Roberts’ book revives club v country issues
Jamie Roberts’ comments in his autobiography, describing how he was caught up in a club v country row, make fascinating reading and are sure to polarise opinion.
Some will think that playing for Wales should have come first, while others will take the view that, since the game was outside of the international window, his club, Harlequins had every right to expect their player to turn out for them.
As with everything in professional rugby, it all comes down to money. Presumably a Welsh or Scottish player joins a Premiership club for a number of reasons – many of them quote the intensity of competition – but high on the list will be that they were offered a salary that was higher than that on offer at home.
When they join a club they and their agent are aware that there is a policy to release players only for matches within the World Rugby Test windows as defined by Regulation 9. Equally, when a club brings in a player, they know that they are obliged to release him at certain periods, and presumably they build that into the value of his contract offer.
So, when a non-English player takes the King’s Shilling and moves to the Premiership, they’re free to play for their country during the international release period, but not in any money-spinner organised outside of that. It cost Northampton Saints a £60k fine when they wrongly released George North back in 2013.
If blame is the correct word, it should be apportioned at the door of the unions that aren’t content with the rules as set out in Regulation 9. They put their players based in England into a difficult position, and if Roberts is correct in his assertion that this finished his Welsh career, then shame on the WRU.
It’s great when worldclass players from other nations join the Premiership, but they need to do so with their eyes wide open.
There’s a campaign on social media to drum up support for the USA’s bid to host the RWC in 2027 or 2031, and one of the questions posed on Twitter was which cities should be chosen to host games. It’s the oldest trick in the book, known as the assumptive close: by choosing one option over another you imply that you’re going to buy! My answer was simple: I don’t want to see the USA anywhere near hosting the RWC!
Just a few weeks ago a rusty All Blacks team stuck 104 points on the USA, and their previous game, back in 2014, was a 74-6 win! However you dress it up I can only believe that the Eagles have gone backwards in recent years. The US has plenty of big stadia used for American Football, and I’ve no doubt some lucrative sponsorship could be found, but the RWC is the jewel in Test match rugby’s crown, and it should be hosted by a nation that has at least a cat in hell’s chance of getting to the latter stages.
The Premiership Rugby Cup has always been a deeply flawed competition. There’s never been a satisfactory answer to the burning question: is it a development competition or not?
Friday’s opening fixture illustrated the problem: Gloucester fielded a seriously strong team, whereas Bath’s side was described on their website as ‘youthful’, PR-speak for weak – none of which stopped Premiership Rugby describing the game as a blockbuster! This disparity between clubs’ approaches has long dogged the competition.
With no A League there aren’t enough opportunities for young players. Please Premiership Rugby, let’s have some rules put in place to make it clear that it’s a development competition, and that teams should be picked in line with that – the result will be fewer mismatches.