Bledisloe IV 2010 Hong Kong

[en_force_er]

The very short term gain (which is arguable IMO) is far outweighed by the potential damaged such a precedent would set. Be in no doubt that with the Euros on offer for players like Cooper, Elsom, Fatcat, TPN, Moore etc they would all most likely leave and demand that the ARU select/consider them in Wallaby teams and have legal precedent for it.

Not to side track the thread but there has not been a player return from the NH better or even as good as when they left (except maybe Carter and he played what two games before he had the injury forced holiday). Sorry Smith is gone and if he wanted to come back to Wallabies he would have to play Super Rugby again. IMO I don't think Vickerman should be elligible either as they should have to PLAY a whole season to meet the criteria, for the same reason I was against Elsom returning in in all honesty he hasn't been a shadow of his form before he left.

That is why I said make a concession.

Concessions are a concession for a reason, they are not the norm. In Australia Rocky was given a concession and in NZ both McAlister and Carter were given concessions. So far this has not shown any negative impact on the game. Obviously, as I state, this would only be made in the most dire of circumstances as a fall back plan.

Also several older players have come back from the North better for the experience. As far as basic positional skill execution (passing, kicking, scrumming, line-out) and northerners thrive on it. Yes they mightn't be as explosive but they can do the job. The examples I can think of off the top of my head are Van the man and Cordingley (the first time he returned).

 

[DPK]

I would rather the concession be that we have a less skilled openside than breaking the home soil players only rule.

 

[Gnostic]

That is why I said make a concession.

Concessions are a concession for a reason, they are not the norm. In Australia Rocky was given a concession and in NZ both McAlister and Carter were given concessions. So far this has not shown any negative impact on the game. Obviously, as I state, this would only be made in the most dire of circumstances as a fall back plan.

Also several older players have come back from the North better for the experience. As far as basic positional skill execution (passing, kicking, scrumming, line-out) and northerners thrive on it. Yes they mightn't be as explosive but they can do the job. The examples I can think of off the top of my head are Van the man and Cordingley (the first time he returned).

Thats just not correct. Elsom did not get any concessions. He wanted it, he asked for it and challenged the ARU on its overseas player stance. He wanted to stay in Ireland and play for the Wallabies and was refused. He then had to sign for a S14 team before he was elligible for the Wallabies and there was the tussle for his signature between the Tahs and the Ponies. No concession was made. NZRU can do what they want but the McAlister and Carter examples you used are flawed like the Elsom one as Carter went as part of his contract (he negotiated the sabatical release) and McAlsiter was pretty much the same as Elsom.

My argument is that just signing for a S14 team is not good enough. They should have to play the season IMO to be considered and hence why IMO Vickerman should not be considered, even if he shows any level of match fitness.

As for your examples on Cordingly and Van being better, very debatable. Van maybe, but I think his improvement is more in the line of consistancy in performance where as before he was very hit and miss in a lot of games.

Cordingly is no better than when he went away, no worse (except older like the rest of us with its problems). He wasn't an international standard 9 when he left and he still isn't. He is a good S14 level half with a good pass.

 

[Bullrush]

I'd have to agree with Konze.

If Smith was going to come back and commit to Australian Rugby as did McAllister and Elsom then I don't think there would be a problem. If you wre to pick him though and he was still committed to French rugby - no way.

 

[Reddy!]

So how 'bout that game this weekend!!!?

 

[matty_k]

There's a game going on?

Any event it should be good. (hopefully)

 

[DPK]

So how 'bout that game this weekend!!!?

Who woulda thought Reddy would be our rudder; nicely done, though!

Let's do some percentages. Out of 100%, how sure are you the Wallabies will win on the weekend? 100% being "They will definitely win" and 0% being "They will definitely lose".

At the moment, I'm at about 60%. I think the Wallabies have the edge to win this one, but damn the AB's are in some fantastic form the year. They'll be hard to beat anywhere.

 

[en_force_er]

Thats just not correct. Elsom did not get any concessions. He wanted it, he asked for it and challenged the ARU on its overseas player stance. He wanted to stay in Ireland and play for the Wallabies and was refused. He then had to sign for a S14 team before he was elligible for the Wallabies and there was the tussle for his signature between the Tahs and the Ponies. No concession was made. NZRU can do what they want but the McAlister and Carter examples you used are flawed like the Elsom one as Carter went as part of his contract (he negotiated the sabatical release) and McAlsiter was pretty much the same as Elsom.

My argument is that just signing for a S14 team is not good enough. They should have to play the season IMO to be considered and hence why IMO Vickerman should not be considered, even if he shows any level of match fitness.

As for your examples on Cordingly and Van being better, very debatable. Van maybe, but I think his improvement is more in the line of consistancy in performance where as before he was very hit and miss in a lot of games.

Cordingly is no better than when he went away, no worse (except older like the rest of us with its problems). He wasn't an international standard 9 when he left and he still isn't. He is a good S14 level half with a good pass.

So a sabbatical is not a concession on the normal contractual agreements?

It obviously is and it didn't ruin Aussie or Kiwi rugby in any sense of the word. The theoretical concession that would have to take place to have Georgie play is a different one but I just don't think making a potentially necessary concession for a particularly long servant of Australian rugby would be a big deal.

ANYWAY, it's pretty irrelevant and I meant it as a side note as it is very unlikely that it will need to happen.

 

[Richo]

Nah GG thinks Mitchell will start instead of Davies. A sensible move IMO, think throwing Davies into a Bledisloe (albeit an HK one) is a bit much considering he has just returned from a reasonably long stint on the sidelines.

I more meant that Grumbles thought Davies would come off the bench... which suggests Turner might not have a place. Should have been more clear.

 

[WB3]

Who woulda thought Reddy would be our rudder; nicely done, though!

Let's do some percentages. Out of 100%, how sure are you the Wallabies will win on the weekend? 100% being "They will definitely win" and 0% being "They will definitely lose".

At the moment, I'm at about 60%. I think the Wallabies have the edge to win this one, but damn the AB's are in some fantastic form the year. They'll be hard to beat anywhere.

45%.
It is within their grasp, but they have to play out of their socks and close out. Have they delayed announcing the team like the ABs have?

 

[Crow]

45%.
It is within their grasp, but they have to play out of their socks and close out. Have they delayed announcing the team like the ABs have?

I agree with this. I don't see any team beating the AB, except the AB themselves.

 

[Ruggo]

Rocky came back, walked straight into the tri nations squad then was made captain for the EOY tour. Any moral stance was blown out of the water then. It should of gone more like welcome back Rocky, now go and play for your club and push your claim for EOY tour selection. Alternativly, take the rest of the year away from rugby, refresh and rejoin Australian Rugby in the 2010 Super 14. Rocky played the hand he was given but the ARU ballsed this up. George Smith has contributed far more to Australian Rugby than Rocky and if anybody deserve a bit of concession it would have to be George Smith.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'd say we're at about 60%. Each game we've managed to get closer and probably should have won in Sydney. We are no chance in the RWC next year if we can't beat these blokes.

 

[Searsy]

I'm 100% sure the Wallabies will win......... as long as they score more points than them....

 

[TOCC]

So a sabbatical is not a concession on the normal contractual agreements?

It obviously is and it didn't ruin Aussie or Kiwi rugby in any sense of the word. The theoretical concession that would have to take place to have Georgie play is a different one but I just don't think making a potentially necessary concession for a particularly long servant of Australian rugby would be a big deal.

ANYWAY, it's pretty irrelevant and I meant it as a side note as it is very unlikely that it will need to happen.

I don't see what the issue is, Rocky went overseas for a year and then came back, it's significantly different to what your proposing with George Smith, the only concession Rocky received was that we was released from his ARU contract a few months early so he could get over to Europe for the start of there season.

Earlier this year the QRU wanted to sign Hugh McMenimen for the first half of the 2010 season, the ARU said no, ironically enough, if it weren't for the ARU putting there foot down, it's unlikely we would have seen the development in Scott Higginbotham that we have seen.

 

[Ruggo]

MMM would have broken down again and Higgers would have got the chance. Higgers would probably see more opportunity without the Wallaby captain occupying the 6 jersey he is contesting.

Do the Wallabies have a official VC?

 

[en_force_er]

I don't see what the issue is, Rocky went overseas for a year and then came back, it's significantly different to what your proposing with George Smith, the only concession Rocky received was that we was released from his ARU contract a few months early so he could get over to Europe for the start of there season.

Earlier this year the QRU wanted to sign Hugh McMenimen for the first half of the 2010 season, the ARU said no, ironically enough, if it weren't for the ARU putting there foot down, it's unlikely we would have seen the development in Scott Higginbotham that we have seen.

It's a different concession but still a concession. No Australian playing has been aloud to do what Rocky did. Thus he was a concession.

The McMenimen situation is quite different to the Rocky situation and not particularly relevant, however I'm pretty sure that was more to cover Horwill then anything. Perhaps Samo would not have reemerged.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Bullrush]

Rocky came back, walked straight into the tri nations squad then was made captain for the EOY tour. Any moral stance was blown out of the water then. It should of gone more like welcome back Rocky, now go and play for your club and push your claim for EOY tour selection. Alternativly, take the rest of the year away from rugby, refresh and rejoin Australian Rugby in the 2010 Super 14. Rocky played the hand he was given but the ARU ballsed this up. George Smith has contributed far more to Australian Rugby than Rocky and if anybody deserve a bit of concession it would have to be George Smith.

If a player has committed to the ARU then what's the problem with selecting them - if they are the best player in their position?

I don't agree with selecting player who are committed to playing overseas but if they have signed to play in Australia AND they are best pick.....I'd select them all day.

 

[en_force_er]

sorry, double post.

 

[Richo]

I'm 40% sure the Wallabies will win on the weekend. I'm looking forward to this EOYT and think we'll see some positive development in the side and putting us in a good position for the next year.