Should Aus/NZ Test Sides Pick Overseas Players?

[dru]

I appear to be the only no vote.

I would prefer Super Rugby AU then test matches with players selected from Super AU, they would have to be contracted to an Australian Super Rugby team for the season prior to the test matches to be eligible (or for any other Australian based club).

I dont see overseas based players making us that much better that we would see a significant change in results, we would still be heavy underdogs against SA and NZ.

We would still split series with Argentina and be favourites against lower ranked teams while always having the chance of losing in a foreseeable upset like Fiji. For years people had been talking up how much improvement they had and each world cup seemingly has at least one upset against a tier one team but for some reason losing to Fiji was the end of rugby as we know it.

I would prefer to be loyal to our players with the hope that a Wallabies jersey is worth enough to forgo some overseas money, if you can get picked from around the planet, why would you stay playing in Australia for lower wages?

I agree but with a caveat. The opportunities need to exist in Australia and the pro rugby needs to be doing it's job in development, in fact ditto the the development pathways below pro rugby.

The discussion for me hinges on Super Rugby - which seems to demonstrably be failing.

 

[Rob42]

I agree but with a caveat. The opportunities need to exist in Australia and the pro rugby needs to be doing it's job in development, in fact ditto the the development pathways below pro rugby.

The discussion for me hinges on Super Rugby - which seems to demonstrably be failing.

I agree, but if we encourage more players to leave Super Rugby, who's doing the development at that level? Do we just assume that any overseas gig will lead to better player development than Super Rugby? Seem unlikely - especialyl with the four remaining franchises looking better coached for next year than they have been for a while.

 

[liquor box]

I agree, but if we encourage more players to leave Super Rugby, who's doing the development at that level? Do we just assume that any overseas gig will lead to better player development than Super Rugby? Seem unlikely - especialyl with the four remaining franchises looking better coached for next year than they have been for a while.

good coaches can only do so much, the lack of game time in Australia is what really hurts us. There are always posts on here and mention on podcasts about how many games players overseas play before they get to Test match rugby and we seem to play nowhere near the amount of games in Australia, except for Hamish Stewart.

 

[Strewthcobber]

good coaches can only do so much, the lack of game time in Australia is what really hurts us. There are always posts on here and mention on podcasts about how many games players overseas play before they get to Test match rugby and we seem to play nowhere near the amount of games in Australia, except for Hamish Stewart.

It's all massively cherry picked though, and usually based on outliers like England's Marcus Smith.

Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu has only started 12 games at pro level before test debut as an example.

Mack Hansen was playing more games in Australia than he does in Ireland etc etc

 

[Strewthcobber]

Known winner and high performer Reece.

Please, that's Reece "Last 10 to beat the All Blacks" Hodge.





That's quite a depressing but accurate joke

 

[Bullrush]

Definitely not for the ABs.

If Aaron Smith could be picked, he probably would have been the starting 9 for the last 7 Tests which means we might not have seen Ratima and almost definitely would not have seen Hotham in the black jersey. We might have won one or maybe two more Tests but how long would would Hotham stick around waiting for Aaron Smith to finally get dropped?

The problem I see for both Australia and Aotearoa is that when guys like Aaron Smith or Will Genia leave, they take all their IP to another country whose young players and teams then get all the benefit from having them there.

Hmmmmm.....without A. Smith in the domestic scene in Aotearoa, maybe it would be good to be able to pick him in the ABs to have him around those young guys.

The question really is, how do we get the best players and I think it starts from the grass roots competitions. Good quality, competitive domestic comps that lead into Super Rugby-type comps (URC) from which you then select your Test teams.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Definitely not for the ABs.

If Aaron Smith could be picked, he probably would have been the starting 9 for the last 7 Tests which means we might not have seen Ratima and almost definitely would not have seen Hotham in the black jersey. We might have won one or maybe two more Tests but how long would would Hotham stick around waiting for Aaron Smith to finally get dropped?

this would be the most nuts part. we all know how hard it is to get dropped from the AB's. Company Man Fozzie took that maxim to its contractual zenith and only selected new pricks if his hand was forced through injuries. Caleb Clarke sitting in the stands as George Bridge takes a dump all over his own putty brain ffs.

If selected from overseas, the tenured would remain tenured foreverrrr

had a scab around with ages, this could very possibly be the current team:

1 Nepo Laulala 32
2 Dane Coles 37
3 T Lomax 28
4 Scott Barrett 30
5 Brodie Retallick 33
6 Akira ffs 27
7 Sam Cane 32
8 Ardie Savea 30
9 Aaron Smith 35
10 Richie Mo'unga 30
11 CC 25
12 Jordie Barrett 27
13 Anton Lienert-Brown 29
14 Rieko Ioane 27
15 Beauden Barrett 33

.....and the kids in the 20-25 range, stuck in soup limbo behind the tenured guys, would have fucked off overseas to get paid. Bye bye Ratima, Ruben Love, Hotham, Fakatava etc

 

[dru]

I agree, but if we encourage more players to leave Super Rugby, who's doing the development at that level? Do we just assume that any overseas gig will lead to better player development than Super Rugby? Seem unlikely - especialyl with the four remaining franchises looking better coached for next year than they have been for a while.

Sorry Rob, but I'm a little baffled by how that comment relates to what I was saying. I am in no way encouraging players to leave our domestic pro-comp. What i want is a pr0-comp that is doing its job and providing the opportunities that might be required to encourage these players to stay here.

If we are blindly heading down a pathway that reduces team numbers then the system is encouraging requiring players to leave.

 

[Rob42]

Sorry Rob, but I'm a little baffled by how that comment relates to what I was saying. I am in no way encouraging players to leave our domestic pro-comp. What i want is a pr0-comp that is doing its job and providing the opportunities that might be required to encourage these players to stay here.

If we are blindly heading down a pathway that reduces team numbers then the system is encouraging requiring players to leave.

Maybe we're in furious agreement. I agree Super Rugby is wobbling, but it still represents the best opportunity to train test-level players for Australia. I don't think RA dropped the Rebels to improve the cohesion of the remaining sides - it was a business survival decision.

 

[dru]

Maybe we're in furious agreement. I agree Super Rugby is wobbling, but it still represents the best opportunity to train test-level players for Australia. I don't think RA dropped the Rebels to improve the cohesion of the remaining sides - it was a business survival decision.

Sure, I agree that RA had no choice over the Rebels call.

None of that changes where they head going forward.