Leicester Tigers hooker Tom Youngs has backed the RFU’s policy on not picking English players that ply their trade abroad, claiming anyone that came back in now would disrupt the harmony within the squad.
The RFU’s policy states that foreign-based stars can be considered for selection in ‘exceptional circumstances’, with head coach Stuart Lancaster hinting that this year’s World Cup could constitute such a circumstance.
It has opened the door to the likes of Steffon and Delon Armitage, both of whom consistently impress for Toulon, and Clermont Auvergne’s Nick Abendanon, who thrust himself back into the limelight with a devastating performance against Northampton in the quarter-finals of the Champions Cup.
But Youngs argues that these players know the rules when they leave England’s shores, and to now express a desire to come back into the England squad would be unfair on those that choose to stay and fight for their place.
“The whole thing about playing for England, it still comes down to a player’s decision whether to go across or not,” Youngs told The Daily Telegraph.
“No one is forced across there. It comes down to your personal decision whether you want to do something different and experience a different lifestyle then that’s the decision you make by going across there, but then you jeopardise your England place.”
Loading ...The Leicester hooker thinks Lancaster would have to think long and hard about whether it was worth bringing someone in that could feasibly disrupt the culture that the coach has worked so hard to instil.
“Stuart has built a culture within this group of players so it is a very tough decision for him. Does he want to disrupt it? That’s a question you would have to ask him. Personally for me, if he brought someone in [to compete with me] I would be pretty annoyed like anyone else would be.”
And on a more personal note, opines Youngs, players that had spent years working their way into the squad would be utterly demoralised to see their places taken by guys that had made a choice to chase a bit of money and a different lifestyle abroad.
“Over the last few years, the graft you have done to get into the England squad and then for someone to come from abroad to take your spot you would be pretty gutted.”
“I don’t know how well it would go down with the whole team. It is not just the individual affected, but it is the other guys who might look upon that and might not agree with it.”
Do you agree with Youngs? Or do you think when it comes to a World Cup, everyone should be available for selection? Vote now:
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
26 replies on “Tom Youngs slams overseas stars’ desire to play for England”
The coach should be able to select the best players ,wherever they play! Rugby players have a short career in a tough sport and should be allowed to ply there trade wherever they want and not be punished for it? Young’s is talking nonsense!
Rugby players do have short careers, and therefore you could argue that it would be doubly unfair on those players who’ve turned down lucrative contracts abroad because of the England selection rule if they then lost their place to someone who hadn’t.
Great to get a player’s perspective, especially as Youngs doesn’t have an agenda (his place isn’t under threat from an overseas-based player)
The RFU have no control over players who are based in France. Therefore Lancaster doesn’t pick them.
It’s that simple. Players who go abroad can’t whine about not getting picked for England. They wanna have their cake and eat it. And then eat someone’s cake. If they wanna play for England that’s fine. Come back to England and you’ll be considered for selection.
Totally agree with Youngs… Especially in the back row with guys like Ewers and Clarke constantly playing well but not making the team, or the resurgence of Easter at 8. Fair for them to miss out for Armitage?
However one minor caveat may be with Abendanon – if hypothetically Brown keeps suffering concussion symptoms (not impossible) and with guys like Foden injured and Goode underwhelming (some of us), may be worth having a more experienced guy coming in, rather than moving a rookie like Watson/Nowell to such a crucial position? I know Pennell played well for Saxons but he has been playing championship rugby. Just a thought.
Delon Armitage. International Rugby. LOL
I think a World Cup, especially combined with injury woes in a particular position, qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Why have that caveat in the RFU language if you can’t use it?
A long injury list yes. A World Cup no
The World Cup happens every 4 years, there is nothing ‘exceptional’ about it. Every potential England player knew the stance of the RFU on overseas players. Every one who went abroad made a decision to take money over the chance to play for their country in a World Cup.
I don’t think less of them for it. That’s their choice and I’m sure an extra £50-100k a year or whatever it is they are getting is mighty tempting. But the rules weren’t sprung on them after they signed in France. Whether Abendanon or Armitage, they knew the situation when they left and they made their decision accordingly.
If BV, Waldrom, Morgan and Easter are all injured, then there would be an argument for calling up S Armitage. If Brown, Foden, and Pennell aren’t looking like they’ll make it, then consider calling up Abendadon. Otherwise, no
To a large extent, this is merely a media storm, whipped up to get online clicks – especially in the case Abendandon who seems to be the media’s shiny new toy for them to play with
As a Bath fan, that does my head in. Bendy’s form is no better than it was for us for years, but the media is now taking interest just because he’s playing in France (and can’t be selected, hence another stick to beat the RFU with). Our media does love being as unsupportive and negative as possible.
Pick best. Youngs is a rich farmer and didn’t have financial issues to consider
Thanks to guys on here who gave me better knowledge of foreign player laws but think exceptions can be made for Armitages etc. no evidence to suggest the entire system will crumble after using the ‘exceptional circumstances’ as part of a one-off.
Agree & with Claire’s pt. No evidence. The real ? is, do England want to win the WC, or not? If, so pick the best… although that’s only part of the issue for me.
As prev stated elsewhere, Lancaster’s lack of actual ‘vision’ is as much of an issue for England; e.g., midfield’s lack of guile & is it really settled yet as Burrell can’t cut it @ Int’al level. The dropped Farrell the No. 12 solution? Not having played there before? Please. Besides wasn’t that the job of the former new big thing, Burgess? Who? Tui? Crash, bang, wallop!? He won’t even be fit will he? The back row needs rearranging too. Interesting suggestion from a ST punter who reckoned on Armitage to replace Capt Courageous @ 7 & NOT moving the latter to 6, but inserting Courtney there instead! Bimey. Bit radical innit?
If interested in further ‘stated elsewhere’, addressed this article’s ? @ https://therugbyblog.com/world-cup-watch-super-rugby-round-7
New Zealand don’t “pick the best”, though, they pinned all of their RWC hopes on Donald, because the vastly superior Nick Evans was plying his trade somewhere other than New Zealand.
Of course.
Except that Donald was 4th choice, all the other 1st 5’s being injured… which, an accountant like yrself, must surely have known.
Surely that stregthens Geat’s point even further? NZ would rather pick their 4th choice fly half than select the far better player in Evans in order to stick to the rule. During a home WC where they were under huge amounts of pressure to win.
That’s a pretty good indication that the rule is important.
I totally agree with Geat,
they knew the rules before taking the french money,
it is because of the rules a lot of talented players remain in this country playing, believe the french would have tried to sign many of them with what seems to be unlimited funds!!!
We need to keep English talent in this country playing and if the embargo on overseas players is one way of doing it then so be it,
I think people need to look at the long term effect if these rules are not adhered too, not just the RWC
if lots of our own talent went abroad to play we would find a situation of an increased amount of overseas players joining the English teams to keep the quality of the top teams high and we have seen the effect that can have on a national team with the french,
this also being another reason why the wage cap must stay
Are u a lemming? No evidence.You’re making assumptions. Read a few more articles on this. Too many fear driven, ‘if’s.
Unfortunately sportsmen and women in NZ are not in the same position as sports men and women in England. Here they are surrounded by high earning football players and sports stars and the pressure to secure a financial future, I think is more acute. The playing field should be level for all nations. I.e world wide salary cap or world wide open market. An open market would mean the richest clubs would have the most success which is exactly how it works in football ( I have never heard a football pundit say they are unhappy with that )Toulon would be nothing with a salary cap in place. It seems ludicrous that a salary capped club competes with an open market club and is expected to succeed. The current set up just lends to unfair match ups. I don’t know what the answer is but players are now being penalised for trying to secure a financial future in a very physical sport with a short playing shelf life. The Blame rests on the RFUs shoulders. Every coach in any sport would want to play his best side.
Rugby players in NZ are not in the same position as rugby players in England, not (just) because of football, but because of their flex structure, set up, forward thinking in coaching & cohesion.
England have more (ho hum) players, £, resources than any other country, so it’s in their rigid structure, set up, lack of forward thinking in coaching & lack of cohesion that relatively does for them.
In an open mkt you’ll likely get 3/4 teams that will dominate @ top table, which has largely already happened hasn’t it? Sarries, Leicester (til recently anyway). Spot the non Int’als. Most can predict a likely top 4 in the prem I think.
Can you please explain what this post has to do with selection of players outside of a nations home league?
NZ have a far better set up for rugby players, coaches are better etc etc. That we all know.
But at the elite level this rule that England have regarding player selection is the exact same rule that NZ have.
Again Don P you ignore the actual debate, dismiss the concept of actually reading anyone’s post and rant about something separate.
I was responding to Sharpy’s blog Jacob.
1stly about comparison of rugby sets ups in NZ/UK. I didn’t entirely agree with his contention.
2ndly regds salary cap, pointing out that if England better used their superior resources they’d be, er, better off (perhaps u disagree?).
3rdly, the open mkt may not nec be such a good idea unless a club is ‘wealthy’, e.g. Saracens who’ve been bank rolled by Nigel Wray for yrs, mostly @ a loss I think(?). Likewise Leicester have been rel dominant (top 4) & have had/have heaps on Int’als within their teams, so would allowing a non sal cap would make this sit better & for whom? I ? this.
In respect of the elite level rule being the same for England as NZ, I don’t see that I’ve mentioned this (even after re-reading my comments!). Besides it’s been dealt with b4, so is old hat. However, there’s a diff in application, flexibility in NZ; e.g. giving Cater a sabbatical in Fr (didn’t work out, but that’s life). There is also a potential distance, jet lag factor for NZ AB players if they were NH based. U r right technically, but the circumstances ARE different.
England NEED their best available players IMO for the WC, partly because of a disparity in coaching mindsets, abilities (J Schmidt might have been a more ‘visionary’ choice for England), tactics, skill levels with the SH (SA, NZ anyway @ present). There IS an option available to Lancaster to pick his best players, but he won’t, lacks the wherewithal(?) to do so.
I think I’ve tried to @ least read yr blog conceptually(?), but, perhaps being somewhat obtuse(?), I’ve failed to discern a ‘rant’ in my response 2 you.
Maybe you could better explain, or define the latter (‘r’ word) to me. Also, I DO occasionally read ‘anyone’s post’. Sometimes I even read them separately. Honest Injun.
And hey, you needn’t be so formal. I really don’t mind if you address me without using my last name initial.
England and NZ have the exact same rule in place regarding player selection. That is my opinion. That is not to be disagreed with, it’s a complete fact.
Regarding sabbatical – Carter was not selected for NZ during his time away, so it is irrelevant. He was selected before and after he went away, just as James Haskell was when he went to Japan and NZ.
NZ nearly lost a WC final to a far superior France team whilst completely ignoring Nick Evans to support this rule. Indisputable fact.
So your point is that the rule makes sense for NZ but not for England?
The distance issue is irrelevant. NZ would not select players based in Australia either because they want all of their talent to stay in NZ.
My point regarding replying to the correct thread is based on this conversation being regarding the selection of players outside of a countries home league, yet you ramble on about funding, structure, player pools etc etc.
Have you ever been on an anger management course?
Might help.
Absolute no anger intended in my response at all; I tend not to get too angry when it comes to debates about things like this – but apologies if it does read in that way.
Be interested to hear if you actually had any response about the points I made?
Jacob
Been over this sub so many times. We’ll never agree, that’s all. 2 me you see these issues in black & white, I don’t.
Whilst NZ & England have same rule in place, my pt is that there’s some flex in NZ’s application of same (e.g. Carter). Also as mentioned NZ’s circ, i.e. geo posi, is a factor for them. Also my guess is that they didn’t want to lose Carter. Besides there were other 1st 5’s being developed, altho I don’t think they 4saw the injuries to 3 of same prior to the last WC. IMO Evans went abroad as he couldn’t see a way past Carter. He had some AB game time if I recall, but it was unfortunate for him that Carter in effect blocked him.
Regds NZ players in OZ, I don’t know of too many who would play for an Oz franchise if they could play for an NZ 1. The best players play in NZ, so yr ? is hypothetical, altho technically it’s unlikely Kiwis’d be picked if they did play in Oz.
Regarding yr opinion of Fr superiority, I presumed this was designed to provoke. It was a nr run thing in the end, a bit like England in ’03. However if they’d been that superior the Fr would surely have won. Besides didn’t NZ put c.20 on them earlier? And BTW, according to Brighty, Wales would have beaten Fr if Warburton hadn’t dropped their geezer on his nut.
My pt, or ‘ramble’, about Sharpy’s salary cap was that it may or may not be as important as he suggests. If England had ‘better’ coaches, IMO they might compete better in Euro. On the other hand, I’d rather have more than less £ of course if I were a coach here.
Gotta go due time.
Agree with Dave and Sharpy. the system is unfair but it does seem to benefit England at International level. Look at France – great club ability in Heineken C but at International level it does them no favours. 52 points against at Twickenham was an historic/unparalleled margin. Plus half their tries were gifted from English mistakes rather than created.
The point is that if it works for England’s premier team with a World Cup around the corner it is best whatever the rules and regulations to get the best 15/30 onto the pitch in order to maximise the chances of winning the thing. Anyone other nation would use the rules in existence in their favour or even ‘bend them.’ if there is a rule that allows it under ‘exceptional circumstances’ then SL should surely use it. No, I repeat, no fall out or crisis will occur because it will be a legally sanctioned action (calling upon the odd Toulouse player that is) invented, written and imposed by the RFU.