Here is an opinion on Aussie rugby
- Thread starter FrankLind
- Start date
- Status
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Matt Burke? Is that you??
Swing and a miss.
I indicated that his opinion was worth little. Matt Burke would have disputed his right to hold an opinion at all.
Roundawhile
Billy Sheehan (19)
The only problem I see with OS players is the amount of cash required to get them here.
I would prefer to see three up and coming Aussies developed with the cash paid to OS stars.
The more marque players you pay, the less Cummins, Gill and Hoopers you will have coming through.
I would prefer to see three up and coming Aussies developed with the cash paid to OS stars.
The more marque players you pay, the less Cummins, Gill and Hoopers you will have coming through.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
They don't have to be marquee in that sense. They could be outer fringe players rep players in Argentina, where they would be unlikely to earn anything as I understand the game is still amateur over there.
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
Not sure i agree with that. There are plenty of players out there that would kill to live and play in Aus. I moved back from London for the same reason. Sure i get paid less in Aus, but the lifestyle is better and I still earn decent money.
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Um do you have to be successful in S15 to have an opinion now BPC, christ you'll be ignoring evryone's opinion on here then won't ya??
It's the golden rule of rugby journalism as expounded by the renowned commentator, Matt Burke.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Bob Dwyer never amounted to much as a player, in terms of representing his State and Country.
His opinion is therefore worthless under BPC and Matt Burke criteria?
His opinion is therefore worthless under BPC and Matt Burke criteria?
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Blame Matt Burke not me. I am just a slavishly devoted follower.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
I remember commenting in some forum in 2004 about the new franchise coming in and Oz having 4 teams instead of 3. I said it would dilute the results of the existing teams because they would lose players to the new team but it was worthwhile because it would add 33% more professional players to the national pool to be selected from and reduce the loss of players going off shore.
Some players would come to notice by the national selectors because they were getting game time and not sitting on the bench; some could get on the park for a new team yet may not even get in an existing squad. Whatever, they would come to notice sooner.
When the 5th team was talked about I said I would rather have the 2007 ARC back, every day of the week, than a 5th team, but if we couldn't get that and SANZAR voted Oz to get the new team, I was all for it.
Sure, it would dilute Oz Super results even more, but if SANZAR helped us to get a quasi national competition going and gave us a chance to increase our pro player pool by 25% (we didn't know about the dispensation to use more foreign players then) I was all for it.
But that was it: we wouldn't need more than 5 even if the comp expanded.
I still think 5 teams is better than 4 and if our Super results, and therefore our market presence, especially in Sydney, has been affected, too bad. [Though I don't think the extra team has been responsible for Waratahs' results.]
If we are not going to get another ARC, what we have to do is to populate Junior and Colts rugby with more players and as the better ones get to Grade there will be more cream for the Super teams.
.
Some players would come to notice by the national selectors because they were getting game time and not sitting on the bench; some could get on the park for a new team yet may not even get in an existing squad. Whatever, they would come to notice sooner.
When the 5th team was talked about I said I would rather have the 2007 ARC back, every day of the week, than a 5th team, but if we couldn't get that and SANZAR voted Oz to get the new team, I was all for it.
Sure, it would dilute Oz Super results even more, but if SANZAR helped us to get a quasi national competition going and gave us a chance to increase our pro player pool by 25% (we didn't know about the dispensation to use more foreign players then) I was all for it.
But that was it: we wouldn't need more than 5 even if the comp expanded.
I still think 5 teams is better than 4 and if our Super results, and therefore our market presence, especially in Sydney, has been affected, too bad. [Though I don't think the extra team has been responsible for Waratahs' results.]
If we are not going to get another ARC, what we have to do is to populate Junior and Colts rugby with more players and as the better ones get to Grade there will be more cream for the Super teams.
.
- Status