Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What do you mean “if”, England make use of players born overseas all the time?

Have they ever started 5 southern hemisphere transfer players in one game like Ireland are doing this weekend?

That's what I obviously meant.

I'd be surprised if they have

sydthebeat

glasso wrote: »

Have they ever started 5 southern hemisphere transfer players in one game like Ireland are doing this weekend?

That's what I obviously meant.

I'd be surprised if they have

They have 1500 players to choose from.

We have 150.

One thing is not like the other.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

They have 1500 players to choose from.

We have 150.

One thing is not like the other.

Wakes or Scotland haven't either

It's quite jarring on this occasion as a "national team" and there are no two ways about it.

aloooof

glasso wrote: »

Have they ever started 5 southern hemisphere transfer players in one game like Ireland are doing this weekend?

That's what I obviously meant.

I'd be surprised if they have

Sorry, but that's not obviously what you meant. You specifically mentioned guys who didn't qualify thru the residency rule.

glasso wrote: »

Actually if the subs go the wrong way - 10, hooker and prop and more than half the team on the field would be non-Irish :eek:

England vs the Baba's?

Squidgy Black

Scotland had 16 foreign born players at the RWC, Wales had 11, Ireland had 8.

Bazzo

I'm not arsed looking into it now but I would be every surprised if Scotland hadn't lined out a team with 8+ players who qualify either through residency or parents/grandparents in the past.

sydthebeat

glasso wrote: »

Wakes or Scotland haven't either

It's quite jarring on this occasion as a "national team" and there are no two ways about it.

youre starting point is a fallacy... therefore everything else forward from that is an error

sydthebeat

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Scotland had 16 foreign born players at the RWC, Wales had 11, Ireland had 8.

in last years 6 nations squads

Scotland had 19 foreign born* players

Italy had 9 players

Wales had 9 players

England had 8 players

Ireland had 7 players

*foreign born = not born in the country they played for.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

youre starting point is a fallacy... therefore everything else forward from that is an error

Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening

5 lads starting, none of whom had set foot in Ireland until they were in their 20's and not one Irish granny between them

arsebiscuits1

It does worry me the level of xenophobia displayed among people any time the project player angle is brought up. Ireland can be a worryingly intolerant place.

And people just get in such denial about it.

"Just because I want the national team represented solely by birthright doesn't make me a xenophobe"

"How am I being xenophobic? I have no problem with them playing for the province, I just think the Irish team should be for Irish people"

"It's a disgrace to the grassroots clubs that a foreign born player can just jump in ahead of someone and play when they have no connection to Ireland"

These are all quotes I've had with people denying xenophobia while actually giving a pretty iron clad example of it.

We are now a global society - this pandemic proves just how global.

I think peoples notions of who can represent their nation needs to evolve

sydthebeat

glasso wrote: »

Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening

stunning level of factual argument there !!!!!

maybe keep the xenophopbia to a different thread?

Bazzo

glasso wrote: »

Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening

That's an interesting choice of response to someone giving you examples of why you're wrong.

aloooof

glasso wrote: »

Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening

5 lads starting, none of whom had set for in Ireland until they were in their 20's and not one Irish granny between them

You implied that England, Wales and Scotland don't use as many non-home born players as us.

That facts provided above don't bear that our.

Are you at least going to acknowledge that? As fas as I can see, there's only one person in this argument closing their eyes.

VANG1

Are some people more pure Irish than others, what would you think of a refugee who gets an Irish passport playing, this kind of talk is on the verge of racism and the mods should put a stop to it.

irishbucsfan

glasso wrote: »

Just close your eyes and pretend it's not happening

5 lads starting, none of whom had set foot in Ireland until they were in their 20's and not one Irish granny between them

So if they all had an Irish granny but hadn’t set foot in Ireland until the day they got called up would you be alright with that?

Some of these guys are eligible for Irish passports. Can you make a single plausible argument why someone should be eligible to have an Irish passport but not play rugby for a country where they live and have played rugby professionally as a living?


Not necessarily you specifically, but I always find it interesting when you end up with people who’ve never played or done a tap to help rugby in Ireland, and they suddenly take issue with this. I think it says a lot more about their feelings towards foreigners than it says about their feelings towards selection.

siltirocker

I hate when people use 'place of birth' as a measure of nationality. It's banal. (Being born in most places doesn't even make you a citizen).

The idea of O'Gara, Dillane, Heaslip, Jordi Murphy, etc being counted along side Bealham, Herring, Marmion, etc is so off the mark. Or even Stander, Aki, Lowe, etc.

One bunch moved to Ireland as adults to make career's in rugby, with the hope that their Irish roots could help them along the route to international rugby. (And to be clear I don't begrudge them that).

One bunch moved here for money. It is their job and here offered the opportunity to play at a high level and earn the most in their short careers, it also offered an alternative route to higher honours in the game then they had at home.

Pretty clear the motivation and scenarios for these groups are very different.

sydthebeat

heres one for you

england beat fiji 58 - 15 in 2015 in twickenham

heres the english team

non english born bolded:

England: Goode, Rokoduguni, Joseph, Farrell, Daly, Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, Hartley (capt), Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw, Harrison, B Vunipola.

Replacements: George, Marler, Sinckler, Ewels, Hughes, Care, Te'o, Slade.

so theres 7 foreign players in an english squad... who have exponentially more of a selection than we have

aloooof

aloooof wrote: »

You implied that England, Wales and Scotland don't use as many non-home born players as us.

That facts provided above don't bear that our.

Are you at least going to acknowledge that? As fas as I can see, there's only one person in this argument closing their eyes.

no.

that's not what I implied

I implied that if one of Eng, Wales, Scotland were starting a team like Ireland are this weekend that there would be piss taking of that fact

As said - a team with 5 players starting (1/3 of the team obviously) who only came to Ireland in their 20's, afaik have zero Irish heritage.

We all know that the same rules apply to each country and in the future with the 5 year rule that this will be different but the fact remains that it's a jarring lineup and really on this occasion calls into question the concept of a "national team"

OneLungDavy

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Huh? Some of Englands best players are foreign born. Off the top of my head the 2 Vuniploas, Tuilagi, Willi Heinz and Joe Cokanasiga are all foreign born.

Tuilagi was an illegal immigrant when he signed for Tigers and almost got deported but the RFU intervened. He's probably the only Samoan asylum seeker in the UK. Can't say I've ever heard that get brought up when he lines out for England.

The difference is he learned his trade in England. The RFU invested in him from a young age, the same with the Vunipolas and Joe Cok.


Nobody in Ireland has a problem with foreign-born players, it's the 'buying' of players that's causing controversy.

sydthebeat

glasso wrote: »

no.

that's not what I implied

I implied that if one of Eng, Wales, Scotland were starting a team like Ireland are this weekend that there would be piss taking of that fact

As said - a team with 5 players starting (1/3 of the team obviously) who only came to Ireland in their 20's, afaik have zero Irish heritage.

We all know that the same rules apply to each country and in the future with the 5 year rule that this will be different but the fact remains that it's a jarring lineup and really on this occasion calls into question the concept of a "national team"

ah you see, thats where your problem is.....

for the vast majority of people its not a "jarring" line up at all.

its a "jarring" line up in YOUR eyes due to whatever biases you hold.

Personally i would much prefer to cap a James Lowe who has given 3 years to the betterment of irish rugby than to do what we did with Michael Bent (as much as i love him as a leinster player)

in MY eyes what happened with Bent is much, much more "jarring" than seeing 5 project players start on saturday..... but hey, maybe thats actually my own biases showing too.

Irish Beef

I think people have a right to their opinion, 5 non Irish born players is high enough, don't ever remember that many before and this is reflected in the fact that the residency rule has been changed to 5 years.

Interested Observer

sydthebeat wrote: »

so theres 7 foreign players in an english squad... who have exponentially more of a selection than we have

Nobody cares about foreign born though really. The Vunipolas came to the UK as kids, went to school there etc. Hartley has English parents, was always a UK citizen, saw himself as English etc. Rokoduguni wasn't a pro rugby player when he came to the UK, he was a soldier playing a bit of club rugby. There aren't project players.

Pudsy33

The rule is changed, we won't see this many project players again. Can we just enjoy the fact we have five lads lining out against England on Saturday that have all massively contributed to Irish rugby over the last few years? Irish rugby would be in a far poorer state were it not for CJ Stander and Bundee Aki.

sydthebeat

Interested Observer wrote: »

Nobody cares about foreign born though really. The Vunipolas came to the UK as kids, went to school there etc. Hartley has English parents, was always a UK citizen, saw himself as English etc. Rokoduguni wasn't a pro rugby player when he came to the UK, he was a soldier playing a bit of club rugby. There aren't project players.

of course i know that

im just using glassos bias back on him:

glasso wrote: »

Actually if the subs go the wrong way - 10, hooker and prop and more than half the team on the field would be non-Irish :eek:

hes the one who brought up the foreign born aspect..not me

Dog Botherer

there’s an argument to be made that Scotland in particular were taking the piss so aggressively with the 3 year rule that they were one of the main reasons WR had to extend residency. they literally had a lad in the SRU whose job it was to buy project players for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Wales are less noticeably bad because most of their players have English names but they pick an absolutely insane amount of English born players. England “poach” off Wales too, ask a Welsh fan about Sam Underhill.

I would say we have a much lower instance of lads being bought in to play national level and ****ing off immediately when the contract is up a la Josh Strauss. in fact i can’t really think of a single instance of that. Bent has played about 5,000 Pro14 games for Leinster, Payne is defense coach in Ulster, Bundee Aki could have been on mad money in France after his first contract and he still stuck with Connacht.

Dog Botherer

France have a ****ing as academy in Fiji purposely created to funnel Fijian kids into the French setup!

sydthebeat

Dog Botherer wrote: »

France have a ****ing as academy in Fiji purposely created to funnel Fijian kids into the French setup!

what france do with pacific island youngsters is a national shame

To be honest, I've accepted the project player thing but it has never sat right with me. I consider somebody to be from a country when they grew up there. That's my baseline. So when I see someone in an Irish jersey with a blatant South African accent, it doesn't feel right. I've accepted it and I've gotten over it as my want for Ireland to succeed is greater.

I love James Lowe. He's such a smiley, gregarious character but the thought of him lining out in green simply didn't feel right. He's clearly a Kiwi. The accent means a lot to me. I'll get over it fairly quickly like I did with the other clearly non-irish big characters such as Stander or Aki.

People are going on about xenophobia, but in my humble opinion, international sport is xenophobic at it's core. You are drawing up a team traditionally by an immutable birth-right. It's an excuse to hate on the English/Welsh/Whoever and push blatant nationalism. I'm glad an end is being put to this to a degree with it being switched to 5 years but frankly it should be 10 years. Then it would truly be only those who grew up in the country, who will have an accent from that country. People are claiming there is no issue here yet they agree that it's a good idea that it been pushed out to 5 years. So which is it, is naturalization an issue or not? 3 or 5 years shouldn't make a difference in principle.

I think the granny rule is even worse. Those people didn't even commit the 3 or 5 years to the country first. Michael Bent being parachuted in comes to mind.

thomond2006

These arguments are years too late. The rules have changed to five years residency.

theVersatile

OneLungDavy wrote: »

The difference is he learned his trade in England. The RFU invested in him from a young age, the same with the Vunipolas and Joe Cok.


Nobody in Ireland has a problem with foreign-born players, it's the 'buying' of players that's causing controversy.

Hopefully you feel the same way about Keynan Knox and Roman Salanoa so should they ever wear the green Jersey.