Australia v England

[Lorenzo]

Super rugby is already a shit business that no one watches, yet we pay people a shitload of money to play in it. Why?

I raised South Africa on the basis that rugby hasn't fallen off the face of the earth there, despite the assertion that opening up the selection market would do just that.

 

[southsider]

Super rugby is already a shit business that no one watches, yet we pay people a shitload of money to play in it. Why?

I raised South Africa on the basis that rugby hasn't fallen off the face of the earth there, despite the assertion that opening up the selection market would do just that.

Now you’re just being dramatic, yea it’s not in a good place right now but getting rid of all our star power isn’t going to help that at all, in the slightest. How would your development pathways work if all the super rugby teams closed up shop?

Surely you’re not completely blind to the differences between such a comparison, perfect example of comparing apples and oranges

 

[Derpus]

Because instead of the 100+ being a spread of top level to pretty ordinary players all of a sudden a hell of a lot more of our best players will head overseas, leaving us with the lower level players meaning an inferior domestic comp meaning why the fuck would I bother watching super rugby? If interest in super rugby goes all the franchises go broke, if they go broke general interest and development greatly disappears eventually killing union in this country

Also can’t believe you used South Africa as a example of why we should do this, absolutely mind boggling

I fear he fundamentally disagrees on this point so there isn't much utility in arguing about it further.

 

[Purce]

And I’m challenging that comment and saying there isn’t? What number of “quality” players overseas do you think warrants destroying our domestic competition?

Also you went from “we need to pick overseas players” to “we need to select overseas players but there will be some sort of criteria” completely changing your argument....good work

And I apologise I didn’t know you were good mates with Ben Te’o however I think Benny boy has been fibbing to you a bit because despite living in Australia he isn’t a Australian which means after the 2 years he had overseas playing footy to the point where he was considered potential test material (remember no one knew how good he’d be) he would’ve had to come back, play super rugby and wait a couple of years while he waited to be eligible through residency, instead he went with England because he had an English mother and could play instantly.....but no it’s Cheikas fault Te’os mum popped him out in nz instead of Australia

Ah I see. You're one of these posters. You've gone completely off the reservation if you are actually replying to my comments. At absolutely no stage have I said nor implied that we need to do either. You clearly haven't read or cannot comprehend my comments. Not sure who you are arguing with over the quotes you have included but it sure as shit isn't me and they aren't from my posts.

I've commented on the possible merits of such a move. Then giving my thoughts on some issues surrounding it. Kinda thought that's what we did here.

I'm not going to get into a mud throwing contest with you over Teo because your previous comments show that you are clearly only interested in your own thoughts on issues. I guess if you don't know about the contracting/negotiating surrounding some Aus rugby players then absolutely no one else on a rugby forum could possibly either.

 

[liquor box]

I have never liked the 60 test rule but do support overseas players getting selected for the Wallabies.

I think the number should be based on Super Rugby games, not Tests as you have still "done your time" for the Australian Rugby set up but may have missed test selection for reasons out of your control.

Take Liam Gill as an example. I think it is fair to say he is capable of being Wallabies but were stuck behind Hooper and Pocock so did not get the opportunity to play as many Tests as they probably would deserve.

He played 76 Super Rugby games, to me this indicates he was not just taking the first big pay offer to come along, he earns his place as having dedicated himself to the Australian cause.

Greg Holmes, 144 Super Rugby caps but only 27 Tests.

I would prefer 60 Super Rugby caps to be the line in the sand

 

[GingerBreadCrab]

I'm not going to get into a mud throwing contest with you over Teo because your previous comments show that you are clearly only interested in your own thoughts on issues. I guess if you don't know about the contracting/negotiating surrounding some Aus rugby players then absolutely no one else on a rugby forum could possibly either.

I was of the opinion that heading abroad was Te'os' best option when his PR worth in Australia fell through the floor following assault charges and settlement.

 

[southsider]

Ah I see. You're one of these posters. You've gone completely off the reservation if you are actually replying to my comments. At absolutely no stage have I said nor implied that we need to do either. You clearly haven't read or cannot comprehend my comments. Not sure who you are arguing with over the quotes you have included but it sure as shit isn't me and they aren't from my posts.

I've commented on the possible merits of such a move. Then giving my thoughts on some issues surrounding it. Kinda thought that's what we did here.

I'm not going to get into a mud throwing contest with you over Teo because your previous comments show that you are clearly only interested in your own thoughts on issues. I guess if you don't know about the contracting/negotiating surrounding some Aus rugby players then absolutely no one else on a rugby forum could possibly either.

Ah the sanctimonious high road, love it

As for Te’o tell us how he could have played for the wallabies unless he had a super rugby contract? Either no club wanted to offer him one or they did and the offer wasn’t good enough, either way went to England became ineligable through world rugby laws. Chose to qualify for England immediately (which was probably the right call given his age) instead of coming back to Australia and waiting a few years to requalify for the wallabies. NONE of this would have changed if we were able to pick overseas based players at will

 

[I like to watch]

when and for who?

Easts colts

 

[Gnostic]

One thing that must be said, is that the current 60 cap rule is allowing the favoured ones like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to walk back in whether or not they are actually deserving of a place. They are walking back in not only to a Wallabies jersey but also a Super spot, removing the development opportunity for up and coming talent, as shallow as the pool that the ARU fishes in it is not one that needs to be muddied by pensioners like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) walking back in with no real form to justify it.

I have always been against the rule with my belief that players must be committed to play in Australia for the calendar year in which they seek Wallaby selection. No bending of the rules, complete transparency. That said I always thought we should have allowed anybody playing in the Super Comp to retain eligibility as being in that competition supports Australian Rugby by maintaining the strength and integrity of the comp.

My position has been altered now simply because Australian Super Rugby and the very systems of Australian rugby are so weak that players will become better players by playing overseas and staying there. In general I think the best talent in form and potential remains in Australia ATM, but significant individuals OS could offer significant further potential to the side and offer some real balance to selections. I will not derail my thoughts for people to argue over names, but it cannot be denied that Australian Rugby is so fundamentally broken that no professional level player in this country is fulfilling their potential, I would argue that some of that is cultural (in that the very culture is inhibiting player development by encouraging them towards arrogance and an inability to learn) and structural, in that players preferred by coaches like Cheika receive inordinately massive salaries that are fixed and basically absorb a very large percentage of the organisation's capital and make it impossible that they not be selected (and when they on the rare occasion are excluded from the side as in the case this year of Cooper, very real and genuine arguments can be made about the negative return on investment from those funds, which is further exacerbated when the performance of the remaining players is seen in aggregate to be fundamentally poor).

 

[Derpus]

One thing that must be said, is that the current 60 cap rule is allowing the favoured ones like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to walk back in whether or not they are actually deserving of a place. They are walking back in not only to a Wallabies jersey but also a Super spot, removing the development opportunity for up and coming talent, as shallow as the pool that the ARU fishes in it is not one that needs to be muddied by pensioners like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) walking back in with no real form to justify it.

Your first sentence seems at odds with your second.

I dont think the 60 cap rule has anything to do with them walking back into Super rugby spots. If anything having the 60 cap rule means they are less likely to be occupying a Super spot.

Plus AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) proved he was still useful in the Italy test, discipline issues aside.

 

[Lorenzo]

Now you’re just being dramatic, yea it’s not in a good place right now but getting rid of all our star power isn’t going to help that at all, in the slightest. How would your development pathways work if all the super rugby teams closed up shop?

Surely you’re not completely blind to the differences between such a comparison, perfect example of comparing apples and oranges

I'm being dramatic?? You are the one saying that our Super sides would cease to exist. You've provided no evidence to support that. Beale went OS and the Tahs survived. Genia. Pocock. Nau. To'omua. We've lost heaps of wallabies, both stars and marginals, for short and long periods.

Whether or not our 'star power' is earning us a return during the non-test period is pretty questionable. Much of the TV money comes from the tests, and we only play 14 of them a year. How much does Beale get to play each match for the tahs? Is it his and Folau's 'star power' that attracted 12k people to the SFS to watch a finals match on a Saturday night? Scarcely more than their lowest ever crowd of 10k that turned out to watch our stars in 2017?

I don't believe that Super Rugby (or whatever we end up with) would be damaged to the point of destruction if even our top 20 players went OS. Super's problem is that no one gives a shit about it because it's half full of teams in weird time zones. According to the crowd and TV stats, having our 'stars' involved doesn't seem to offset that.

We only have 100 match day spots in actual pro rugby here anyway, we aren't trying to man a competition of 30 teams. If anything there'd be 20 more spots for up and coming players. And how much money do we save on not having to pay the elite players for the whole year?

Frankly, we are bankrupting ourselves trying to compete with OS markets (and league, occasionally), and we end up overpaying for them. Have any of the big money players earned their money this year? Maybe a couple?

 

[Gnostic]

I don't think they are conflicting at all. As for the Italy test, Italy are ranked outside the top 10 at present are they not. The actual performance and even potential of that side are so far below the Wallabies (as is the player payments schedule) any performance against them must been assessed carefully. To hold out AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) as being still of test quality due to a performance against Italy is very unsafe.

The only 60 capper/s that didn't come back and occupy a Super spot have been Giteau and Mitchell who retired post 2015 IIRC.

 

[southsider]

I'm being dramatic?? You are the one saying that our Super sides would cease to exist. You've provided no evidence to support that. Beale went OS and the Tahs survived. Genia. Pocock. Nau. To'omua. We've lost heaps of wallabies, both stars and marginals, for short and long periods.

Whether or not our 'star power' is earning us a return during the non-test period is pretty questionable. Much of the TV money comes from the tests, and we only play 14 of them a year. How much does Beale get to play each match for the tahs? Is it his and Folau's 'star power' that attracted 12k people to the SFS to watch a finals match on a Saturday night? Scarcely more than their lowest ever crowd of 10k that turned out to watch our stars in 2017?

I don't believe that Super Rugby (or whatever we end up with) would be damaged to the point of destruction if even our top 20 players went OS. Super's problem is that no one gives a shit about it because it's half full of teams in weird time zones. According to the crowd and TV stats, having our 'stars' involved doesn't seem to offset that.

We only have 100 match day spots in actual pro rugby here anyway, we aren't trying to man a competition of 30 teams. If anything there'd be 20 more spots for up and coming players. And how much money do we save on not having to pay the elite players for the whole year?

Frankly, we are bankrupting ourselves trying to compete with OS markets (and league, occasionally), and we end up overpaying for them. Have any of the big money players earned their money this year? Maybe a couple?

How in the world of gods green earth am I supposed to prove that to you, it’s never happened before, it’s an OPINION. And don’t say South Africa, cause you’ll just sound stupid

So theoretically, our best 100 or so players go overseas, you still think that will be to the betterment of Australian rugby? Really? Really really?

You’re looking at this from a purely business perspective, you can’t look at sport and run it exactly the same as any other business, it doesn’t work that way, that’s why so many business minded ceo’s Of sporting organisations have crashed and burned spectacularly

 

[Derpus]

this conversation went south quickly

 

[Lorenzo]

How in the world of gods green earth am I supposed to prove that to you, it’s never happened before, it’s an OPINION. And don’t say South Africa, cause you’ll just sound stupid

So theoretically, our best 100 or so players go overseas, you still think that will be to the betterment of Australian rugby? Really? Really really?

You’re looking at this from a purely business perspective, you can’t look at sport and run it exactly the same as any other business, it doesn’t work that way, that’s why so many business minded ceo’s Of sporting organisations have crashed and burned spectacularly

So you're making up random shit. I suspected. Say something wild and when called on it, shrug and be like I DUNNO, it's just an opinion!

And so you know, rugby survived 98 years of Rugby League professionalism. I am not an amateur era nostalgia enthusiast but this idea that the game would cease to exist in this country in any meaningful way because a couple dozen players went overseas, or even 100, is total nonsense.

 

[dru]

I don't think they are conflicting at all. As for the Italy test, Italy are ranked outside the top 10 at present are they not. The actual performance and even potential of that side are so far below the Wallabies (as is the player payments schedule) any performance against them must been assessed carefully. To hold out AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) as being still of test quality due to a performance against Italy is very unsafe.

The only 60 capper/s that didn't come back and occupy a Super spot have been Giteau and Mitchell who retired post 2015 IIRC.

Italy are ranked 15. No-one would suggest AACs claim was proven in a game against USA - ranked 3 higher than Italy.

 

[southsider]

So you're making up random shit. I suspected. Say something wild and when called on it, shrug and be like I DUNNO, it's just an opinion!

And so you know, rugby survived 98 years of Rugby League professionalism. I am not an amateur era nostalgia enthusiast but this idea that the game would cease to exist in this country in any meaningful way because a couple dozen players went overseas, or even 100, is total nonsense.

Good one hero it’s a forum, they are full of opinions, including yours there’s no fact behind what you’re saying either “oh oh oh but 5 of our wallabies went overseas once so it can work if we lose 50-100” “oh but it worked in South Africa that’s the same as Australia right”

I can’t prove what you’re saying is wrong any more than you can prove what I’m saying is

 

[barbarian]

OK I think this one might have run its course.

 

[Lyall]

I was of the opinion that heading abroad was Te'os' best option when his PR worth in Australia fell through the floor following assault charges and settlement.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but in his defence I'm sure Teo was never charged. The allegations (and the photograph) were at the very least unsubstantiated so there was nothing to be settled. I'm sure Teo then moved out of town to play with the Rabbitoh's for a couple of seasons before heading over to England. As a side note Chris lynne (I'm unsure of the spelling) had a few words to say about this ladies pattern of behaviour (Twitter?) and was sanctioned by either the Queensland or Australian cricket mobs.

Sorry about being so vague but I've had no time to google during my lunch break.

Can we get back to the game?

 

[RugbyReg]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but in his defence I'm sure Teo was never charged. The allegations (and the photograph) were at the very least unsubstantiated so there was nothing to be settled. I'm sure Teo then moved out of town to play with the Rabbitoh's for a couple of seasons before heading over to England. As a side note Chris lynne (I'm unsure of the spelling) had a few words to say about this ladies pattern of behaviour (Twitter?) and was sanctioned by either the Queensland or Australian cricket mobs.

Sorry about being so vague but I've had no time to google during my lunch break.

Can we get back to the game?

preferably not