thing is, those having a pop at hill, his form hasn't been as good in recent years in SL, but he's always top notch for england, bennett knows he can rely on him.

Hill isn't captain at international level. The sooner wire take the captaincy off him the better.

While I agree with your sentiment, the reality of sportsmen (and women) is that they play to win and in a sense, that wont change if they are playing under "grand parent" or "heritage" rules.
I didn't notice any of the England Cricket or RU players trying any less because of these rules.
The Kiwis and South Seas sides seem to swap their allegiance from competition to competition and it doesn't affect the effort put in whatsoever.

The most disappointing aspect is that we cant produce enough quality players, especially in the halves, which has been a severe problem for over 30 years, which is pitiful.

If it's within the rules for whoever to play, then we should put out the best side possible.

Of course, we would all like them to be "totally British" but, we cant have everything.

Sorry to tell you this but most players in all sports don't give a damn about that pride and passion BS. You don't need pride and passion to play well for any jersey you represent.

Your opinion, which you're entitled to, but the reality is: FROM WIKI

Michael Geoffrey Leitch was born in Burwood, Christchurch, New Zealand, to a European New Zealander father and a Fijian mother. He was raised in Christchurch where he attended St Bede's College. In 2004, at the age of 15, he went to Sapporo Yamanote High School in Sapporo, Japan, as part of St Bede's school exchange program.After finishing school he attended Tokai University and in 2008 captained the Japan national under-20 rugby union team at the Junior World Championship. He became a Japanese citizen in 2013 and officially inverted his name in Japanese from Michael Leitch to Leitch Michael

Now, he may be an exception to the rule, but he cannot be accused of being a "mercenary" and he is a proud captain of the national side. I myself was born in the UK, but have never held anything other than an Irish Passport and I have never supported a British/English side, other than those that include Irish Players (Both Lions being a good example).

The Tongan RL side is full of Aus/nz born players who clearly have enormous pride in representing Tonga and have lost money to play for them. They've helped boost the international game enormoysly by showing NRL players that Origin isn't everything.

What's weird to me is how RL seems to be the only sport where its seen to be an issue and GB/england the only country. Here in Aus the only adverse reaction is from dinosaurs like Gould who seemingly don't want international RL to grow.

Glimpses is the key word.

I believe there were 2 Tongan born players in the RLWC17 Tongan squad. Nobody in NZ or Australia batted an eyelid, but the usual suspects in RL UK were out in force.
Yes, as a Game we have 5 Nations able to call themselves a majority "national" side, with the rest made up predominantly of heritage players, but SO WHAT?
I followed Ireland to Germany in 88, Italy in 90 and America in 94. Our side was made up of scots, Irish and English born players, we didn't care a jot. I think Liverpool won the 1st division championship in 1983 without an English born player in the team......the Sky didn't collapse and football fans care little.
If a player opts to represent a country, then the only rule should be that he/she cannot move to another nation. A couple of Tongans played that duality card and that I disagree with, but a couple of Okers opting for GB is fine in my eyes.
If Ireland win the Union RWC I won't care where the players were born and I suspect a series win in 2020 for GB over the Aussies will be the same for many people.

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.

Because he is now semi retired in the south of France like the majority of players that sign a contract with the Catalan Dragons.

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.

I'm not for going back to country of birth as that does not make sense even for global passport regulations.

Would prefer eligiblity to be based on holding a valid passport for the country you represent to be the rule.

It would be a bizzare state of affairs if say the English team won the World Cup in Australia, but one of the key players who helped the team was not eligible to come for any homecoming celebrations due to having to wait for a visa application.

But it has to be the same for all teams, us going solo will not help us and probably would put us at risk with employment rights.

I would say are Austin, Hastings, Coote a significant upgrade on Lomax, Hardaker, Widdop, Williams, Tomkins and Trueman? I would personally say maybe better in some instances but not significantly.

I don't think we have to go down the avenue of picking Aussies that choose to play for us because they can't make the Aussie rep teams. I do however see Coote as fair choice as he has represented Scotland already and as this is GB makes sense.

Anyway, is what it is and we have been here before- chase Heighington Faisivlalu..