Discussion in 'International Test Matches' started by Xsypher, Oct 25, 2018.
Anyone like to try the Scottish side?
+ Seta Tamanivalu, Marika Koroibete, Nathan Hughes
I didn’t forget Hughes
1) Jamie Bhatti 16) Ross Ford
2) Stuart McInally 17) Gordon Reid
3) Zander Fagerson 18) Moray Low
4) Richie Gray 19) Grant Gilchrist
5) Jonny Gray 20) Jamie Ritchie
6) Matt Fagerson 21) George Horne
7) Adam Ashe 22) Peter Horne
8) Magnus Bradbury 23) Mark Bennett
9) Greig Laidlaw
10) Finn Russell
11) Lee Jones
12) Alex Dunbar
13) Huw Jones
14) Dougie Fife
15) Stuart Hogg
In the pack your losing potentially both first choice props and the entire back row!! with only Hooker and Lock looking close to a starting 15, in the backs you loose your starting SH and both Wingers, obviously FH and FB are as strong as can be and the choice at centre is still strong with 4-5 options....
Notable absent...Hamish Watson(Manchester), Sean Maitland(NZ), Tim Visser(Netherlands), Ali Price(King's Lynn), Tommy Seymour(USA), Dave Denton(Zimbabwe), John Barclay(Hong Kong), John Hardie(NZ), Ryan Wilson(Aldershot), Rob Harley(Crewe), Henry Pyrgos(Dorchester), Sam Hidalgo Clyne(Spain), Wp Nel(SA), Ben Toolis(Australia), Alan Dell(SA), Simon Berghan(NZ), Duncan Taylor(Northampton) Tim Swinson(London) Byron McGuigan(Namibia)...
my take for the scotland team, generally agree with above but a couple of changes. still a pretty good team particularly backs and back row. replacement props are harder to think of though!
4 )j gray
6 jamie ritchie
7 mangus bradbury
8 matt fagerson
9) g horne (laidlaw comes on for last 30min)
10 Finn russell
11 darcy graham
12) matt scott
13 huw jones
14 lee jones
15 stuart hogg
16 fraser brown
17 rory sutherland
19) ritchie gray
20) adam ash
22 hastings/ pete horn
23 blair kinghorn
Argentina would look pretty much the same. We could probably add Parisse tho. Not sure if i'd want him at this point.
I was about to say exactly the same but if i recall correctly Cancelliere was born in the US while his parents were there for work. It's the norm for every sport here. In footie the only one is Higuain (born in france) and again, it's because his father was working there at the time.
We kinda take pride in that. We hardly ever poach players from neighbouring countries for our national teams.
That the Scottish 23s don't look awful is testament to the quality of some of the young players coming through. Even three years ago drawing up such a team would have been incredibly difficult.
The same applies to Italy, the reliance on Southern Hemisphere is starting to subside.
Interesting video on the subject here from Two Cents Rugby. He admits that his system of eligibility might not be perfect but is probably the fairest overall, which is purely country of birth.
Some interesting results...
Country of Birth simply doesn't work there are plenty of athletes throughout all sport who would be competing for countries they literally barely remember living in.
Honestly I'd consider removing parents as a qualification (not going to happen) and make all about residency 10 years or majority required to qualify with any year below the age of 18 counting for double. If you manage to multi qualify you can select.
I get your point but it’s about ‘where do you draw the line’ for the purpose of his video... and like I said he states on multiple occasions that it is not a perfect system (far from it and that is why it is not enforced within the game) but it does throw up some interesting results.
Put it this way, I was surprised by the end results... particularly the Pacific island nations which he touches on at the end of the video.
I think the rules as they are are pretty much right. I don't see how you can begrudge a lad committing 5 years of his life to living somewhere going on to represent that place while the granny rule is the only way to not artificially* leave the bigger countries with too much of an advantage from their higher numbers of immigration.
*Im guessing many of the "full blooded" English/French here will argue it is artificial but I really don't think you have the point of reference to comment if you don't come from a place, or have close ties to a place, that has experienced or is experiencing mass emigration to really value how important lineage is to people.
I watched the video, I have no idea where you are drawing conclusions that he portrays this as "his system of eligibility" and he thinks it is "the fairest overall".
He makes no such judgements.
For the sake of the video not what he thinks should be implemented into the game.
And not before time either. Most of Wales' "foreign" players were usually born in England to one or two Welsh parents and moved to Wales when very little. Compared to many other countries, Wales doesn't use that many SH players and rightly so. Develop your own I say.
Those two plus Faletau would be the non-Welsh born players Wales would miss the most. Otherwise as you say it is still a good team.
Don't forget Ultan Dillane (France) and Niyi Adeolokun (Nigeria). Further, among the recently-retired players, Jamie Heaslip was born in Israel and Jared Payne in NZ.
Augustin Pichot is after tweeting out a list of tier 1 nations' foreign born player percentages.
It's an endorsement for Argentinian rugby and he's probably trying to push something through that he thinks will give the pumas an advantage because that's about 98% of what he does in WR but it's relevant to this thread nonetheless.
Other teams playing foreign born players isn't the reason Argentina are crap
Plus his numbers are wrong, England's is 25%, for example.
Plus when you factor in the age of some of the moves (Earle born in Hong Kong due to parents working there, moved back before he even started infants, Underhill similar story, Joe C moved to England when he was 2). There's plenty of poaches/dodgy grannys in international rugby but these percentages don't tell half the story.
I guarantee you Pichot watched that Two Cent Rugby video I posted above, his figures are identical if memory serves.
Separate names with a comma.