Not every sport though allows players to represent different countries at international level. Just because our eligibility rules are different doesn't mean we should use them.

I don't reckon I'm capable of forming an emotional attachment to an austro-england team. If a win means that much to some then, sure, go for it. I'll not pay to watch it though. Or even watch it, I suspect.

Them having an Aussie accent doesn't bother me, Cuthbertson for example should've been picked last year. But I think selecting someone who has not only played for Australia but played and scored against England in a 4 Nations Final would be ridiculous.

This is a tricky one. When England have played the likes of Reed & Heighington I have been, on the whole, supportive of them in their efforts for their "mother nation" as they were one or two "Aussie speakers" in a squad of more obvious English nationals.

What if the entire squad was made up of Reed's & Heighington's? Would English RL fans feel an affinity to the team & support in good numbers (as they generally do now)? I, for one, would most definitely not.

So, should we have a quota of non-English-born players?

But presumably peoples Australian intolerance threshold would kick in at different points so I'm not sure that a quota is the answer. That said, if we can't provide any kind of a challenge with only the odd aussie plugging the odd gap we might as well not f*****g bother.

Agreed

Don't really care about England RU and eligibility rules, but for me if you aren't born in England you can't play for England. What is the point of international rugby / sport? And if you've already played for another nation, how on earth can you play for a different nation?

So what if your parents emigrate when you're a kid, and you grow up with an attachment to your new home country? Should you be denied the opportunity to represent it just because you were born somewhere else?

Or someone who comes to Britain as a refugee, like say Mo Farah or Luol Deng? I'm sure they consider themselves to be as British as anyone born here.

The global population is much more mobile these days. A larger percentage of people are living in and growing up with an attachment to a country other than the one they were born in. Sporting eligibility rules need to reflect that.

I'm no fan however of people switching from one country to the other. Once you've decided which country you want to represent, stick with it.

Atkins has played well this season and would be worthy of a spit there's a out if rugby to be played yet and I'm.sure centres a position.that's still up for grabs.

If Hodgkinson gets picked over Gale then its an absolute disgrace, and show that SL is basically pointless
Gale is tearing it up in SL, Hodkinson is struggling in NRL

As for the Morris twin, they have both played for australia and therefore would play for australia if picked

There is a HUGE difference that you are forgetting
In the case of nearly all RU international teams, you have to PLAY in that country to be eligible (the major hold out being SA)
That means that any players from Aus or NZ who play for England in RU have officially given up their chance to play for their country anyway

In RL however Hodkinson or the Morris brothers could still be picked for Aus and we might get the embarrassing situation where a player pulls out of the Aus camp and they take someone that has said they wanted to play for us!

That is the big difference why I support picking Cuthbo and not these guys

Born here or qualify through residency for me. Although the not identifying with the team argument tends to fall down when you see how much one club mentality exists between RL supporters generally.

It doesn't work that way in RU, although some unions insist on international players actually playing in their home country (which I tend not to agree with).