he learned his trade in England. The RFU invested in him from a young age, the same with the Vunipolas and Joe Cok. Nobody in Ireland has a problem with foreign-born players, it's the 'buying' of players that's causing controversy.