Briscoe and Yeaman together would be a handful.

toatally agree class player though but other nations including aussie and kiwis do the same aswell do other sports including criket,football and union

I really dont like to see players who have already played for one nation play for another..makes a mockery of the sport....even hape/lesley etc playing union for england when theve played for nz in another sport is a joke! Weres the pride in that?

there isnt any but its funny it never gets mentioned in union yet when maurie fasavula or whatever hes called played for britian eveyone was having a go

couldnt give a toss about union but if i did i wouldnt be impressed by it.....when it come to rugby league it doesnt surprise me as our international games a joke anyway....what sport do players play for scotland and a couple of years later play for england? its embarassing.

True, it never gets mentioned in union as it doesn't make a blind bit of difference in the end. The rules are there & applied and used as they should be for both codes. If a player qualifies through residency (or heritage) then he is elligible for selection. I was surprised to see Faasavalu picked but not upset, as I would not be upset if Manu was picked. The important thing was that Maurie was clearly proud to represent his adopted country and put the necessary effort in. I've seen too many players with "genuine" birth right play for England or GB but looked like they couldn't be asred.

In order to compete, the strongest possible side needs to be picked, if that includes choosing players who where not born in the UK then so be it. The Australians have been doing this for years, their national side is basically an Antipodean all stars team, with players coming from the South Sea islands, NZ and so on. It's nice to be principled and pick the "right" team but principles don't win test series', fielding the strongest possible side from all eligble players does.