Wallabies 2024

[eastman]

Yes, as you confirmed... limited.

So being the best actual rugby player makes him limited. Right.

 

[stillmissit]

Everyone has a price, they obviously needed to offer him more. It's another data point to suggest that RA made the right decision not to secure his signature.

No, all the RA offer proves is that he'd had enough of Australian rugby and wanted to go to league. I am hopeful that SthX's thought about 2027 is correct.

 

[Derpus]

So being the best actual rugby player makes him limited. Right.

But he wasn't/isn't, though...

 

[stillmissit]

Carter and his partner wanted to return home after a shit couple of years. The Reds couldn't accommodate him leaving him to look at NRL to stay professional and in Queensland (although you could probably say the Broncos are looking for a Reynold replacement).

Ignoto, have you heard anything about Mason?

 

[eastman]

I would assume Joe Schmidt was involved in that decision that he didn't view Gordon as a must have player that RA needed to pull out all the stops to retain.

But this is the fundamental point regarding talent identification and retention. How could anyone in that organization who has been watching rugby for the last 3 years conclude that Lolesio and Donaldson were better options.

 

[stillmissit]

So being the best actual rugby player makes him limited. Right.

Eastman. Luckily there is a subset of posters here who know what a talented rugby player looks like. I think Schmidt also saw it and from what is posted above so did RA.

 

[Braveheart81]

But this is the fundamental point regarding talent identification and retention. How could anyone in that organization who has been watching rugby for the last 3 years conclude that Lolesio and Donaldson were better options.

They hadn't reached that conclusion.

Donaldson was offered a two year contract in 2023 for 2024 and 2025.

Noah Lolesio was offered a one year contract for 2025 which happened at the same time as Carter Gordon was announced as leaving. I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that there was a greater incentive to keep Lolesio in Australian rugby when they knew they were losing Gordon.

 

[eastman]

But he wasn't/isn't, though...

Lets have another four years of Lolesio mediocrity.

He obviously isn’t the best kicker out of his competition, but his skills as a footballer exceed all our other options.

 

[Braveheart81]

Lets have another four years of Lolesio mediocrity.

He obviously isn’t the best kicker out of his competition, but his skills as a footballer exceed all our other options.

I don't think anyone thinks that, particularly Rugby Australia.

That's why he was offered a one year contract only and it only happened at the point where they knew they were losing Gordon.

 

[Slim 293]

So being the best actual rugby player makes him limited. Right.

Not possessing all of the core skills in his position, as you acknowledged he required improvement on, did make him somewhat limited... yes.

 

[Tomthumb]

He clearly can't be match fit because he hasn't played. That said he's probably got the biggest motor out of any of our props by some distance.

I'm not a doctor but I'm guessing that the mechanism of his injury is such that once he's cleared fit to return there's not really any benefit in terms of the injury to ease him back in etc. Anyway, those are my thoughts based on the selection decisions.

It pretty clearly points to Hodgman being considered to be behind Slipper and Kailea though.

True, although am I the only one that thinks Hodgman is a far better option than Slipper right now?

 

[stillmissit]

Not possessing all of the core skills in his position, as you acknowledged he required improvement on, did make him somewhat limited... yes.

Slim we have not had a 10 with all the core skills in the last 20 years.

 

[Tomthumb]

Our best bet long-term was Carter Gordon, he is by far the most talented of our 10 stocks but we fucked that one up.

Sometimes I don’t understand talent identification and retention with rugby here? In what world could Lolesio or Donaldson be deemed better players.

They are deemed to be better players because they are better players. Gordon is instantly behind the 8 ball because he goal kicks like an under 8's player trying for the first time

Players are always instantly better when they aren't playing

 

[Braveheart81]

True, although am I the only one that thinks Hodgman is a far better option than Slipper right now?

No. A couple of others have also made that argument, notably capalba who started this discussion.

 

[Derpus]

Slim we have not had a 10 with all the core skills in the last 20 years.

I disagree - both Foley and Cooper were quite accomplished 10s. Even guys like Barnes had a decent grasp of all the essential skills.

 

[Strewthcobber]

RA conclude that Lolesio and Donaldson were better options.

You keep saying this as if the players themselves have no autonomy.

Gordon didn't want to stay. He was offered an amount of money, probably equivalent to the others, and he left despite that.

The only reason they are better options is because the accepted RA's contractual offer

 

[stillmissit]

Players are always instantly better when they aren't playing

Strange -

 

[Slim 293]

Slim we have not had a 10 with all the core skills in the last 20 years.

20 years?

Yeah, nah...

 

[eastman]

Not possessing all of the core skills in his position, as you acknowledged he required improvement on, did make him somewhat limited... yes.

Not sure that logic is too sound Slim, then every fly-half in Australia is limited because they don’t excel across all skill sets.

The guy can run, pass and tackle at an elite level for his position. And it’s not like he can’t kick at all, he was still deemed the best place kicker at the rebels.

I wouldn’t call that limited.

 

[Tomthumb]

So being the best actual rugby player makes him limited. Right.

I think I know what's happening here, you seem to be confusing Carter Gordon with Dan Carter