With Great Britain’s Gillette Fusion Rugby League Test series against New Zealand almost upon us, there is anticipation from fans hoping for a change of order with the imminent announcement of new coach Tony Smith’s first squad to do battle with the Kiwis on Saturday at the Galpharm stadium.

Smith chose to leave Stuart Fielden, for many years an automatic selection, out of the training squad for the Northern Union’s centenary game against the New Zealand All Golds and opted instead to give fringe players the chance to stake a claim for a place in the full test squad.

Players such as Andy Lynch, Andy Coley and Richard Moore were hoping to impress enough to force their way in. Smith’s decision to give new blood a chance also gave fans a sense of excitement at the thought that finally we had a coach who would select players on form rather than on the basis of the colour of their club shirts.

'Is it right that the game’s hierarchy dictates the make-up of their squads while allowing the national coach to select a non-British player'


For some fans that excitement turned to dismay when the squad was finally announced. Rather than give a British player a chance to do battle for their country, Smith dropped Lynch, Coley and Moore from the squad and brought in St Helens' replacement prop and ex-Samoan Rugby Union player Maurie Fa’asavalu who will have the distinction of being the first-ever non-British player to pull on the red, white and blue shirt.

Now, while Fa’asavalu is a fine player and has played a major part in St. Helens’ march to glory in recent years, he is not so good that he will make a bigger difference to the result of the Test series than any of the British players that have missed out for his benefit. And the fact is, he cannot lay any claim whatsoever to a right to play for Great Britain.

The selection also flies in the face of the Rugby League’s decision to impose rules on Super League clubs governing the minimum number of British-born and trained players required in their squads for the 2008 season. And the clubs are entitled to ask whether it is right that the game’s hierarchy dictates the make-up of their squads while allowing the national coach to select a non-British player.

So where does this leave the up-and-coming young British players who dream of representing their country of birth? For so long the Great Britain Rugby League squad, like so many of our other national sports, has been very much a closed shop. And when there appears to be a chink of light and the possibility of an unfashionable player making the breakthrough, along comes an Australian coach and a Samoan player to shut the door firmly in their faces.

Fa’asavalu may not be the last foreign player to force his way into the national team. Bradford Bulls' new signing Ben Jeffries gave notice earlier in the season that he would apply for British citizenship and that he wished to play for Great Britain. So if he has an outstanding season in 2008, will he then be selected to go to Australia to represent Great Britain in the World Cup, thus denying another talented young Brit the chance of representing his country of birth?

Rugby League is not a rich sport, and the salary-cap restrictions imposed on Super League clubs limits the financial incentives that they can offer promising young players. As such, players who choose to take up the sport rather than Rugby Union or football do so for something more than just money. They do it for the passion of the game and the hope that they will one day get the chance to put their bodies on the line for their country of birth.

In a sport that has fewer incentives than some for attracting the best athletes, the criteria for selection for the national team should be sacrosanct. Fa’asavalu’s inclusion is a controversial one in the minds of many fans who will be hoping that it is not a costly one for the game’s sake.

Is Fa’asavalu’s the thin end of the wedge? Post a comment below or submit an article to Sportingo.