I think I agree with him actually, how about you.? www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... and-policy

I think I agree with him actually, how about you.? www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... and-policy

Shouldn't all countries do the same? Including Australia and New Zealand.

Same old argument, we'll get the same old answers.

I agree with most of what he's saying, except his reasoning for Henderson.

There's two issues as I see it:

1 - Players changing the country they play for (Brough, Henderson, Hayne etc). Once you've represented a country at senior level, you shouldn't be allowed to change IMO.

2 - (and this is what Brown is getting at), Rangi Chase, Fa-asavalu, Manu - players who are qualifying to play for England on vague residency rules, and who are simply not Englishmen. Spending just three or four years in a country does not make you of that nationality, and let's face it, once they've finished playing they'll be going back to their home countries.

New Zealand & Australia are the main culprits.

Legally it can do (perhaps a bit longer), but I get (and agree with) your point

It just makes a mockery of the game imo, especially with the Henderson situation when you have someone like Danny Houghton waiting to be given a chance.

Lets be fair we are slagging mac off but Australia are worse than us for playing lads not from Oz so its a worldwide issue
about time the governing bodies get together and say
1, your country of birth
or
2, your current country of nationality

if they hold a passport they are british if not then adios amigo

feel bad for the likes of houghton i gotta say

I kind of agree with him.

It's down to specifics I think. Was it not Nigel Vagana that suggested the best idea. Once you are selected for a "major" national squad you can not switch to another "major" national team. So no Rangi Chase suddenly turning up in an England shirt. Residency rules should be rejected.

But, and here's the kicker, you could still be eligible and then play for a developing nation (outside the top ten shall we say for sake of argument) and vice versa. The problem is, of course, that for home nations some players might opt to hold out for an England shirt, rather than playing for one of the three others (which could be their loss big time). That'd be the time to bring up/back the GB lions on every second or third year to keep everyone happy.

Tickle would be closer, but Houghton would be no closer to the squad if you could only play for your country of birth.

I'd say outside the top four or five of Australia, New Zealand, England and France and probably PNG.

Otherwise, you'd have a situation where there are players who qualify for Ireland/ Wales/ Scotland who want to hold out and play for England, when you could have a Danny Brough or a Mike McIllorum playing for a developing nation and helping out younger players adjust to international rugby.

Brown is talking out of his hat. Henderson was born in England and is just as eligible to be selected as Luke Robinson.

The only problem that I have with Henderson playing for England is that he's already represented Scotland. I don't agree with players being allowed to switch national allegiances after representing a country, a problem that we see across the game.

I don't mind players like Reed or Widdop playing for England. They were born in England, have English parents, and it isn't their fault that their families emigrated when they were young.

I'd agree if he'd played for Aus or NZ, then tried to switch to England.