Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
There should be an exhibition in a rugby museum entitled "How to Tackle" and just have it play Fainga'a tackles all day.
It's Goodbye for the Fainga'a Twins
- Thread starter matty_k
- Start date
- Status
I agree, except they might want to edit out that nasty one against the USA (??) where he got knocked out cold, which was sickening. Ant is a very good tackler, no doubt.
Cat_A
Arch Winning (36)
I agree with your estimation of them as players Cyclo. I'm more befuddled by the fact that the ARU have them in this position in the first place.
I mean, 26 contract top-ups - Elsom and Vickerman both got top ups and their recent availability could be described as tenuous at best, which brings the available contracted players to 24. Quade has a top-up, and although he should be back, there's no guarantees when you're coming back from an injury, and there's also no guarantee he'll be in form straight away to justify selection. This means that there is a match-day 22 and 1 spare. Makes predicting the match-day 22 bloody easy - which one's injured?
Given the amount of cost-cutting that has gone on, can we really expect that players will be picked on form? If we use Mike Harris as an example: by June, let's assume he has a goalkicking percentage of 98%, he's playing the house down, and is undoubtedly the form 10 in the comp. If the ARU are so pressed for cash that they've had to cut/outsource development, the rugby Academies for the franchises etc etc etc, can we really expect them to pick him anyway? Put another way: why pay him $10K match fee (or whatever it is) when they've already paid for, say, Barnes? Why pay umm... Hand when they've already paid for another prop? I'd love to think I was just being overly cynical, but the huge raft of cost-cutting measures we've seen in the past 12 months have me nervous.
What is the point, if you are going to restrict your contracts to 26, of all the marquee rules for the Aus-based franchises anyway? I thought the point of the marquee stuff was to ensure more players who could play for Australia were available in Australian franchises but it looks like even if they are, stiff shit, there's no room for you.
* I don't mean anything against any of the players mentioned here, they are simply for example purposes!!
I mean, 26 contract top-ups - Elsom and Vickerman both got top ups and their recent availability could be described as tenuous at best, which brings the available contracted players to 24. Quade has a top-up, and although he should be back, there's no guarantees when you're coming back from an injury, and there's also no guarantee he'll be in form straight away to justify selection. This means that there is a match-day 22 and 1 spare. Makes predicting the match-day 22 bloody easy - which one's injured?
Given the amount of cost-cutting that has gone on, can we really expect that players will be picked on form? If we use Mike Harris as an example: by June, let's assume he has a goalkicking percentage of 98%, he's playing the house down, and is undoubtedly the form 10 in the comp. If the ARU are so pressed for cash that they've had to cut/outsource development, the rugby Academies for the franchises etc etc etc, can we really expect them to pick him anyway? Put another way: why pay him $10K match fee (or whatever it is) when they've already paid for, say, Barnes? Why pay umm... Hand when they've already paid for another prop? I'd love to think I was just being overly cynical, but the huge raft of cost-cutting measures we've seen in the past 12 months have me nervous.
What is the point, if you are going to restrict your contracts to 26, of all the marquee rules for the Aus-based franchises anyway? I thought the point of the marquee stuff was to ensure more players who could play for Australia were available in Australian franchises but it looks like even if they are, stiff shit, there's no room for you.
* I don't mean anything against any of the players mentioned here, they are simply for example purposes!!
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
They get their match feee on top - dont they?
Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
I don't think it's possible to be overly cynical where the ARU are concerned Cat.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
26 does not seem like enough to cover all of the "more important" spots in the team where you have to be a specialist to play the game, eg prop or hooker. Surely you need to ensure you have backups available to be picked (S15 contract) or the rules will need to be changed to allow for foreign based players to be selected.
I would imagine that at a minimum you need at least 4 hookers and 6-8 Props at a minimum which does not leave many others to get a contract or you need to clone JOC (James O'Connor) and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to have about 10 backline players who can play anywhere.
I think 30 is a minimum number to be contracted with top-ups we cant afford for our replacement player look overseas for money
T
TOCC
Guest
26 definitely isn't enough, especially when you factor in the injury habits of some of those who would be considered in the top 26..
redstragic
Alan Cameron (40)
I don't get it. The reds are going to pull in 30k + all season, they have tonnes of new sponsors. They should be making bank. I hate that we can't pay the players without fear of breaking a stupid ARU imposed salary cap. Where does any the excess money go?
Blokes like Ant and Saia are a big part of the heart and soul of this team and we could lose them not because they want to go but because of self imposed restrictions.
Goddess
Stan Wickham (3)
That boy made my daughter's day/week/month/year with that simple act. The majority of Reds players seem to cut from the same cloth, too. Taps, Gilly & Albert always come over after games & have a chat. There's not a single gram of conceit in any of them. Digby & Quade could learn a thing or two from those boys.
Bowside
Peter Johnson (47)
From my experience Quade and Diggers are both pretty humble and nice guys in real life. Quade has grown up a lot since he first started with the reds.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
these are the players the rebels should be using there extra cash to buy and build around. dont know how especially if there okay with being split up at least one of them doesnt have an offer from the deep south.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I'd say the excess will be going to paying the ARU's loan back.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I'd add Horwill to that list. The humility he displays filters down through the team.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I think we are concentrating too much on this 26 figure. The 26 top ups is just players the ARU believe are guaranteed of being in the wallabies, or be able to market well, providing they are fit.
Unfortunately, both Fa'aingas don't quite fit into that category. Vickerman and Elsom do (at this stage).
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
As much as I am a fan of Vickers & Rock - I would have actually said the twins would have better marketability. But then I have been accused of being a one eyed Reds fan.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
It's the nature of Super Rugby though in my opinion that there are alot of one eyed fans who don't watch other teams during the comp other than there own. The twins are valuable to QLD, Rocky to NSW etc. I'm nit sure they cross over to Australian wide markability.
Irwin she interesting to know from an ARu perspective if they actually have a ranking system based on marketing.
Goddess
Stan Wickham (3)
Totally agree- damned good bloke and a great leader.
- Status