I think BR was working off the assumption that To'omua is available in 2016. which doesn't appear to be the case.
Ah! I see.
I think BR was working off the assumption that To'omua is available in 2016. which doesn't appear to be the case.
I don't follow. If To'omua is playing better footy, but not available, they shouldn't select others, in case they might later decide to go OS? Bear in mind the players you mention are all around 25-27 now, so hardly reaching "old blood" status. Sounds an odd selection approach.
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong.
That is true, so yes he should be available for the Pom tests, but not the RC and beyond.Don't we have the mid-season break for the June tests again next year? If that's the case, then wouldn't To'omua be eligible for the England tests, as he'll still be a contracted Brumbies player at that stage?
What lies behind To'omua's decision? has he fallen out with Cheika, is he disillusioned with Giteau being brought back into the fold or is he going where the money is toward the end of his career?
I favour a combination of the first 2 and am a little pissed off that it was allowed to get to this.
I wish people would stop talking about Inman as a possible test 12 - I hadnt heard that for a year and thought we'd passed that point.
What lies behind To'omua's decision?.
None of those reasons. Apparently his girl friend wants to compete in England.
Same reason Kane Douglas really came back to Aussi & is now about to play for the Reds.
I agree To'omua should be in the selection frame mid-year.Think you might be. My comment, whether it was clear or not, was in relation to the mid-year tests next year and in response to a general observation that To'omua ought not be selected because he had committed to go o/s at the end of the year (at least that's how I read it). To clarify, if Matt To'omua (or anyone else going o/s) is in best form compared with other candidates for a position at the time of the mid-year tests, or EOYT if the player concerned is available, then he ought not be overlooked in favour of a player in lesser form simply because he has committed to the other contract. What's to say the alternative player won't also take up an o/s contract for the following season or the one after (ie whenever their current contract expires)?
But he's on the verge on cementing a spot.
You are only young once, i seem to recall.
Terrible loss for Oz rugby, IMO.
He's a 26/27 year old who wants to live and work overseas for a couple of years. Seems like a normal decision that most young Australian adults make for probably the same reason.
Probably helps getting paid in pounds rather than AUD and potentially any discounts on staying somewhere.
Might say something about how valuable the Wallaby jersey really is for these pro players...This would make sense to me if he signed for a year or two. But 3 years really hurts his prospects as an international rugby player - especially when he is on the verge of cementing a spot and leaving at probably peak form in his career.
Maybe his fiancé is more valuable. That's potentially for life.Might say something about how valuable the Wallaby jersey really is for these pro players.
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Maybe his fiancé is more valuable. That's potentially for life.
I guess you could say, as a couple they value her career over his.
But he doesn't have to give up his fiancée in order to stay in Aus and play for the wallabies.
I guess you could say, as a couple they value her career over his.
This would make sense to me if he signed for a year or two. But 3 years really hurts his prospects as an international rugby player - especially when he is on the verge of cementing a spot and leaving at probably peak form in his career.