T
TOCC
Guest
Riveting stuff
Aussie Player Exodus
- Thread starter swingpass
- Start date
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I meant ratings wise..
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
But it was for Moore, Phipps, etc, while the All Black Jersey isn't enough for Dan Carter, Ma'a Nonu, Ben Franks, etc. There are all blacks leaving just as there are wallabies leaving, just as there have been in the past - what's Carl Hayman doing in Toulon?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
No you've missed the point again - you can't play cricket for Australia unless you play here, Australian cricketers by and large stay here because playing cricket for Australia is a big deal, it's our national sport - it's exactly like rugby in NZ.
I just don't think you understand that rugby is a minor sport in this country.
A Wallaby jersey doesn't pay the mortage or the school fees in 20 years time.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
I worked in NZ for several years and I bumped into a number of former All Blacks during that time - some good guys, some not. In business however being a former AB opens all sorts of doors and unless you are a real dick that advantage stays for life.
Socially its the same.
Its just not the same in Australia except in strictly Rugby Union circles (like inside the ARU).
Socially its the same.
Its just not the same in Australia except in strictly Rugby Union circles (like inside the ARU).
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
And it shouldn't either. People, especially sports people have to get away from this idea that they have of just because their sports career is only 10-15 years at best, they should earn a lifetime's wages in that time. This is an age of career mobility, through somewhat bitter experience, why should a pro-sportsman be different?
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
The equation changes once a player has achieved a Wallaby jersey. Money does come into play.
Often players do start to look towards life after rugby and will take big dollars when on offer, historically towards the end of their careers.
That landscape is changing now with some players opting for a greater financial return earlier in their careers.
Who can really blame them.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
They aren't any different that's the point. What they have is an opportunity to earn significant money in one particular career, which for most of them there will not be the same opportunity to earn similar money in the future. No one anywhere in the rugby playing world is going to earn a lifetime's wages in a 10-15 year period. That has never been the argument so I don't know where you've come from with that idea. A few tennis players and golfers would be able to.
So they face exactly the same career choices as we all do at some stage, money being but one factor. I sassume that all of us make career choices with some thought to the future and how we will look after ouselves and our families. But the idea that a person (any person not just sportsmen) should take a certain career path for less money because it gives other people some enjoyment is bizarre.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
This is a point most posters don't seem to get.
Most (99%?) s15 players do not make enough money to set them up for life. Thats why what they do off the field is very important. Even the blokes going to Europe don't earn that type of money for long enough to fall into this category - concessional tax treatment of sports earnings might make it better than it is here.
There are exceptions, of course: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11376102
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
South Africa have made their U20's side their second side in a bid to stem the drain of younger players:
http://www.espnscrum.com/southafrica/rugby/story/254141.html
It may only be a matter of time before Australia does now, though I'm not sure it'll be the right decision.
http://www.espnscrum.com/southafrica/rugby/story/254141.html
It may only be a matter of time before Australia does now, though I'm not sure it'll be the right decision.
All this does imo is prevent the Rory Kockott scenario where he is now eligible to play for France due to residential eligibility.
By making the 20's the second team the young talent is locked into playing for SA in the future and It reduces the risk of losing a talented youngster to another country.
It will not stop or reduce the flow of talented players to Europe and with the current status it is possible that the claim that Sanzar is the best provincial competition in the world will come under threat and the Champions Cup has no equivalent in the Southern Hemisphere.
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
English Private/ public schools will be rammed with Saffer kids now on scholarships.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Because they think they will have more chance of senior honours in England?
If this were adopted by everyone wouldn't it lead to some people being unable to play test rugby because they would be ineligible to play for any country other than the country they played U20s for and some would not qualify to play seniors because of lack of connection to the country (citizenship, grand parent, whatever)?
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
So what you're saying is that the lure of the Australian jersey, being a Wallaby, doesn't have enough lure for Australian players to stay here. It's not a big enough deal for them?
That is exactly what I've been saying.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
No one can blame them but as I have been saying, it means the Wallaby jersey isn't holding them here like it might once have. Like the AB jersey does for a lot of NZ players.
I get what you're saying but you're using examples of All Blacks who have decided to stay against examples of Wallabies leaving to say that New Zealand players care more about being All Blacks than Aussie players care about being Wallabies.
You could also use examples like Nick Phipps and Stephen Moore as players who have decided to stay to continue playing for the Wallabies.
There are numerous examples on both sides of players making either choice. Nic White is really the only young Wallaby who has decided to go overseas after the RWC. Who knows, if Genia also goes overseas, someone substantially worse than him might end up on a Wallaby top up contract and he'll realise he didn't make the best choice.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
It's not just about age but also where they are in the Wallaby set-up and what they have achieved.
I can understand older guys looking to maximise their final few years - that's pretty standard. But Genia and Higgers aren't really old. And I would have thought that they would have seen themselves are being fairly important in the Wallaby set-up going forward. It's hard to think of any ABs in a similar position to these guys who opt out.
I'm not surprised by Stephen Moore staying at all. I've never met him but he seems like the kind of guy who sees more than just $$ when looking at his playing future. I think he wants to win a Bledisloe, I think he wants another Rugby Championship, I think he wants to confirm his mark on the game as one of the best hookers of his time.
I think those things seem important to him. But that's just my take on a guy ho I only know thru media interviews etc...could be totally wrong. But if it's correct, I personally admire that and wish him all the best.
T
TOCC
Guest
Just to clarify, what exactly are you guys debating?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think judging someone's test career in terms of trophies they've won is a bit myopic. It is only one aspect of it. Of course the players would like to win more trophies but I don't think that relates so much to pride in the jersey and representing their country etc.
Not every team is going to be successful as the All Blacks (particularly in an era where the All Blacks have been so successful) and if your chief drive is purely down to winning the Bledisloe and winning the RWC you might end up finishing your career feeling pretty unfulfilled.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Fair enough.
I wonder what someone like Brian O'Driscoll would have traded to have beaten the ABs at least once in his career?