dillyboy
Colin Windon (37)
I feel sorry for him - it's a bloody big ask to step up and captain the Wallabies when they're most likely not the no 1 priority in his life right now....
RWC: AUS v URU (Villa Park, Birmingham): POOL A; 9pm (AEST) Sunday 27 September
- Thread starter Tex
- Start date
- Status
I feel sorry for him - it's a bloody big ask to step up and captain the Wallabies when they're most likely not the no 1 priority in his life right now....
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
I doubt they will concede many against Uruguay with To'omua and Speight in the centers
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Foley's range is just as bad, and he had some shockers against NZ this year. If Gits has improved since being dropped last RWC then its not hard to assume his goalkicking has too. Didn't he kick in a test this year already and do well?
- and he has been playing with Wilkinson in the last few years so I'd count on his goal-kicking improving.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
http://www.news.com.au/sport/breaki...o-face-wallabies/story-fnect155-1227544668227
I have to admit, while my biggest hope for this game is that none of our players get injured and that we win by 60+, I would quite like to see Uruguay score a try.
I have to admit, while my biggest hope for this game is that none of our players get injured and that we win by 60+, I would quite like to see Uruguay score a try.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Uruguay: 15 Gaston Mieres, 14 Leandro Leivas, 13 Joaquin Prada, 12 Andres Vilaseca, 11 Rodrigo Silva, 10 Felipe Berchesi, 9 Agustin Ormaechea, 8 Juan Manuel Gaminara, 7 Matias Beer, 6 Juan De Freitas, 5 Franco Lamanna, 4 Santiago Vilaseca (c), 3 Mario Sagario, 2 German Kessler, 1 Mateo Sanguinetti.
Replacements: 16 Nicolas Klappenbach, 17 Oscar Duran, 18 Carlos Arboleya, 19 Alejandro Nieto, 20 Diego Magno, 21 Fernando Bascou, 22 Alejo Duran, 23 Alberto Roman.
Possibly already mentioned but Referee: Pascal Gauzère (France)
Assistant referees: Jaco Peyper (South Africa), Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Graham Hughes (England)
Replacements: 16 Nicolas Klappenbach, 17 Oscar Duran, 18 Carlos Arboleya, 19 Alejandro Nieto, 20 Diego Magno, 21 Fernando Bascou, 22 Alejo Duran, 23 Alberto Roman.
Possibly already mentioned but Referee: Pascal Gauzère (France)
Assistant referees: Jaco Peyper (South Africa), Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Graham Hughes (England)
emuarse
Chilla Wilson (44)
Mr Doug
Dick Tooth (41)
What a great Rugby story, OC. Surely there's a sponsor out there who could provide, or pay for, 31 pairs of Rugby boots?!
And they "get the use of the jerseys", aren't they lucky?!!
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Pretty phenomenal the amount of money the RWC pulls in and there isn't a system from World Rugby where all teams get enough appearance money to finance their campaign and pay match fees to the players.
It doesn't have to be lots of money and Tier 1 teams would have to supplement it front their own income. But $5K per game for the players in the minnow teams would be enough to substantially change their life in a lot of circumstances or at least provide a little recognition for the sacrifices they have made to be there.
matty_k
Peter Johnson (47)
It worked wonders for Berrick Barnes. He arguably player the best game of his life the day after becoming a father.
Micheal
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Nup. All participating teams get a cut of the proceeds from the tournament (I know for a fact at leas the ARU does). If we weren't having a tournament, the Wallabies would currently be in Europe on a tour, and thus the revenue earned by both the Wallabies and the hosting teams has to be compensated in some way.
Of course, the hosting nation receives the biggest cut from the tournament. I would also assume that the dominant rugby nations would receive more than the minnows.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
We were talking about the McPooper: McMahon, Pocock and Hooper on at the same time.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I hope so, really don't understand why Sio is starting and Smith at TH. Just can't work out any reasoning for it.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
There is a system. World Rugby will get about $400m from the tournament. They'll keep a management fee and disburse the rest to the teams according to agreed percentages. The host nation gets to keep the gate receipts and pays World Rugby about $80m of that, which goes into the pot. Even the smallest unions will get several million.
Mr Doug
Dick Tooth (41)
Having a few idle moments today, (one has a few of those when one is 67), I wondered if the Rugby representative rules could be amended to allow a test player who has finished playing for his country, to play for a tier 2 nation to assist with development of that country's National side, (aside from supplying tier 1 coaches).
Player payments would need to come from a special "World Rugby National Development Fund", to strengthen the game world-wide. For example: George Smith, James Horwill, The Honey badger, etc., could play for countries such as Uruguay, Georgia, Namibia, Canada, USA, etc. The stipulation would be that each player would be denied the opportunity to ever play for his home/chosen country again.......... Just a thought!
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Interesting Mr Doug.
IMHO, money assists with their performance, but not necessarily their development. The larger benefit would be funding for facilities and coaching - the latter has certainly helped Fiji.
Ultimately, those nations without enough internal momentum have to gain it through getting their players professional through overseas contracts and then build their internal game based on the success those players can help deliver. This has assisted Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa, none of whom are big enough to develop players internally.
Looking at Uruguay as an example, they have parameters that simply adding foreign players won't overcome for proper long-term growth: the population is just over 3 million, of which nearly half live in Montevideo, and while it is considered an honourable game there, it is third behind soccer and basketball.
Here is the wiki entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Uruguay
The rugby competition (centered around the city) therefore needs to be able to produce good players on a regular basis, and support them at least on a semi-professional level so that the depth can be built, and competitions can attract sponsors and start funding themselves.
That money and experience comes with success for the national team (much like here in Australia), and that means having more than 4 professionals available to them for big shows like RWC.
Still, countries like Ireland have about 4.6 million, and have soccer and hurling and gaelic football as competition.
BUT Ireland have over 150,000 registered players, and Uruguay have not quite 6,000. Throw in the fact that guys like POC, Sexton et al can earn a very healthy living playing in Europe, with their club and international competitions on the doorstep. Meanwhile Uruguay have to rely on a very weak South America for rugby, which is limited to their home countries.
The balance therefore has to be struck between getting good players at the top level to give kids aspiration, while funding the grassroots to make sure they can stay in the game.
I think this RWC so far has shown that the amateurs are accelerating faster than ever before, while the Tier 2 nations are also improving, if at a slightly slower rate.
IMHO, money assists with their performance, but not necessarily their development. The larger benefit would be funding for facilities and coaching - the latter has certainly helped Fiji.
Ultimately, those nations without enough internal momentum have to gain it through getting their players professional through overseas contracts and then build their internal game based on the success those players can help deliver. This has assisted Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa, none of whom are big enough to develop players internally.
Looking at Uruguay as an example, they have parameters that simply adding foreign players won't overcome for proper long-term growth: the population is just over 3 million, of which nearly half live in Montevideo, and while it is considered an honourable game there, it is third behind soccer and basketball.
Here is the wiki entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Uruguay
The rugby competition (centered around the city) therefore needs to be able to produce good players on a regular basis, and support them at least on a semi-professional level so that the depth can be built, and competitions can attract sponsors and start funding themselves.
That money and experience comes with success for the national team (much like here in Australia), and that means having more than 4 professionals available to them for big shows like RWC.
Still, countries like Ireland have about 4.6 million, and have soccer and hurling and gaelic football as competition.
BUT Ireland have over 150,000 registered players, and Uruguay have not quite 6,000. Throw in the fact that guys like POC, Sexton et al can earn a very healthy living playing in Europe, with their club and international competitions on the doorstep. Meanwhile Uruguay have to rely on a very weak South America for rugby, which is limited to their home countries.
The balance therefore has to be struck between getting good players at the top level to give kids aspiration, while funding the grassroots to make sure they can stay in the game.
I think this RWC so far has shown that the amateurs are accelerating faster than ever before, while the Tier 2 nations are also improving, if at a slightly slower rate.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Getting a little off-topic here but it's not just the residency rule that needs to be addressed: we must be rapidly approaching the point where Samoa & Tonga are gonna struggle to find guys who qualify under the grandparent rule & AFIK their resident populations are at best static.
On residency, IMO five years makes sense as anyone who migrated as a child or teenager would still qualify. The worry I have is players being poached straight from U19 or earlier with the promise of qualifying for "X" when aged ~24 but then falling out of favour/ getting injured/ whatever & pretty much being abandoned by their adopted country i.e. what's apparently already happening just at a younger (& obviously more vulnerable) age.
On residency, IMO five years makes sense as anyone who migrated as a child or teenager would still qualify. The worry I have is players being poached straight from U19 or earlier with the promise of qualifying for "X" when aged ~24 but then falling out of favour/ getting injured/ whatever & pretty much being abandoned by their adopted country i.e. what's apparently already happening just at a younger (& obviously more vulnerable) age.
- Status