So only Gill should have been wallabies 7 when there were 5 teams that had players wearing the 7?
So if Gill got the Wallabies 7 and got the big contract doesn't that mean that the other players not gill would have been hindered and affected morale also?
Or is it just that Hooper plays for the Tahs?
It's quite simple bloke.
When you have a raft of options, and you choose to place all your eggs in the basket of one you disincentivize the others to perform. It is the simplest, of simple, with regards to managing talent/output.
The root of all economics is incentive, it really is that simple.
If you choose to pay a player above an beyond every other player for the longest contract in Australian history you create an imbalance in both your squad, and also the incentives for other players.
Now in the case of Pocock, he had to play 8 now because 7 was stitched up - this creates a chain-effect where other backrowers are disappointed/demotivated in missing out on places and realise we are now playing two sevens even though it doesn't make sense.
In the case of Gill he was lost to the game here. You can say he left before the contract was signed, and you would be correct, but he went to France when his passage was blocked here and then he dominated in France. I imagine he did this to see what would change in Australia a few years, but then Hooper is signed for eternity and we are stuck with him.
We placed all our eggs in Hooper and Cheika's basket, and it was a dire failure.
Hooper is the least successful Wallaby captain in history.
But I assume it's everyone else's fault - because he has been incredible, and this pitiful culture we have has nothing to do with him.
Or so I am told.