G
gingergenius
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GimleyUK @ Apr 1 2009, 11:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
fine, well I think the England team represent my country well, as I've explained. Let's look at the opposition:
New Zealand is a country with a huge links to the Pacific Islands. Auckland is known as the Polynesian capital of the world, with huge numbers not only of native maori but also Tongan, Samoan and other islander immigrants. Along with Australia, NZ are the major economic power in the Pacific region, which means there are inevitably huge numbers of Islanders who travel to these bigger nations for a better life in the same way that Nigerians would travel to England. So I understand that there are a few New Zealanders and Australians with dubious nationality, but the fact is they represent the pull those two countries have on the region.
I don't mind the make-up of the South African side either. SA is the major power in their region, and attract thousands of immigrants from the neighbouring countries. This is reflected, if you like, by the presence of Zimbabweans Tendai Mtawarira, Tonderai Chavhanga and Brian Mujati in recent Springbok sides.
The USA has links with the pacific isles not just through Hawaii but also through American Samoa. There are a decent number of Islanders living in the USA, and considering rugby is a minority sport amongst more 'established' Americans, I don't think they cheat by getting in a lot of Islanders for their national team... I'm thinking Palamo, Sika, Tuipulotu, Palefau to name but a few. America also has a world-renowned collegiate system, which can give young foreigners a chance to make something of their lives in the world's largest country of immigrants. So I see no problem with Takudzwa Ngwenya playing for the USA having moved there to go to college.
'Granny' players I do have issues with; Italy are the worst at this but all of the other 6N countries were guilty at some point or another, thankfully not so much now. I think of Henry Paul for England, Tony Marsh for France, and a whole bunch for the Celtic teams. Ireland are probably the best on this, all I can think of is Rob Henderson. But really, with the exception of Italy, none realy do this anymore, and Italy do so because there's such a paucity of Italian players who are up to it. England always beat them anyway so I really couldn't care less.
Fact is, Riki Flutey was an average player when he came over here... a scrum half at that. He did well for London Irish, before moving to Wasps and winning awards and ***les, and somewhere along the line, in England and at Wasps, he played inside centre. He's the form footballing 12 in the UK, and he's eligible for the Lions. I agree that the residency rule should be extended but at the same time Flutey's lived here for 3 years which is enough, made his reputation here, and deserves to tour. There's no reason in my mind why he wouldn't go.
fine, well I think the England team represent my country well, as I've explained. Let's look at the opposition:
New Zealand is a country with a huge links to the Pacific Islands. Auckland is known as the Polynesian capital of the world, with huge numbers not only of native maori but also Tongan, Samoan and other islander immigrants. Along with Australia, NZ are the major economic power in the Pacific region, which means there are inevitably huge numbers of Islanders who travel to these bigger nations for a better life in the same way that Nigerians would travel to England. So I understand that there are a few New Zealanders and Australians with dubious nationality, but the fact is they represent the pull those two countries have on the region.
I don't mind the make-up of the South African side either. SA is the major power in their region, and attract thousands of immigrants from the neighbouring countries. This is reflected, if you like, by the presence of Zimbabweans Tendai Mtawarira, Tonderai Chavhanga and Brian Mujati in recent Springbok sides.
The USA has links with the pacific isles not just through Hawaii but also through American Samoa. There are a decent number of Islanders living in the USA, and considering rugby is a minority sport amongst more 'established' Americans, I don't think they cheat by getting in a lot of Islanders for their national team... I'm thinking Palamo, Sika, Tuipulotu, Palefau to name but a few. America also has a world-renowned collegiate system, which can give young foreigners a chance to make something of their lives in the world's largest country of immigrants. So I see no problem with Takudzwa Ngwenya playing for the USA having moved there to go to college.
'Granny' players I do have issues with; Italy are the worst at this but all of the other 6N countries were guilty at some point or another, thankfully not so much now. I think of Henry Paul for England, Tony Marsh for France, and a whole bunch for the Celtic teams. Ireland are probably the best on this, all I can think of is Rob Henderson. But really, with the exception of Italy, none realy do this anymore, and Italy do so because there's such a paucity of Italian players who are up to it. England always beat them anyway so I really couldn't care less.
Fact is, Riki Flutey was an average player when he came over here... a scrum half at that. He did well for London Irish, before moving to Wasps and winning awards and ***les, and somewhere along the line, in England and at Wasps, he played inside centre. He's the form footballing 12 in the UK, and he's eligible for the Lions. I agree that the residency rule should be extended but at the same time Flutey's lived here for 3 years which is enough, made his reputation here, and deserves to tour. There's no reason in my mind why he wouldn't go.
plus, flutey is in their way like ellis is in care's way. The succession is inevitable, just the successor isn't quite ready. No more than that.
