Quote: wrencat1873 "
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.'"
I do get that point, if they're better than our 'British' alternatives, they'll improve the team. But then, their own squad members know that they're only in the team as a 2nd option, and that they're not good enough to get a game for our key opposition - it's a bad look.
Ultimately, international sport shouldn't be like club sport where you 'buy in' the best possible talent - it's about representing the country you call 'home'. I'm actually all for heritage players being allowed - the Pacific island heritage players show how much pride they have to represent their family, and that's why Coote is the most palatable given his history playing for Scotland. But I wouldn't want any player who would prefer to be playing origin. We're a tier 1 nation, GB is the pinnacle, we shouldn't cheapen the Jersey with any other countries cast offs, even if they are better than the alternative and the rules permit it.
I'd rather see us lose valiantly with 17 British players.