Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
The right for Melbourne to use several foreign players is a good idea and is one that yours truly and others mooted 5 years ago for the new 4th team, before we knew it would be in Perth, and more recently for the 5th team even before we knew it was going to be in Australia for sure.
It didn't happen for the 4th team - and the Reds paid the price, something nobody predicted at the time, because, if we thought about it at all, we supposed that the 3 existing teams would lose them pro-rata, more or less.
But the dispensation for the 5th team makes sense.
As I have mentioned before: we went beyond the tipping point of diminishing returns when we got the Force team. We couldn't keep up the standard of the existing teams, never that high, with the additional team drawing good players from a limited supply.
We weren't that concerned because we always knew that the digestion of a new Super team was going to be difficult. Not to worry - the new semi-pro national competition would build up a pool of semi-pro players and the 4 Super clubs could do some shopping to build up the quality.
Instead, the ARC lasted only one year and as soon as that setback happened we noticed that the the rate of defections offshore was increasing. Instead of a supply of the best ARC players re-building the quality over 3-4 years, a paltry amount of new good players was being used annually to plug the holes caused by players departing. Some potential new players went offshore themselves without a Super14 CV.
We noticed the 4 Super teams fighting to recruit players whilst they were still in school, as a band-aid, and often using them to start in Super14 games against seasoned men a couple of months after leaving. Whilst this was not unprecedented, the use of schoolboys from the previous year became too frequent.
So: the dispensation that the Melbourne team can use up to 10 overseas players is a good idea - with one provisio - that the Mitchell consortium can afford it. Then with a return of about 5 good Aussie players and the same amount of average ones (not necessarily all going to the new team but some going to existing teams to replace players lost to Melbourne) the new team will be a lot better prepared for the transition. There should be some more Aussie players returning for the 2012 season as they become available.
As well as players returning we should see by 2013 the effect of a couple of years of accumulated decisions of players not to go overseas in the first place. The replacements for the staggered departures of the 10 foreign players should become feasible, on paper. Should.
The expected return, and holding, of Oz players may appear to be over hopeful, but it should be helped by some tightening by European rugby unions.
French rugby has already put in place a scheme to, in effect, reduce the amount of foreigners on the payrolls of French clubs and they have also mentioned a salary cap which would slant recruitment to their own young players anyway. They won't be recruiting so many Oz players and many other "Brit" players with be leaving France also as their contracts expire, to play for a club in their own union. This means that there won't be so much room in the GP and ML clubs for Oz players, or other foreigners, either.
So - the rate of losing players offshore should shrink. Should, again.
Long term though we have to get the ARC back on track. As a short term fix we have to revamp the Sydney and Brisbane competitions so that the best teams are playing other best teams twice as often and the weaker teams are striving for promotion.
[PS - cue people hear to comment that we shouldn't have wanted a 5th team. The point is valid as it was when the 4th team was being discussed on the other forum from 2002 to 2004. But that is water under the bridge; we will have a 5th team. The choice between wanting to keep the Oz standard as high as possible by not having a 5th team - and the alternative of wanting the 5th team and the 20 domestic games it would generate as a surrogate domestic comp - is best discussed on a separate thread.]
*****
As for Gasnier playing 12 against Montpelier recently - it was good to see him there. He did OK and drew his man well after creating breaks, but some of the Top14 teams were playing 3 games in 8 days and many players were rested. It was by no means the best SF team and it served them right because they lost; so I wonder how many chances Gaz will get in the midfield.
It didn't happen for the 4th team - and the Reds paid the price, something nobody predicted at the time, because, if we thought about it at all, we supposed that the 3 existing teams would lose them pro-rata, more or less.
But the dispensation for the 5th team makes sense.
As I have mentioned before: we went beyond the tipping point of diminishing returns when we got the Force team. We couldn't keep up the standard of the existing teams, never that high, with the additional team drawing good players from a limited supply.
We weren't that concerned because we always knew that the digestion of a new Super team was going to be difficult. Not to worry - the new semi-pro national competition would build up a pool of semi-pro players and the 4 Super clubs could do some shopping to build up the quality.
Instead, the ARC lasted only one year and as soon as that setback happened we noticed that the the rate of defections offshore was increasing. Instead of a supply of the best ARC players re-building the quality over 3-4 years, a paltry amount of new good players was being used annually to plug the holes caused by players departing. Some potential new players went offshore themselves without a Super14 CV.
We noticed the 4 Super teams fighting to recruit players whilst they were still in school, as a band-aid, and often using them to start in Super14 games against seasoned men a couple of months after leaving. Whilst this was not unprecedented, the use of schoolboys from the previous year became too frequent.
So: the dispensation that the Melbourne team can use up to 10 overseas players is a good idea - with one provisio - that the Mitchell consortium can afford it. Then with a return of about 5 good Aussie players and the same amount of average ones (not necessarily all going to the new team but some going to existing teams to replace players lost to Melbourne) the new team will be a lot better prepared for the transition. There should be some more Aussie players returning for the 2012 season as they become available.
As well as players returning we should see by 2013 the effect of a couple of years of accumulated decisions of players not to go overseas in the first place. The replacements for the staggered departures of the 10 foreign players should become feasible, on paper. Should.
The expected return, and holding, of Oz players may appear to be over hopeful, but it should be helped by some tightening by European rugby unions.
French rugby has already put in place a scheme to, in effect, reduce the amount of foreigners on the payrolls of French clubs and they have also mentioned a salary cap which would slant recruitment to their own young players anyway. They won't be recruiting so many Oz players and many other "Brit" players with be leaving France also as their contracts expire, to play for a club in their own union. This means that there won't be so much room in the GP and ML clubs for Oz players, or other foreigners, either.
So - the rate of losing players offshore should shrink. Should, again.
Long term though we have to get the ARC back on track. As a short term fix we have to revamp the Sydney and Brisbane competitions so that the best teams are playing other best teams twice as often and the weaker teams are striving for promotion.
[PS - cue people hear to comment that we shouldn't have wanted a 5th team. The point is valid as it was when the 4th team was being discussed on the other forum from 2002 to 2004. But that is water under the bridge; we will have a 5th team. The choice between wanting to keep the Oz standard as high as possible by not having a 5th team - and the alternative of wanting the 5th team and the 20 domestic games it would generate as a surrogate domestic comp - is best discussed on a separate thread.]
*****
As for Gasnier playing 12 against Montpelier recently - it was good to see him there. He did OK and drew his man well after creating breaks, but some of the Top14 teams were playing 3 games in 8 days and many players were rested. It was by no means the best SF team and it served them right because they lost; so I wonder how many chances Gaz will get in the midfield.
