Going abroad won’t make players better
I really am getting fed up with the constant call from players wanting to have their cake and eat it by calling for a change in the overseas players selection policy, as if that will suddenly make everything that's wrong in the game right.
Yes, for those lucky enough to get offered a contract in France or Japan it will almost certainly guarantee a level of job security that unfortunately the Premiership no longer appears to be able to offer. However, the idea that playing abroad and earning more money will automatically make players better and improve them as potential internationals is pure speculation.
In fact, it would probably make selection a lot harder for a coach trying to assess which of the players are actually producing the best form. It's bad enough trying to identify who are the best players in the Premiership given the addition of so many so-called ‘star imports' changing the way that teams play.
Is it any wonder that the Top 14 in France has put restrictions on the number of non-qualified French players in matchday squads? This must currently average 16 French-qualified players per matchday squad throughout the season.
Believe it or not, the Premiership also has a restriction on the number of overseas players allowed in their matchday squads, restricted to just two, which may seem odd given the make-up of a number of matchday squads.
However, this is because of the European Court ruling in 2003 which stated South African, Tongan, Fijians, and Samoan players were not classified as overseas players in the context of Premiership squad rules. This also applies to EU nationals who, as we were part of the European Union at the time, had the same rights as local workers, meaning that Irish, French, Italian, German etc. are considered local in the context of professional rugby.
All this could be changed as a result of Brexit but as yet there hasn't been a legal challenge to maybe restructuring the rules.
There have been a number of players in the past who decided that their future lay in France, partly because they realised they weren't quite good enough to maintain an international career
when at the height of their playing days. Players like Steffon Armitage, who had a stellar career in France after leaving England but knew that he would probably not have added to his five caps had he stayed here.
The thing is if a team is successful it doesn't necessarily make all the players in that team the best in their position, particularly if you take them out of the comfort zone of their club and play them in a different team playing a different style of game.
I say this based on my experience of playing at many different levels of the game in many different teams against many different opponents. Back in the late 80s
“If the RFU wants to rebuild England's international status, it must open up selection” early 90s, Bath was one of the most successful, if not the most successful club in the top flight at the time and used to win every cup and club competition.
During the late 80s, divisional rugby was where players from a number of clubs were combined to create regional teams and used as a way of identifying talented players potentially for the England team. During the first tournament London Division was a combination of Wasps, Harlequins, Saracens, Rosslyn Park, and Richmond. The Northern Division was Orrell, Headingley, Wakefield, Aspatria, Gosforth and others, while the Midlands Division was Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry etc. Meanwhile the South and South West Division was made up of the Bath team plus one Bristol player, Jon Webb, who then joined Bath.
That Divisional Championship saw club champions South and South West (Bath) lose every match and changed the perception of how England teams were selected at that time. No longer reliant just on club form but instead on how players combined in the divisional squads, which led to one of the most successful periods in the English game.
If the RFU wants to rebuild England international status it must make selection open across the game and provide a pathway for players outside the Premiership whether that's in the lower or foreign leagues.
One thing that England's current international performance has shown is that when it comes to the Premiership it is not a competition of a high enough standard to make a true judgement of a player's ability to bridge the ever widening gap between our ‘elite' club game and the top end of the international game.
However, heading into the weekend the best game looked likely to be Wales v England in the women's Six Nations, with the two unbeaten teams competing for the Triple Crown. So far it's been an exciting competition going roughly to form with England dominating all the games they have played. Wales are currently developing as a side and hoped to make a step up in front of a large home crowd.
As good as it is to see the women's game getting the attention it deserves, I have one reservation which is the greater exposure has bought a much more physical approach by the teams. Currently the game is played under the same laws as the men which changed from a game where players try and find space to now a game where players try to run through their opposition.
Until recently the women have sought to find and create space to exploit and play an open game, now we are seeing a change in this Six Nations with a much more physical approach by England and more in line with the men. As I have said before, women are more likely to suffer head injuries than men, so World Rugby should immediately bring in variations for the women's game to ensure that their game continues in an open and safe way.
