Wallabies 2023

[Slim 293]

We are probably 10th in truth.

Why don't we make it 20th?

Let's get real silly...

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I wonder how RUPA feel knowing they are just fucking the game completely.

Exhausted.

Been stressful going to all the Luncheons hoping your in the seat that gets the Beef main. Gotta hit the Elliptical in preparation for Bledisloe Luncheons.

Rae Rae

 

[eastman]

Why are we blaming RUPA? Are they demanding too much money for the players they represent?

 

[Rebel man]

Yesterday I dreamed with Koroibete playing at 12 and being the best centre in the world. If Semi Radradra could change from the wing to the centre why Koroibete couldn't do it? The guy is the best player in the backline at the moment.

You have plenty options at the wing but not many at 12. He can learn the position, he's gifted. He played League for years then switched to Union and quickly became a weapon here despite being playing in a loser team at Super Rugby and in a inconsistent Wallabies team. He didn't play in the best version of Cheika's Wallabies and he was outstanding all these years.

He has the size that Paisami doesn't, he has the speed, he's a good defender and now he's kicking so the only issue would be his passing game. Won't be the first inside centre who doesn't pass the ball. Nonu started his test carrer at the wing and then changed to the centre, Tana Umaga too.

He made the transition from league to Union easily as he grew up in Union

 

[gel]

Why are we blaming RUPA? Are they demanding too much money for the players they represent?

No.

They have reduced the maximum number of training hours well below that of competing nations.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Said it before but it shouldn't be limited - the criteria should just be a minimum number of years contracted to Super Rugby teams, because that's really what we are trying to protect.

Say six years of service in Super Rugby or a current Super Rugby contract to be eligible.

Then the coach can decide how many/who he wants and decide what balance is best in terms of cohesion verse raw ability.

I don't mind this. Seems a good compromise.

 

[Marce]

He made the transition from league to Union easily as he grew up in Union

I knew that, like Redradra too. Union is the number one code in Fiji but despite that, being playing another sport and then switched to another an instantly be succesful is not easy. All his professional career was at League until that moment

Even rugby players have problems to switched from 7s to XV and viceversa. As far as I know 7s is the most played version of rugby in the island cause is cheaper than XV, you nees less players and less structure.

 

[PhilClinton]

Said it before but it shouldn't be limited - the criteria should just be a minimum number of years contracted to Super Rugby teams, because that's really what we are trying to protect.

Say six years of service in Super Rugby or a current Super Rugby contract to be eligible.

Then the coach can decide how many/who he wants and decide what balance is best in terms of cohesion verse raw ability.

I really like this idea in theory but I feel like it still presents the issue of players leaving for a big overseas pay day during their prime years.

Six years is a long time, even five years is a long time but at the same time, if you're a player getting picked from the pathways system, five or six years service in Super Rugby and you're probably still only 23/24 aka coming in your prime.

A big pay day is likely on the way, and as it stands, those pay days will be coming from outside Super Rugby.

 

[barbarian]

No.

They have reduced the maximum number of training hours well below that of competing nations.

Really? I read a lot of rugby content but this is the first I've ever heard about it.

Do you have anything you can direct me for further info?

 

[gel]

Why don't we make it 20th?

Let's get real silly...

Because we do actually win against teams below 10th.

We actually haven't done too well against Scotland or Wales when we last met. Our record against the top 10 is lose more than win at a gut feel.

Debatable how we'd go against Japan ATM. I'll give you 9th.

Dunno why you'd mention 20th.

Too many words wasted on you - back to the ignore list you go

 

[Slim 293]

Because we do actually win against teams below 10th.

We actually haven't done too well against Scotland or Wales when we last met. Our record against the top 10 is lose more than win at a gut feel.

Debatable how we'd go against Japan ATM. I'll give you 9th.

Dunno why you'd mention 20th.

Too many words wasted on you - back to the ignore list you go

I think it's hysterical to believe we should be ranked below Argentina, Japan, and even Wales based on their recent record, which includes a loss at home to... Italy.

 

[Braveheart81]

Because we do actually win against teams below 10th.

We actually haven't done too well against Scotland or Wales when we last met. Our record against the top 10 is lose more than win at a gut feel.

Debatable how we'd go against Japan ATM. I'll give you 9th.

We do lose more than we win against the top 10 (based on the last three coaches only just having a winning record (McKenzie and Cheika) or a losing record (Rennie) and some of those games involve teams outside the top 10.

Our schedule is skewed towards top 5 sides though with multiple games a year against New Zealand and South Africa (we have a good record against South Africa).

Losing slightly more than you win against top 10 sides with more of those games against top 5 sides puts you firmly in the middle of the top 10 though. A ranking or 5th or 6th is pretty accurate in my view.

 

[Derpus]

I really like this idea in theory but I feel like it still presents the issue of players leaving for a big overseas pay day during their prime years.

Six years is a long time, even five years is a long time but at the same time, if you're a player getting picked from the pathways system, five or six years service in Super Rugby and you're probably still only 23/24 aka coming in your prime.

A big pay day is likely on the way, and as it stands, those pay days will be coming from outside Super Rugby.

That's kind of the point. They do their time in Super Rugby, get a pay day, and remain eligible.

All three boxes ticked. That second box gets ticked regardless of whether we allow them to be selected or not.

 

[PhilClinton]

That's kind of the point. They do their time in Super Rugby, get a pay day, and remain eligible.

All three boxes ticked. That second box gets ticked regardless of whether we allow them to be selected or not.

I get it - and I want the strongest Wallabies team possible so I'm in the boat of opening up eligibility.

But if everyone is going to bail in their prime after 5-6 years - is that really protecting Super Rugby? It will end up what Japanese Rugby was 10 years ago, a bunch of young blokes trying to impress for a pay day and then the seniles coming back for a superannuation top up. I'm not sure the crowds tune in for that in the long term.

I'm not saying I have the answer, but I am not sure what the magic number of years of Super Rugby played needs to be to make that viable.

 

[qwerty51]

Yep, the domestic game in Aus becomes like the NBL and A-league. Irrelevant and no one cares because they support the big overseas leagues.

 

[Doritos Day]

Yep, the domestic game in Aus becomes like the NBL and A-league. Irrelevant and no one cares because they support the big overseas leagues.

It's irrelevant and no one cares as it is lol

 

[Derpus]

Yep, the domestic game in Aus becomes like the NBL and A-league. Irrelevant and no one cares because they support the big overseas leagues.

I don't see how this doesn't happen, regardless. We are already a ways down that path.

Money is in Europe and Japan. Cant change that.

 

[qwerty51]

Nah we're not quite at that level, yet.

 

[Viking]

How do you know? Every addition of one more player overseas could cause a player to sign overseas instead of remain in Aus.

Especially if they consider themselves a certain Wallabies starter.

I'd argue that builds depth rather then reduces it. Having Koro, Kerevi play overseas gives 5 other wingers and centres in Australia the opportunity for game time. Being closer to the action in Aus is probably better for there development and getting Test level ready.

Sure it would be nice to have stronger super XV sides, but personally I think a larger pool of players playing regularly to choose from is better.

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks choosing the best players out of only 5 teams is pretty damn limiting.

 

[Tomikin]

I’m not sure we can progress with Noah at 10. Hopefully Quade is fit and gets a run in Argentina and we will see his worth, Koroibete is a gun but if it turns out we are a much better side with Quade Cooper at 10 then they will need to look at him or Arnold.
Or of course they could increase the number to 5, which would make more sense. Or they could allow the players who have played 70 tests to be available no matter what and then choose 3 others who do not qualify that way. Rugby Australia sure likes to tie their own hands behind their back!

We have very good players who can play at lock and on the wing, some injured or unavailable but now returning. We have very limited options at 10.

It's not like Quade hasn't had 10 years to win something... I rated him last year against SA but he was shot vs Japan.

If Noah's not the answer then we need one of the other young Fly Halves in the squad.