Rules may seem bizarre, but England have played by the book on World Cup imports

THERE has been a lot of discussion recently about the criteria which qualify players to represent a country, much of it provoked by Martin Johnson’s RWC England squad, which includes the young Samoan-born Manu Tuilaigi, several members of whose family have played for their native country, and Shontayne Hape, who played international Rugby League for New Zealand before coming to England. There are also others in Johnson’s team qualified to play for other countries. All this has led some to say that surely a country with England’s huge resources should be able to find 30 100 per cent English players.

It’s all rather silly. The IRB has set up the requirements for eligibility, and Martin Johnson has abided by them. A player is qualified to represent a country if a) he was born there; b) a parent or grandparent was born there; and c) he has been resident in that country for three years. Everyone in Johnson’s squad satisfies at least one of these requirements. Manu Tuilaigi, for instance, has lived in England since he was 13 and his rugby education has been English. It is ridiculous to suggest that Johnson is somehow pulling a fast one by selecting him.

The regulations are fair, though some may think they should be tightened. Place of birth seems an obvious qualification but is not necessarily a satisfactory one. An infant might be born to two English parents working in Edinburgh, who then return south of the Border when their child is a year old; he would nevertheless be qualified to play for either Scotland or England, though he would probably grow up thinking of himself as English. I’ve often thought the one grandparent qualification a shade inadequate; perhaps two should be required? Some would say three years’ residency is too short a period. Those of us who are looking forward to seeing Tim Visser in a Scotland jersey won’t agree, and indeed only wish he had come to Edinburgh a year earlier, so that he could now be in Andy Robinson’s World Cup squad.

Others who deplore “imports” sometimes suggest that they are likely to play with less passion and commitment than a native son. There is no evidence that this is so. Players represent a country, but they play for themselves and their team-mates. One can exaggerate the importance of patriotic fervour.

Consider the Lions. Who or what are they playing for? The only satisfactory answer is : for themselves and each other, and for the idea of the Lions. The Lions don’t represent a single country or state; their last two captains, Paul O’Connell and Brian O‘Driscoll, are Irishmen from the Irish Republic. Indeed the composition of the Irish team itself raises an interesting question. Nobody would question the fervour or passion of the Irish, but they are a united Ireland team drawn from a divided Ireland, and there have certainly been Protestant Northern Irish players who have represented Ireland with pride but who would have voted in any referendum against the incorporation of Northern Ireland in the Irish Republic. We, of course, are the last people in a position to make a fuss about qualifications. This year’s RWC squad is more thoroughly Scottish than some other ones have been. Indeed our English coach could come closer to fielding a home-born and home-raised XV than any we have seen since the 1980s.

Nevertheless his squad includes at least half-a dozen players who would have been eligible for other countries if they hadn’t been first capped by Scotland. But does anyone suppose that Nathan Hines and Dan Parks, both born Australians, are less committed to the Scottish cause than their team-mates – even though both now play their club rugby outside Scotland?

Because the pool of talent in Scotland has always been shallow, our selectors have cast their net far and wide. They did so in the amateur era when people who had grown up thinking of themselves as Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and Englishmen were all capped by Scotland.

Some with dual qualifications even captained Scotland: Doug Keller, for example, who came to Britain with the 1947-8 Wallabies, stayed behind to pursue medical studies, joined London Scottish, and played for Scotland 1949-50; and our 1990 Grand Slam captain, David Sole, born in Aylesbury, with an English father and mother, and a Scottish grandparent. Nobody was more committed to the Scottish cause than Sole but, if he had grown-up and gone to school in England as he might well have done, wouldn’t he have been equally committed to England if selected to wear the white jersey rather than the blue?

In the professional years, one could pick a pretty good Scotland XV from players hailing from the Southern Hemisphere, and another from players with a dual Scottish-English qualification. Only a couple of positions in either team would be hard to fill. By my rough-and ready calculation the former lacks a couple of forwards – loosehead prop and a lock; the latter, a scrum-half and hooker. Readers are invited to play the parlour game for themselves; they may be able to fill in the gaps.

Actually the IRB has tightened regulations since the game went professional, since anyone who has played the Union game above age-group level for one country can‘t now subsequently represent another. One sometimes thinks there should be a subjective test: which country did you support when you were 12 or 13? Sadly, this would be unworkable.

On the whole the present criteria for eligibility are fair enough. So there should be no grumbling about Martin Johnson’s England selection. The great thing is to beat them on the first of October.