• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Oh that's a really good point. We should make it harder to win. Yep.
Yep ok,I take your point mate, thats always been a thing of mine, but even 1 test a year like it used to be swapping back and forwards would still be better in my opinion.
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Yep ok,I take your point mate, thats always been a thing of mine, but even 1 test a year like it used to be swapping back and forwards would still be better in my opinion.
I agree with that.

6 Nations with Japan n Fiji - one match against the Darkness which doubles as the Bledisloe. Combine that with a three match tour and that's all the rugby i really need to see.

I'm happy to just pretend the tours up north don't happen. Certainly can't watch it.
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
you get a real sense that the Australia New Zealand relationship is fading. Or at least becoming purely transactional.

There was a terrible article written by Christy Doran the other day about McLennan and Kearns traipsing around Europe to secure a game v France.

The real story was the underlying strategy of forming closer allegiances with France and, more specifically, Bernard Laporte. He saved our bacon last year by basically ensuring the French toured when it looked for all money that the tour would be cancelled, which could have been horrendous for RA financially.

With Laporte expected to take over from Bill Beaumont as Chair of WR (World Rugby), it's a handy ally to have
I personally think it pretty much a money thing as you say, NZR have been talking about limiting the number of tests to about 12, and so dropping one of these is a bloody good start. Both countries than can earn a big extra coin by playing a moneymaking test in the likes of Japan etc, or in Aussie's case in France this year?
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I personally think it pretty much a money thing as you say, NZR have been talking about limiting the number of tests to about 12, and so dropping one of these is a bloody good start. Both countries than can earn a big extra coin by playing a moneymaking test in the likes of Japan etc, or in Aussie's case in France this year?
Think about what you are saying. They can't be reducing the number of tests as well as replacing the dropped Bledisloe test with another game? That's not a reduction, then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Tazzmania

Bob Loudon (25)
I wonder if this is not to fit in an All Blacks match in Montpellier in terms of the Altrad sponsorship, and a possible USA game in view of the Silverlakes private equity deal.
 

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
Geez you like playing the victim don't you, it hasn't been cancelled, the agreement ran out in 2021, and wasn't renewed! They have both had the same number of 2 home games you realise don't you?
That’s incorrect.

You’re conveniently forgetting that Australia agreed to a 4th test in 2020 so New Zealand could host 2 home matches.

So in past 3 years, NZRU has hosted 6 Bledisloe Cup matches, Australia has hosted 4. All through a period when both unions were struggling with COVID finance impact.
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Think about what you are saying. They can't be reducing the number of tests as well as replacing the dropped Bledisloe test with another game? That's not a reduction, then.
Yep I am thinking about it, this year ABs played Wales and USA in extra tests , they can keep them by dropping a Bledisloe, same with wallabies and tests against Japan etc. Think about it man!! ;)
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
That’s incorrect.

You’re conveniently forgetting that Australia agreed to a 4th test in 2020 so New Zealand could host 2 home matches.

So in past 3 years, NZRU has hosted 6 Bledisloe Cup matches, Australia has hosted 4. All through a period when both unions were struggling with COVID finance impact.
The agreement was for 10 years so Aus and NZ had the same number of times at hosting 2 tests etc as it was done alternative years. As I said it hasn't been cancelled , NZR and RA has decided not to renew contract, and someone posted that Hamish has been trying to get an extra test against France, getting in too make a profit sharing test to make up for it, and both countries will do same in future.
I think you will find the extra test in 2020 was a share profit exercise because of Covid as neither team were getting money from Bok tests and both were needing money?? It was treated as extra test so profit sharing. Not sure who is having convenient memory loss here my man:rolleyes::rolleyes:
It not making Aus the victim because they stopped it this year, just agreement had run it's course, and I think most think it is a relief, well I haven't heard one person who wants it retained.
I will add I believe NZR were the ones keen on dropping 3rd Bled, as I think they figure they can make more money out of a test outside the test window every year than they can make out of an extra Bled at home every second year.
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
Bit of news overnight:

Regarding Australia's new selection policies, I quite like it.

The amended policy will allow three players to be chosen from overseas per tournament, series, or competition.

Players will be eligible if they have played a minimum of 30 Test caps or have completed a minimum of five years’ service to Australian Rugby.
Good about the five years of Super.

Also RA have appointed 3 new execs:

Following an extensive recruitment process, Rugby Australia has been able to secure the services of highly experienced executives Peter Conde to the role of Chief Performance Officer, Marissa Pace as Chief Marketing Officer and James Durbin as Chief Commercial Officer.

Peter Conde, a former elite sailor who returned to sport in a high-performance role following an extensive business career as a strategy consultant, Peter Conde comes to Rugby Australia following more than a decade working in elite sport as Performance Director of Australian Sailing and the Director and CEO of the Australian Institute of Sport.

Marissa Pace, joins Rugby Australia with extensive knowledge of the sport, having spent the last three years as CMO with World Rugby. She also has more than 15 years’ experience in the sports industry and is an internationally recognised marketing and broadcast executive that has worked in Formula One, NFL, NASCAR and the PGA.

James Durbin joins Rugby Australia with 20 years’ experience in the sports industry, most recently as CEO of Madison Sports Group in London, UK. Having commenced his career in Australia in Rugby, firstly with NSW Suburban Rugby Union and then as the General Manager of Eastwood Rugby Union, James then moved to the UK, where he has worked as Commercial Director with the London Irish and as CEO of Powerboat P1 and Madison Sports Group.
 

Bandar

Bob Loudon (25)
3 is not many for a full squad - I would prefer 5.

I quite like the 5 years service and the being signed for next season but would also like the ability to pick someone from anywhere if they're eligible, but only continue to pick them if they sign the next contract in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (the way the Welsh operate)

Also can we pick someone playing in any of the SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) teams?
 

Marce

John Hipwell (52)

Good article about the impact of the changes made over night.
The law makes no sense to me. The head coach has to be free to choose as many overseas players as he wants, knowing that the fewer call up, better for Super Rugby

I mean for the test in June against Poms if I'm the coach I would pick 4 overseas players: Kerevi, QC (Quade Cooper), Koroibete and a second row. If you call 3 or 4 players is not a big impact against Super Rugby but if you limit the ideas of your head coach, is an issue.

In this case, you are forcing your coach to leave out QC (Quade Cooper), kerevi, Koroibete or Arnold, important players for this team.
 
Last edited:

Bandar

Bob Loudon (25)
Surely for a word cup it’s a free for all
Apparently not - it blows my mind we could have the 4 highest paid players in the world but only pick 3 of them.

Next world cup will include only 3 of Arnold, Skelton, McMahon, Kerevi, Koroibete, Latu, Cooper, Paenga-Amosa who were in our best squad last season.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I feel like there is a strong chance this gets amended again before the RWC to potentially increase selection options.

It seems fine to me. I don't think you want too many foreign based players when you're not going to be able to have them in camp for long before the tests.
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
I’m fine with this. I think Koroibete is a must. Whack Kerevi & Quade with him. We can replace Arnold/Skelton with Rodda, Philip, Swain etc. There is a step down but nothing like the one for the backs.
 

Members Section

John Thornett (49)
I’m fine with this. I think Koroibete is a must. Whack Kerevi & Quade with him. We can replace Arnold/Skelton with Rodda, Philip, Swain etc. There is a step down but nothing like the one for the backs.

To win a world cup I think Arnold is almost the most important, Philip is a great work man but the gap between him & Arnold is just too large.

If it were to stay at 3 players here's hoping we find a 10 in the next 18 months so we can go Arnold, Marika & Kerevi. Or pull the old Nic White trick & sign Kerevi or Quade on a futures contract for a season.
 
Top