In the (possibly vain) hope that this drags all the debate off the "Well Done Rangi" thread, it would be nice to have a reasoned debate about the whole subject on here. To kick off, here's a few things to consider:

Firstly, the rules state that he's eligible given by his 3 year residence in the country and he wants to play for his adopted home.

Second, he's obviously a very talented player who has won the Man of Steel award which was voted for by his fellow professionals, and was also chosen for the SL dream team this year so he must be seen to be hot property.

We're all going to have differences of opinion about who should be selected for England and in what position. But, at the end of the day, a lot of the problem seems to be down to the fact that he was born in New Zealand.

International sport has always been a minefield when it comes to who should be selected for which team. There are many examples of people born abroad playing for their country of residence, and indeed changing the country they represent, and it goes back a long way. Check out some 19th century test cricketers who represented first Australia and then England.

Is Rangi's desire to represent England any different from, say Danny Brough wanting to represent Scotland when he thought he'd be overlooked for the England side? Or the South African runner Zola Budd getting an instant passport so she could represent team GB in the Olympics all those years ago?

Some famous English Cricketers weren't English, although I don't hear many people complaining about Colin Cowdrey, who was born in India, having been captain of the England side and playing over 100 test matches for us.

How different is it cheering on a national side that contains players not born in the country from cheering on a club side containing players not born or even resident in the town?

OK, gloves on.... round one!

No

Even the residency argument doesn't hold sway

He has played for New Zealand Maori
He has played for the Exiles whose rules for qualifying where 'NOT BEING BRITISH'

He's as good as said i'm not a Brit went on record about wanting to play for NZ and then when he realised he was never going to shift Benji suddenly came up with the proud to be English spiel.

Going back to residency

Reed- born here, no problem
Heighington- English father no problem
Widdop- born here

Rangi lived here for 3 years and qualifies?

Why don't we just cherry pick the best 14 players from NRL stick one in each team exclude them from salary cap, pay them double what they'd get in Oz and kick ass 3 years from now?

He hadn't qualified due to residency at the time of any of these events.



These people aren't resident here, however.



That's the rule.



Like we did with Zola Budd for the Olympics all those years ago, you mean?

Just because we have the 3 year rule doesn't make it right, all people say is "the rules are 3 years so it's ok" it's garbage always has been no matter what the sport.

Bringing up other sporting examples doesn't back up your argument it just makes you realise how poorly it's administered.

You bring up Zola Budd and there are many others eg Greg Rusedski is a Canadian in Tennis, Cricket god i could probably list 2 teams worth, John Barnes in football springs to mind.

Nothing to do with colour or anything before someone throws the racist card, cherry picking a good club if you're a decent player far enough but cherry picking nationalities shouldn't be allowed.

How it should be
The country you are born
The country your mother is born
The country your father is born
The country your Grandparents are born

Potentially 7 countries but not, oh i fancy playing for X team because either i am not good enough or they are the best, it's a joke.

So in your eyes, someone who lives, works and pays taxes in a country - calls said country his home and is going to become a full citizen can NEVER be British?

In the same way - How about an Asian fella for example who has lived in the country for 30 of his 31 years alive - is he British?

This is how the world works now, you shouldn't be so narrow minded.

In sporting terms yes

If i move to say Germany, i shouldn't rep for them in anything but if i have a child there, they should.


Otherwise it just becomes daft and you could potentially have a full 17 playing for England who had never graced the shores or had any connection at all going back thousands of years. It's just stupid, how good may a Tongan or Fijian side been now if they hadn't all defected to Australia?
It weakens and strengthens at the same time and the irony of it being 'more open' has made the sport more insular.

So why doesn't it make it right when the "powers that be" say it does?


So why is it garbage and why do you believe that this is poor administration?



To nit-pick a bit, as Greg Rusedski's mother is English, he qualifies, given your list of "How it should be."

However, why should someone (hypothetically) who has possibly never set foot on English soil but has an English grandparent they've never met be more qualified to play for England than someone who has settled here, paid taxes here and contributed to his/her local community?

To the thread question: Yes.

People can cry, whinge and kick up a fuss all they want but whether it's now or after five years, two down the line, Chase would STILL be eligible to play for England.

In two years time he can take a citizenship test, obtain an English passport and call himself English then - that is as per the national rules (nothing to do with sport at all). In that instance, Steve Mc would still be entitled to select him for England.

If someone moves here, like Widdop and Reed did to Australia, at a young age, at an age where they have had no say or choice in the matter but have grown up in a country they call home for the majority of their life. In an environment where all they really know is the country they've resided in would you have refused them the opportunity?

The Exiles do not really count, it's a fabricated side made to face England and give them a stronger test. New Zealand Maori isn't really a full international side AFAIK; in football, many kids play for England Under 16's/18's or what have you before switching to represent Scotland/Ireland/Wales. Are you lambasting them?

So, yes, he does have the right to play for England should he so wish and yes, he is perfectly entitled to switch his allegiance to the side he calls home. He has made comments in the past but who knows what context the question was asked and the way he answered? For all we know, the question could have been did you grow up wanting to play for New Zealand when young, to which he is obviously going to reply yes. Had that been followed up with, would you ever play for England if they came calling, his answer may have been equally, yes.

Add to that the fact he's a quality player, will allow the youngsters to learn from him and will improve the depth of the squad no ends then I'd say it's a wise (and justified) move.

=#FF0000Paying taxes and buying a house in Britain doesn't make you British, being born or having recent British lineage makes you British

=#FF0000I've lived in London over a decade and i'm from the North West yet it doesn't make me a Londoner

So, why is it different at club level? Should everyone who plays for a club have some sort of birth connection with the town that the club is in?

Club and International are completely different, at club level it is a business and in a business you get the best you can afford to be successful, in international you play the best of the available eligible players. We are just disagreeing on the eligibility terms.

But it's not the case in all sport. For instance, in Cricket, it's the international success that supports the county clubs, not the other way round. Team England is the business, not the counties.