Australian Rugby / RA

[LeCheese]

And they certainly wouldn't know anything about opposition teams from different comps

Absolutely - I just had to google the SS teams.

I do note that SS is somewhat more geographically dispersed than QPR, making drawing those allegiances a touch easier - but it still does nothing to represent fans from outside of those areas, as a state-based team would do.

 

[Dctarget]

Great article by Paul Cully

Australia is being treated like a free rugby nursery

As many as a third of the British and Irish Lions squad that tours Australia next year could have learned their trade outside of the Home Nations.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Derpus]

Great article by Paul Cully

Australia is being treated like a free rugby nursery

As many as a third of the British and Irish Lions squad that tours Australia next year could have learned their trade outside of the Home Nations.

www.smh.com.au

Its a resourcing issue we can likely never win. Arguably a transfer fee typed arrangement could help (though there are significant barriers to this - not least the home nations themselves).

But it seems the Home Nations, who hold the majority of the wealth and power in world rugby, are happy to devalue test rugby as whole in favour of short term individual gains. Not much we can do about it and we have even less sway now that South Africa increasingly align with the northern nations.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Great article by Paul Cully

Australia is being treated like a free rugby nursery

As many as a third of the British and Irish Lions squad that tours Australia next year could have learned their trade outside of the Home Nations.

www.smh.com.au

Yep, he hit the nail on the head. All this talk about not producing enough cattle I think is off base. Clearly other nations think pretty highly of our blokes, otherwise they wouldn't be nicking them!

It's a bit like the business I work for, a small technology consultancy with a group of super high calibre people. The big corporates with their seemingly limitless budgets have picked off a few of our best and brightest in the last 12 months because we can't compete on the money side. Our culture shits all over theirs and we're better to work for, but that doesn't pay someone's mortgage.

 

[Tomikin]

Without having thought about it too much I think alongside the under 16/19s is pretty good timing.

Super Rugby finishes, players go back to club rugby for the back end of the season and finals and then you run this comp (which is presumably only for a month or so). That way it's clearly an add on rather than taking away from something else (pro players getting to play some games in club rugby).

Or maybe it's good to keep club rugby clean and not change dynamics by adding pros back.

 

[LeCheese]

Great article by Paul Cully

Australia is being treated like a free rugby nursery

As many as a third of the British and Irish Lions squad that tours Australia next year could have learned their trade outside of the Home Nations.

www.smh.com.au

Of course, as soon as this subject is raised the familiar riposte of the Wallabies and All Blacks “pillaging” the Pacific Islands comes up. But if this principle was actually held dear by those in the north, their ire would be focused on Japan and not Australia or New Zealand.
Of Eddie Jones’ starting XV to face the All Blacks on Saturday, eight come from Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Fiji and Samoa.

This dismissal and deflection feels pretty disingenuous.

Australia and NZ have been benefitting from the pacific nations, bringing players over at a young age through scholarships etc. in a manner not dissimilar to Japan - but as soon as other nations start doing the same (and Aus/NZ somewhat lose their appeal) it suddenly becomes an issue?

Funny that Cully mentions Japan have eight internationals this week. Here's an excerpt from a blog post I found from 2014

By 1999, there were six players in the All Black squad with Pacific Islands heritage; in 2003, it was nine, and in 2007, it was 11. In 2011 there were eight, but the Pacific influence was enormous across the World Cup. There were seven players of Polynesian or Melansesian heritage in the Australian team; seven in the US team; three in the Japanese team and there was Tuilagi playing for England and Faletau for Wales. There were 120 players at the World Cup who were either born in the Islands or considered themselves Pacific Islanders: that’s 20 per cent of all the players drawn from three tiny island nations whose combined population is barely a million.

 

[Braveheart81]

Or maybe it's good to keep club rugby clean and not change dynamics by adding pros back.

Do you think club rugby would be improved by less involvement from professional players than there is now?

I can't imagine the clubs nor the players would be keen for this.

 

[Wallaby Man]

This dismissal and deflection feels pretty disingenuous.

Australia and NZ have been benefitting from the pacific nations, bringing players over at a young age through scholarships etc. in a manner not dissimilar to Japan - but as soon as other nations start doing the same (and Aus/NZ somewhat lose their appeal) it suddenly becomes an issue?

Funny that Cully mentions Japan have eight internationals this week. Here's an excerpt from a blog post I found from 2014

That’s heritage tho. I’m someone of Maori heritage but I’m not a kiwi. Kiwis have been pretty good with the islander thing, considering they have the most Tongans and Samoans in the world living in the country. Really haven’t had many squads outside 1-2 born in the islands. Prob more born in Aus atm than the islands.

 

[Tomikin]

Do you think club rugby would be improved by less involvement from professional players than there is now?

I can't imagine the clubs nor the players would be keen for this.

No but do you believe throwing them in at the final 3 games and finals makes it better ?

 

[Braveheart81]

No but do you believe throwing them in at the final 3 games and finals makes it better ?

Yeah, I do. I think we want our best players playing in as many games as possible. They raise the standard and the level of interest.

I also think the primary driver of this is adding more good quality games for our better players. Removing them from club rugby and getting them to play different games during that period defeats half the purpose, particularly when we have months of what is essentially still viable as "rugby season" with no games for these players to play.

 

[LeCheese]

That’s heritage tho. I’m someone of Maori heritage but I’m not a kiwi. Kiwis have been pretty good with the islander thing, considering they have the most Tongans and Samoans in the world living in the country. Really haven’t had many squads outside 1-2 born in the islands. Prob more born in Aus atm than the islands.

Fair point, not apples-to-apples. After a quick look, though, the current ABs squad has 4 players born in the islands and 2 born in Aus. Similarly, the Wobs squad has 4 born in the islands, 4 in NZ, and 1 the UK.

I note that place of birth doesn't always reflect in their 'pathway', but poaching from other nations is hardly something constrained to the northern hemisphere.

 

[Strewthcobber]

This dismissal and deflection feels pretty disingenuous.

Australia and NZ have been benefitting from the pacific nations, bringing players over at a young age through scholarships etc. in a manner not dissimilar to Japan - but as soon as other nations start doing the same (and Aus/NZ somewhat lose their appeal) it suddenly becomes an issue?

I reckon you are missing Cully's point here. It's not the players born overseas, or with heritage that are the issue being raised, it's the ones who were developed here, who played age group levels and had Super Rugby development contracts. All of the cost is paid by one nation, and then the other gets the professional-level payout.

I agree we aren't cleanskins here either

 

[LeCheese]

I reckon you are missing Cully's point here. It's not the players born overseas, or with heritage that are the issue being raised, it's the ones who were developed here, who played age group levels and had Super Rugby development contracts. All of the cost is paid by one nation, and then the other gets the professional-level payout.

I agree we aren't cleanskins here either

Fair enough, I had somewhat missed the point - the Tom Lynaghs of the world. As you say, we aren't innocent - but certainly not as common as in some of the nations Cully mentions.

 

[Dan54]

Fair point, not apples-to-apples. After a quick look, though, the current ABs squad has 4 players born in the islands and 2 born in Aus. Similarly, the Wobs squad has 4 born in the islands, 4 in NZ, and 1 the UK.

I note that place of birth doesn't always reflect in their 'pathway', but poaching from other nations is hardly something constrained to the northern hemisphere.

By the same token you could find Samoa and Tonga have quite a few born in NZ, and more and more in Aus. Alway has been a thing and probably always will be. I think we have it as tidy as we can now, and probably still harder than most sports!

 

[Strewthcobber]

Fair enough, I had somewhat missed the point - the Tom Lynaghs of the world. As you say, we aren't innocent - but certainly not as common as in some of the nations Cully mentions.

Among many others, Lynagh, Seru Uru, Daugunu, Korobiete and Vunivalu depending on your view. Tupou gets a pass due to age

 

[Tomikin]

Yeah, I do. I think we want our best players playing in as many games as possible. They raise the standard and the level of interest.

I also think the primary driver of this is adding more good quality games for our better players. Removing them from club rugby and getting them to play different games during that period defeats half the purpose, particularly when we have months of what is essentially still viable as "rugby season" with no games for these players to play.

I would think a longer season of Super AU might be better , But I'm easy, as I don't and never will watch club rugby.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I used to get worked up about the NH accusations of poaching by Oz and NZ until I looked into it further. A lot of these lads come here as kids with their families in search of economic opportunity and they play all through our school/age group systems. What are we supposed to do, not pick them for rep teams? And a lot of lads of PI heritage are actually born here. They're Australians, damnit!

 

[Ignoto]

Australia and NZ have been benefitting from the pacific nations, bringing players over at a young age through scholarships etc. in a manner not dissimilar to Japan - but as soon as other nations start doing the same (and Aus/NZ somewhat lose their appeal) it suddenly becomes an issue?

I agree with us not really being in a good position to complain.

Many may point to the PI component to make their case, but, I don't really see that being the problem as most of the time, these players have been living in Australia for multiple years before being qualified.

Whereas, the Home Nations rely on Grandparents lineage to allow them to instantly recruit and pick without any form of "waiting period".

If anyone wants to have a go at Australia, the better examples are the Dan Vickermans and the Clyde Rathbonne examples.

Taniela would be close, but you could make an argument that its not the same as he spent several years at the Reds before being made a Wallaby.

 

[Dctarget]

Australia is a net receiver of migrants from its surrounding areas. Checks out that we have 30% foreign born that match Australia's 30% foreign population.

No one fkn moves to Scotland willingly unless there's some serious skullduggery going on.

 

[Derpus]

Australia is a net receiver of migrants from its surrounding areas. Checks out that we have 30% foreign born that match Australia's 30% foreign population.

No one fkn moves to Ireland or Britain willingly unless there's some serious skullduggery going on.

FIFY