Henry Paul, left, played for England... Brad Shields, right, is tipped to do the same. Photos / Getty Images, Mark Mitchell
Henry Paul, left, played for England... Brad Shields, right, is tipped to do the same. Photos / Getty Images, Mark Mitchell
Sir Clive Woodward argues that England is shooting itself in the foot in recruiting New Zealander Brad Shields
The debate over whether England should pluck Brad Shields from Super Rugby next month to tour South Africa crystallises all sorts of important issues for international rugby in this country.
To a certain extent, I understand why New Zealand — not a populous nation — have tapped into their Pacific Island connections over the decades and cherry-picked either island-born players or those with dual nationality. Ditto with Australia, where rugby bats quite a long way down the order in popularity and profile.
Woodward asks: Is selecting Shields going make much of a difference? Photo / Marty Melville
Scotland, Wales and Ireland have all worked the system to bolster their talent pool to compete on the world stage. I fully understand and that's their decision, let them get on with it — but England don't have to follow suit.
England can consciously adopt a much stricter in-house protocol. And ultimately that would make them a strong, close-knit team. Our willingness to scour the world just demonstrates a lack of confidence in our own system and is really a 'fingers-crossed' approach to selection.
Is selecting Shields, who is likely to be announced as part of Eddie Jones's squad this week, really going to make that much difference when playing against the best teams in the world?
This time last year the RFU talked a good game with regards to extending the residency period from three to five years, yet at the same time hastily secured the services of Denny Solomona. They also pounced very quickly to sign up former Fiji Under-20s captain Nathan Hughes after he had appeared for Wasps for the required three years.
I understand the temptation. My one experiment as a coach in this area was Henry Paul, which just did not work.
Henry was a great guy and a very talented player, eligible by the letter of the regulations. I was hoping for another Jason Robinson and for a moment he seemed to potentially offer a missing part of the jigsaw. For all sorts of reasons, it didn't work out. The main point, though, is that all the time the players we needed were already there but not being used properly. Selection will always be the biggest skill set of an international coach, especially in England, where we have bucketloads of talent.
I appreciate that as Shields is the son of English parents who moved to New Zealand — but are back in this country now — he is fully entitled to declare for England, but that doesn't mean others should be brushed aside in the stampede to select him. Shields is a product of the New Zealand system, won the World Championship with their Under 20s, has been the captain of the Hurricanes and been talked about as a possible All Black over the years.
Why not promote from the English game, the Premiership and the RFU's outstanding Under 20 system? Let's make a virtue of that, give priority at all times to those who England have produced.
Perhaps, at the moment, we lack some world-beaters in the back row but the truth is we just don't know. I would be amazed if, at any given time in the England system, we haven't got the makings of a squad to win the World Cup. It is just a matter of identifying and picking them and creating a culture where playing for each other is the most important thing on earth.
The back row needs some surgery but England have loads of options — Jamie Gibson at Northampton, the Curry twins at Sale and Jack Willis at Wasps to name but a few — and if the answer cannot be found by understanding the skill of selecting the right players then the system in England has failed badly. But I do not think that is the case.
Henry Paul played six games for England between 2002-2004. Photo / Getty Images
England reportedly want to pluck Shields out of the Super Rugby tournament, fly him 12,000 miles to here and then another 5,500 to South Africa, before he returns to Wellington to complete his contract there. It makes zero sense and is intrinsically wrong. If he tours South Africa it will smack of a 'transfer' in soccer in the January window where players sign on deadline day and play on Saturday.
This is not what international rugby is all about and hands a psychological advantage to New Zealand, who secretly will be finding it highly amusing — no more than that.
It would also be another slap in the face for the likes of Chris Ashton, who has been scoring tries for fun at Toulon, breaking the Top 14 record last month with power to add. He is playing magnificently — often at full back — as we saw in that exciting European Cup quarter-final against Munster. Yet Ashton, who played in 215 competitive matches for Saints and Sarries in 11 seasons in which he lit up English rugby, is not considered eligible because he is now based 90 minutes away in Toulon.
England is a multicultural nation and welcomes people as residents and citizens from all over the world. This is a wonderful thing and I would be the first to argue that rugby in England badly needs greater diversity and inclusion, but that is not the discussion here.
The immediate promotion of Shields would be an opportunist deviation from the standards we have set ourselves and which many players have adhered to. A worrying, confusing precedent that threatens the vital bond between England players that is the lifeblood of international rugby.
If we are to move away from that standard then it should be taken away altogether and players offered the freedom to play anywhere and still represent England.
