Quote: Superted "Whilst I agree somewhat with this sentiment, there is a big difference. Australia and NZ have always raised the Pacific Islands of their BEST players - playing for Aus/NZ was always a massive step up. What GB are doing is using the same rules to borrow rejects from another tier 1 nation - that's a significant difference.
Purely on pride and building a strong team culture, we should only be picking players who have British citizenship - even if the rules allow otherwise. Picking Australian players who aren't good enough to get a game for them smacks of desperation, and will have an impact (no matter how small, subtle or sub-conscious) as it shows that our players aren't as good as their counterparts in the green and gold.'"
Surely, picking the best side available within the rules is the only way to go.
The pride and passion may get the supporters going a bit but, the reality is that good professional players can always lift themselves for big games and they thrive under pressure. As a nation, our inability to produce a decent halfback pairing for over 30 years has left us coming second (or worse) and some success on the field may just inspire the next generation.
As for "will have an impact (no matter how small, subtle or sub-conscious) as it shows that our players aren't as good as their counterparts in the green and gold", our "all English/British" side hasn't mustered enough of this to beat the Aussies in a series for years and maybe, a little bit of quality in the halves may get us over the line.
I believe that our current crop of forwards is better than both Aussie and New Zealand but, our backs are a little way behind and our half backs (apart from Widdop) have been bang average.