Ah … you don't. Fair enough.

The England football team is ALL English. Maybe we should follow their lead.

And, after 80 minutes you'll have to respond to their question "Why were you so angry? He's an awesome player and he won us the match? Will he be playing in the final because we all want to go?"

How bizarre.

Double post

So perhaps we can find another 16 blokes who've only been here three years and have spoken about their dreams of representing countries other than England.

That would be awesome. After all, it's only winning that counts.

Tuilagi has played all his Rugby in England and went to school here, so he has every right to play for England. Chase and Hape are in the same boat, doesn't make it right though and I don't agree with Hape playing for England.

This is absolutely spot on.

We've been doing that for years and we've won the same amout of trophies as them.

Doesn't having 2 decent International teams devalue it more? If England, by hook or by crook, can get up to the level of Aus/NZ and have a competitive team then that can only be good for sport. Not everyone is fanatics like the people on RLFans, people don't care whether Strauss is South African or Hape is a Kiwi, they care about watching their nation win.

Only since Hargreaves doesn't get picked.

I can only wonder what Aussies and Kiwis McNamara is contemplating calling up from Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Warrington. Monaghan? King? Webb? Richards? After all, they'll improve the team of course.

Hargreaves' dad is English so he was entitled to play for England from the second he was born.

Slightly less tenuous than a Kiwi playing at Castleford for three years because St George didn't want him, whilst talking in the press about his boyhood dreams of playing for NZ.

It was only in July Chase claimed he wanted to play for NZ!!

I'm surprised this has caused such a backlash. It never has to this extent before and Rangi is by far the best player to have switched.

People are talking a lot of nonsense about devaluing the international game. We can't devalue it any more- we manage to squeeze a 4 nation tournament when only three countries in the world are any good and we scrapped the GB team and no longer play the ashes.

In the main no one watches international rugby it and no one cares- not even in Rugby League circles. However if we actually win something people might start taking an interest- like when England cricket won the ashes with the help of South Africans. If we win the 4n then the benefit will not be for existing fans, but the new fans that will be attracted. The number of sports where this happens now I don't think that it will stop people from taking an interest in our sport should we win. Look at the sport that Greg Rudeski got from British fans... and he was rubbish!!

Those who are concerned about the message it sends out to young English players- how different is it to clubs signing overseas players? How many of you fans that don't want Rangi to play are happy with the number of overseas players a team is allowed. I think reducing the number of overseas players in the Superleague is of far more importance to helping young talent develop than playing a NZ stand-off for England. Yet every time the quota is discussed people come out saying that the standard of Superleague would drop.