The Impending Beale vs Folau vs Cooper debate

[Ruggo]

Leave Izzy to rove. He is just the bloke you want free to finish the opportunities that Cooper is capable of creating.

 

[Lee Grant]

Totally disagree about Folau. I hope that Cheika plays him in the centres. If that turns out the way that I think it might, Link will have to eat his words about Folau staying at 15.

I have posted earlier in this thread that I think it's crazy for for the Wallabies to play Folau anywhere else but at fullback— because you don't change the position of a player rated currently by some Europeans as the best fullback in the business, without having a compelling reason to do so.

But if Cheika gives him a stint as an outside centre and he shows that he can transfer his world class (whatever that means) abilities from 15 to 13 in Super Rugby, and we think that the Wallabies have a greater need there, then I beg leave to change my opinion.

That would make more sense than trying him cold at outside centre in test matches in 2014. That would be barking mad.

The permutations are interesting for both the Tahs and the Wallabies: who would take his 15 spot, who will he displace at 13, what will be the net value added if he moves compared to his staying at fullback?

Sometimes twisting the Rubik Cube of team selections gets you closer to the result you are looking for.

Sometimes it doesn't.
.

 

[Forcefield]

$50 says one of Foley, Beale and Folau is injured at the start of the season and Folau does not start a single game at 13 all season.

 

[TOCC]

What's good for the Tahs isn't necessarily good for the Wallabies either...

Tahs may want to play Izzy at centre so they can fit KB (Kurtley Beale) in the backline as well, no doubt izzy will play well at centre but fullback is the weak spot of the Wallabies backline with Mogg and KB (Kurtley Beale) the only other real candidates. Neither of them are test level based on last years form.. Whereas Kuridrani and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) have both shown they are capable outside centres at test level.


Given how long we've been bleating about needing a fullback with aerial skills like Dagg, and now that we have one people want to move him into the line where they won't be utliised.

 

[No.8]

Could I ask a very simple question - why did we ever take prob our greatest junior no.10 and move him to fullback? Could Beale of been one of the best if not the best no.10's for the last 4-5 years if he had stayed in that position?

 

[Train Without a Station]

He was played at 15 because he stagnated at 10. He lacked the long passing, kicking game and game management required in the position. Playing at 15 brought in his great running game which he wasn't able to utilise as frequently at 10.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm guessing that Beale was signed for very little on the basis that no other franchises wanted him.

The Waratahs have had quite a lot of players on Wallaby top ups (which will decrease over the next year or so) so that would have helped them keep more of their players.

I thought the Wallaby top-ups were provided by the ARU and weren't included in the salary cap? Am I wrong?

 

[Braveheart81]

I thought the Wallaby top-ups were provided by the ARU and weren't included in the salary cap? Am I wrong?

That is correct and that is a reason I was giving that the Tahs have managed to hang onto their players quite well.

If they're also receiving an ARU top up they're probably more willing to take a slightly lower Super Rugby contract than they might otherwise be able to get by switching teams.

I'd guess Folau would be the highest paid Waratah and that would mostly be on the back of his ARU contract. Outside of that, I really doubt the Tahs have many of the highest paid Super Rugby players in Australia.

From previous contract negotiations, I'd guess that Genia, Cooper and Pocock are amongst the highest paid. Last year, O'Connor and Beale would have also been on that list at the Rebels.

 

[Brumby Runner]

That is correct and that is a reason I was giving that the Tahs have managed to hang onto their players quite well.

If they're also receiving an ARU top up they're probably more willing to take a slightly lower Super Rugby contract than they might otherwise be able to get by switching teams.

I'd guess Folau would be the highest paid Waratah and that would mostly be on the back of his ARU contract. Outside of that, I really doubt the Tahs have many of the highest paid Super Rugby players in Australia.

From previous contract negotiations, I'd guess that Genia, Cooper and Pocock are amongst the highest paid. Last year, O'Connor and Beale would have also been on that list at the Rebels.

Thanks BH. I read your earlier post as saying the Tahs would have more money available because the amount of ARU top-ups was diminishing. But if you're saying the amount the Tahs paid some of their stars is less than it might otherwise be because they are also getting a top-up, I fail to see why that would necessarily be so. Wouldn't other franchises also be able to offer less (say on par with how much the Tahs offer) in the knowledge the player would be getting a top-up (presumably the same amount as if he played for the Tahs)?

Or is it that more of the stars have a preference for playing with the Tahs, money being equal with what is on offer from other franchises? This could rightly be so, but if that is the case, isn't there an argument then to say that the ARU should have a say in the distribution of those stars who are getting their top-up?

I find it all a bit bewildering. To me, the solution is for the top-up system to be scrapped, and Wallabies being paid a fee for each game they play. I know the counter argument that players would then go overseas for more money, but that would have to be managed in some other manner. Perhaps a full year playing in Super rugby before being again eligible to play for the Wallabies (not just a full year contract) would work as a disincentive for those who at least are more committed to the Wallabies' cause.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think all things being equal, most players (particularly mid career) will prefer to stay in their home city (whatever that is or has become) if they are getting paid well.

If you're on a decent Super Rugby contract and an ARU top up I think you're very unlikely to go and move to a new city just so you can earn a bigger Super Rugby contract with the same ARU top up. Whilst the Super Rugby contract might be quite a bit higher, overall it will not make a massive difference to your earnings.

I think players who are only on a Super Rugby contract are more likely to move around looking for more money (or go overseas later in their career, particularly if they were on an ARU top up that then disappears because they are no longer a Wallaby).

Looking at the Tahs, I imagine Robinson, TPN, Kepu, Douglas, Hooper and Palu could all get much higher Super Rugby contracts if they went to another franchise but I'd also guess that with ARU top ups those players are earning pretty well as far as Australian rugby players are concerned and the desire to go to the Force or Rebels for a bigger contract isn't that appealing.

I agree with you completely that ARU top ups should change. I think they are already heading that way and that is a good thing. I would like to see them being mostly based on match payments and guaranteed top ups only lasting for one year. The core Wallabies group should get a guarantee for the next season because it is some insurance for those players should they get injured playing for the Wallabies etc. but at the same time, someone new coming into the side and playing close to every test in the year should be earning very similar money to a player on a top up who also plays most of the tests.

 

[mudskipper]

the beauty about Folau at full back is he is not marked in the first defensive line leaving the opposition always trying to work out where he may appear... He is certainly the best we have had under the high ball in a long time... 15 is the perfect spot for him, I wasnt so convinced prior to the northern Wallabies tour but certainly I'm now... just means CQ has to stay in the front line more these days...

 

[GaffaCHinO]

Correct me if I’m wrong but the way the contracting system is meant to work (but doesn’t) is that a player agrees to terms with his chosen club then goes to the ARU who approve the contract and if they see fit offer him a Top up.

This is in place to make sure that the players market rate isn’t reduce and subsidised by the ARU but we all know this doesn’t happen.

Hence the Tahs and to a lesser extent the Reds can hold onto all their Wallabies whiles signing others all the while you hear about the Force and Rebels struggling to sign Wallabies and keep good players (Cummins) and how the Brumbies who will struggle to keep their Wallaby players together next year.

The system is broke.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think all things being equal, most players (particularly mid career) will prefer to stay in their home city (whatever that is or has become) if they are getting paid well.

If you're on a decent Super Rugby contract and an ARU top up I think you're very unlikely to go and move to a new city just so you can earn a bigger Super Rugby contract with the same ARU top up. Whilst the Super Rugby contract might be quite a bit higher, overall it will not make a massive difference to your earnings.

I think players who are only on a Super Rugby contract are more likely to move around looking for more money (or go overseas later in their career, particularly if they were on an ARU top up that then disappears because they are no longer a Wallaby).

Looking at the Tahs, I imagine Robinson, TPN, Kepu, Douglas, Hooper and Palu could all get much higher Super Rugby contracts if they went to another franchise but I'd also guess that with ARU top ups those players are earning pretty well as far as Australian rugby players are concerned and the desire to go to the Force or Rebels for a bigger contract isn't that appealing.

I agree with you completely that ARU top ups should change. I think they are already heading that way and that is a good thing. I would like to see them being mostly based on match payments and guaranteed top ups only lasting for one year. The core Wallabies group should get a guarantee for the next season because it is some insurance for those players should they get injured playing for the Wallabies etc. but at the same time, someone new coming into the side and playing close to every test in the year should be earning very similar money to a player on a top up who also plays most of the tests.

I can readily accept the argument about players not wanting to move for perhaps marginally more money, but that still leaves the question of the ARU making the top-up (or the amount of) conditional on moving to another franchise. Would that be against the spirit of the game? or perhaps the TPA?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Correct me if I’m wrong but the way the contracting system is meant to work (but doesn’t) is that a player agrees to terms with his chosen club then goes to the ARU who approve the contract and if they see fit offer him a Top up.

This is in place to make sure that the players market rate isn’t reduce and subsidised by the ARU but we all know this doesn’t happen.

Hence the Tahs and to a lesser extent the Reds can hold onto all their Wallabies whiles signing others all the while you hear about the Force and Rebels struggling to sign Wallabies and keep good players (Cummins) and how the Brumbies who will struggle to keep their Wallaby players together next year.

The system is broke.

Yeah - it seems so to me too.