AS THE RUGBY World Cup draws nearer, waiting just over this season’s horizon, the divergent possibilities of success or failure are drawing more into focus, as each decision by the various coaches compounds the already great pressure on them.
Armitage has been in superb form again this season. Source: Inpho/Billy Stickland
Click Here: Thomas Muller Jersey Sale
Complicating matters for England’s Stuart Lancaster still further is the fact that he doesn’t quite have a free hand, if he allows it to be so. As it stands, the RFU have a self-imposed rule to only select foreign-based players in exceptional circumstances, and the debate is now whether Lancaster should exercise this clause.
So what is Lancaster to do? Should he cast off the shackles and unapologetically go for broke, absorbing the likely flak from some, or should he give it his best shot without ruffling too many feathers?
John Maynard Keynes, the father of macroeconomics, once cautioned that, ”it’s better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally,” as a sort of warning against a herd mentality and deficient leadership. Naturally enough, the English public will be hoping Lancaster avoids this trap and selects his best team, devoid of any restriction.
Yet strangely, in what appears to be a case study into the pitfalls of ‘groupthink’, a media consensus seems to have formed supporting this ban, likely prompted by scaremongering from Premiership Rugby who naturally prioritise club over country.
As for the rule itself, the intention is clear: to prevent a mass exodus of leading English players. The merits are much fuzzier.
New Zealand and Australia have long since been trying to prevent their stars parting their shores but they are very different examples. Australia with such a small player base can’t afford to lose many players, while New Zealand with their exceptionally gifted and plentiful player base just don’t need their jet setters.
Neither Wales nor Ireland imposes any such geographical restrictions, and together they have won the last four Six Nations titles. Both countries have had players move abroad, but overall the effect and numbers have been negligible. Recently that trend has actually gone into reverse.
Sexton will return home to Leinster next season. Source: Cathal Noonan/INPHO
Seen in that light, the likelihood of a doomsday exodus for England seems a touch overblown. Of course a few players would leave, but players already do, so the ruling is not exactly airtight, resulting in a three-way loss for the RFU, the players and the public. The only net beneficiary is Premiership Rugby who remain partially inoculated from foreign competition for a small clutch of players.
Whether it is prominent rugby journalists or England players of past and present speaking out in favour of this quasi-ban, the same weak justifications are routinely employed.
Suggestions that the RFU doesn’t have a choice, and that the inclusion of the English expats would upset the environment and team spirit of the national squad are both ridiculous and pathetic.
Representative rugby doesn’t work to the same rules as club rugby. Happiness and contentment aren’t prerequisites and nor should they be, but a real meritocracy for places is. The English public deserves to be represented by the very best on the biggest stage.