• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Should u20s tie a player to a nation.

***le Question

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Leonormous Boozer

Fat Boi
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
19,774
Country Flag
Ireland
Club or Nation
Leinster
A @Which Tyler and @Le Frére Alpha collaboration.

I think it should, you should know who you want to play for by 19. The argument against it is that it could make smaller tier 1 nations less competitive at u20s but surely that would spur Wales and Scotland (not pointing fingers....) To develop players at an earlier stage.
 
I'm 100% with that. If you choose to represent a county at 19/20 that should be your choice for life.

Changing countries should never be a choice.
 
Le answer to ***le question from le Alpha, c'est oui oui!

I don't consider it an infringement on a player's rights to point out its a massively internationalised sport and if you mix and match your selection for personal gain you are:

a) contributing to the undermining of the integrity of the sport
b) gaining a career advantage that those without mixed ancestry don't have (that is, two tiers of players)
 
Yes, BUT we would need to be really strict on u20s qualification - eg. Wales u20s star Alex Dombrandt shouldn't have played for them let alone be tied just because he was at Cardiff met.

Ironically it would mean that exiles programs would need to be stepped up in a major way which is essentially how we came to this debate in the first place
 
I've said before I think it should tie a player for 5 years and then if by 24 they aren't on the countries radar they can switch.
 
Yes, BUT we would need to be really strict on u20s qualification - eg. Wales u20s star Alex Dombrandt shouldn't have played for them let alone be tied just because he was at Cardiff met.
Always seemed mad to me that the u20 6N is such a free for all
Just give it the same rules as the junior world cup (/every other comp)
 
I don't think so TBH.
For some players it's a genuine way of an alternative pathway to get a pro contract.

Case in point Dan Kelly
- Got dropped by Sale cause Sale are Sale and prefer South Africans
- Goes to Lougborugh Uni too study
- Ireland U20's as usual desperate for anyone
- Impresses during the U20's 6N's
- Signed by Tigers
- Capped by England.

With the state of rugby and the levels below the pro game I just feel closing something that is a alternative pathway is short-sighted. It's up to the Unions to gauge how keen players really are.
 
I don't think so TBH.
For some players it's a genuine way of an alternative pathway to get a pro contract.

Case in point Dan Kelly
- Got dropped by Sale cause Sale are Sale and prefer South Africans
- Goes to Lougborugh Uni too study
- Ireland U20's as usual desperate for anyone
- Impresses during the U20's 6N's
- Signed by Tigers
- Capped by England.

With the state of rugby and the levels below the pro game I just feel closing something that is a alternative pathway is short-sighted. It's up to the Unions to gauge how keen players really are.
Yep, this is pretty much exactly my opinion.
 
I wouldn't mind something like you couldn't cap a player who has played for another teams U20's until say 2 years have past
 
I don't think so TBH.
For some players it's a genuine way of an alternative pathway to get a pro contract.

Case in point Dan Kelly
- Got dropped by Sale cause Sale are Sale and prefer South Africans
- Goes to Lougborugh Uni too study
- Ireland U20's as usual desperate for anyone
- Impresses during the U20's 6N's
- Signed by Tigers
- Capped by England.

With the state of rugby and the levels below the pro game I just feel closing something that is a alternative pathway is short-sighted. It's up to the Unions to gauge how keen players really are.
Is it really closing his route? He'd be a starter at Munster or Connacht or alternatively just be an uncapped Leicester player.

This is essentially exactly what most people are complaining about when Scotland cap an England age grade player, taking advantage of another unions development etc...
 
Is it really closing his route? He'd be a starter at Munster or Connacht or alternatively just be an uncapped Leicester player.

This is essentially exactly what most people are complaining about when Scotland cap an England age grade player, taking advantage of another unions development etc...

Well my point is would he have gotten a contract at Tigers in the first place without the U20's showing?

On the whole Scotland v England thing is it the unions development or the Prem clubs academy development? RFU help fund academies but the Premiership have sole control.
 
Well my point is would he have gotten a contract at Tigers in the first place without the U20's showing?

On the whole Scotland v England thing is it the unions development or the Prem clubs academy development? RFU help fund academies but the Premiership have sole control.

Yeah you can't look at the unions in isolation here. The Premiership are 'deprived' (in their eyes) of England players during the 6N and AIs but can access exiled players developed in Scotland and Wales during rest weekends. The SRU accepts this because the two Scottish pro clubs can't compete on the wages front and there is no scope for dual contracts for exiled players. Wales had Gatland's law which helped them to some extent.
 
Well my point is would he have gotten a contract at Tigers in the first place without the U20's showing?

On the whole Scotland v England thing is it the unions development or the Prem clubs academy development? RFU help fund academies but the Premiership have sole control.
Yeah but he presumably plays for Ireland u20 anyway considering he was eligible to play for any Ireland team, no? Very few u20 starters don't get a pro contract so it'd be bonkers for him not to utilise the exiles program when English clubs or country didn't rate him.

He's a strange case, usually it's the reverse that's complained about on here i.e English age grade player playing for Wales/Scotland/Ireland. Had Tadhg McElroy made it at Sarries there'd be a far more interesting convo. Firstly on Kelly, I don't want a guy who's going to play for us and then England, secondly he probably has more chance at England caps than Ireland but finally I don't like guys using one union at a very competitive level for their own benefit with no intention of continuing further*. At the end of the day it's a kid who made the bizarre decision to be English when he could be Irish, playing for England, it's not particularly egregious but there should be barriers to / deterrents from using one unions structures and jumping ship immediately.

I'm adamant that u18 development shouldn't really be considered. I rate that 18-22 period as far more important for development than any other. You see across all sports that certain clubs/nations can turn raw talent into effective professional players, and some can't. If you had two clones and sent one through Leinster's academy and one through Connacht's you'd bet on the Leinster player coming out better despite having a tougher route to first team rugby. Getting noticed at 16/17 is far more down to the individual in my opinion, provided they're in a club/school that exposes them to the highest level of competition within their region.

I'm not exactly condoning picking up South African 18 year olds or anything nuts like that but equally if you're going to sign an 18 year old to a five year contract and successfully develop them into an international standard player go for it, it's a losing play in the long run for sure.

Scotland throwing 20 year olds who've barely stepped foot in the country is a tough one. Like, it should be so easy for England to stop it in the majority of cases, just a case of senior management making a phone call every few months expressing interest and providing work ons. If they can't do that no wonder guys are jumping ship but otherwise Scotland shouldn't be a big enough draw for a kid not to back themselves to get into the England set up within 18 months to three years.

*u20 has proper competition whereas u18 tends to be more blitz rugby and one off development games, which is why it's my line in the sand.
 
Not a great fan of a young person being tied by a decision that they have made at 17 18 19.
Also as aside great believer of country of birth, a good number of years residing in a country,or parental nationality no searching for more distant ancestry.
Believe the above is far better than a young person making a decision they may regret.
All have own thought's of course other sports seem to swap alot more however.
 
I genuinely like how the u20 six nations plays by it's own rules. And tbf if you are studying in a country and its convenient to play for their u20 side why not give it a go.

You guys just really hate Scotland.

Also no player would ever play for PI u20 team.
 
You guys just really hate Scotland.
You call guys like me out on this and within 24hrs two more fronts open up on the war against Scotland. :D

An England vs Wales game with Adamson reffing?

The servers are going to explode.
Was it that chump Nicol by any chance?

I've not made my mind up on Adamson as a ref, but if cultivating youth participation in rugby in your territory is a key responsibility for a union then calling the Scottish union out for being as abject a union as Andy Nicol is a 'colour' (hah!) commentator is a completely legit position, even if not everyone agrees with it.
 
also didn't teams have the ability to do this in the past by making their u20 sides their second team? If the two sides played against each other they would then be tied. Very few teams chose to do this for some reason. Even if you made this a rule I'd imagine most teams would just make their u20 games exhibitions like the England-Barbarians games so as to not scare players away from playing in them.
 

Latest posts

Top