Another round of European rugby has reopened the gaping wound of contention. Should the RFU use the World Cup to activate the exceptional circumstances clause, bringing exiled players back from France? This time around, Steffon Armitage and Nick Abendanon have been the names thrown in the centre of the debate. We have our own opinions on this. I know mine, but more on that later. For the sake of balance, in the world of the BBC, I will briefly outline the pros and cons, the arguments raised for and against the motion.
In the "for" column, the major argument is that the best players are needed for the World Cup. Short and sweet. The fact it's a home World Cup makes it all the pertinent that we select the best, and only the best. I can understand this, we want to win. And surely, it's further to travel from Newcastle than it is from Toulon to an England camp.
Right, the now much longer "against" side of the argument. There are a few different points that have been thrown around, including ones from Tom Youngs and Conor O'Shea. The view from players seems to be that those who signed abroad knew the deal before they went overseas. Dylan Hartley, Youngs main rival, spurned a high figure salary in France in favour of a deal to stay at the Gardens, and Youngs would've been annoyed if, when 2019 came around, Hartley was parachuted back into the squad. And it would be the same for any other player displaced by the return of the exiled. For Abendanon and Armitage to play in a starting England shirt, Lancaster would need to drop one of his favourites, Mike Brown, and either the powerful Billy Vunipola, the devastating Ben Morgan, or his captain, Chris Robshaw. How would that sit with the team? My guess? Probably not well. I'm not the biggest Robshaw fan, but he is still pivotal to the harmony in the squad.
From the perspective of the DOR, imagine if you spend time growing a plant. You nurture it, you style it, you make it the best plant you can. A bonsai tree, or cherry blossom. And then some French guy comes along with a bundle of cash and your plant goes over to France. Ok, the analogy kinda faded here. It's part and parcel of the professional era, the plants... players, want to earn as much as they can in their twilight years. Which is fine, we expect this. But imagine you have a host of saplings, young English saplings, who have contested for positions in the England team. They hear that the clause has been broken, and they think "maybe I can earn some decent money. I have a long career ahead of me, and there's still the opportunity to play for England." Pretty soon, your forest is growing over the channel with virtually no influence from the English training camps. And suddenly, these trees don't get a Saxons or early England cap, and they start playing for France. The worry for the DOR's is that they have to try and match the salaries to keep the English in England, bankrupting the clubs and giving a small squad in the process. Pretty soon, the Premiership suffers and falls the way of the Top 14, full of foreign players and the downfall of the national side. Soon enough, the trees aren't worth a whole lot.
I think I've stretched the metaphor as far as I can now. But the point is, as I'm sure you'll agree, opening that particular floodgate of selection abroad would cause a tsunami of players leaving the Premiership and heading abroad. Which was the point of the policy being set up in the first place. Ireland select only home based players, with the exception of Jonny Sexton, and even he is returning to Leinster this year. New Zealand and Australia only select home players. South Africa and Wales do select abroad but out of necessity, one suspects. The Welsh are trying to emulate the Irish though, using Gatland's law and duel contracts to entice players home. Do the RFU need to consider duel contracts? That is a debate for another time. I'm afraid I can't see the wood for the trees.
No comments:
Post a Comment