Australian rugby/RA

[waiopehu oldboy]

Dan Herbert said this on Roar rugby podcast in 2024

Must have seemed like a good idea to the people running RA at the the time but times have changed & so has RA's Wobs selection policy. Even when in place it was about Super Rugby not International level & I would've thought strengthening Super Rugby was & remains just as much in RA's interest as NZR's.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Must have seemed like a good idea to the people running RA at the the time but times have changed & so has RA's Wobs selection policy. Even when in place it was about Super Rugby not International level & I would've thought strengthening Super Rugby was & remains just as much in RA's interest as NZR's.

It was arse about though WOB. Using restrictions on Wallabies selections to strengthen Super Rugby. The aim should have been to strengthen Super Rugby to ensure a better quality Wallabies side. That's where the missing third tier would have been so important. Let's see if they can get SRAus to a level and with sufficient exposure to play that role.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

That's a whole different can of worms though, isn’t it? I was querying the assertion that Wobs selection policy served NZR's interests above RA's & even the "pact" Herbert cites doesn't do that IMO.

 

[Dan54]

Didn't I hear Morgan Turunui on 'Between the Posts' say last week the answer was simple, just pay players enough if you want to keep them in Aus and available for Wallabies?

 

[Sword of Justice]

Didn't I hear Morgan Turunui on 'Between the Posts' say last week the answer was simple, just pay players enough if you want to keep them in Aus and available for Wallabies?

I don’t find the management of income windfalls simple. We have a bit of money from the lions and will get some more from the World Cup but I don’t think the answer is for RA to beat every single offer that every single player receives from now on.

 

[Major Tom]

Didn't I hear Morgan Turunui on 'Between the Posts' say last week the answer was simple, just pay players enough if you want to keep them in Aus and available for Wallabies?

It’s simply not simple though. We’re doing a better job of late with sabbatical style deals but we straight up don’t have the cash to compete with league, and the other rugby comps.

 

[Dan54]

It’s simply not simple though. We’re doing a better job of late with sabbatical style deals but we straight up don’t have the cash to compete with league, and the other rugby comps.

Yep, I not saying I agree with Turunui, just his opinion. I agree it's a problem, RA (or NZR) don't have endless supplies of cash to always keep all players, hell even RFU in England lose players to France and they like NZ don't then pick them. I agree with what you say RA has seemd to adjusted with the sabbatical deals etc, and I feel this a good compromise.
I don't think changing the reg 8 dates is the complete answer and have no idea what is, except for unions to only play in the test window so their players are supposedly available. Though I suspect some of the availability issue at times is players just wanting a rest? So can get a convenient twinge etc (I peeking at Skelton who is one that doesn't seem to be breaking his neck to play in every test he can). I could be wrong , but just have had impression (and could be miles off) that he perhaps picks which tests he wants to play in.