Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[Groucho]

But does it actually "encourage players to return" any more than having a rule whereby only players who are playing in Australia in that season are eligible?

IMO it's a bizarre rule, which allows certain players to have their cake and eat it too; i.e. play a full season in Europe on big dollars and then waltz back into Wallaby eligibility ahead of guys who have slogged it out all season in super rugby.

It's an incentive, and should therefore have an effect. The fact that the ARU haven't changed it demonstrates that it's intended to be there. The fact that several players have used it demonstrates that it works. The fact that they might play like drains on their return is another matter.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's an incentive, and should therefore have an effect. The fact that the ARU haven't changed it demonstrates that it's intended to be there. The fact that several players have used it demonstrates that it works. The fact that they might play like drains on their return is another matter.

IMO it's the wrong type of incentive. I've never agreed with it and can't think of one example where it's benefited Australian rugby.

 

[fatprop]

IMO it's the wrong type of incentive. I've never agreed with it and can't think of one example where it's benefited Australian rugby.

I really don't see a problem with the rule, they have signed to play and the coach sees value in the selection.

It is a fair bit better IMHO than the Gits rule

Typos by SwiftKey, errors in tone by me

 

[wamberal]

IMO it's the wrong type of incentive. I've never agreed with it and can't think of one example where it's benefited Australian rugby.

Is "incentive" the right word? Elsom, for example, was allowed his overseas contract because of financial problems, reportedly.

Perhaps the ARU simply does what any good employer does: tailor their policies to the needs of their employees, as well as to the rest of the game's stakeholders.

Who is the loser?

 

[Gnostic]

This makes no sense. What was original intent if not what Mumm, (Douglas), Vickerman, Elsom did?

We've been down this route plenty of times QWERTY. You will never see my point of view.

I fundamentally have a problem with a rule which is there to support and strengthen Australian Rugby's retention of the best players in this country. If an elite player signs a contract overseas during the 2014 season for the 2015 season they will play tests in 2014. If they then sign a new contract to play in Australia in 2016 they will be eligible to play the 2015 tests. You have stated many times that you don't see a problem with the action of that "rule" even though the clear intent was to support the Super Clubs in retaining their top players.

Elsom, Vickerman, Mumm and now likely Douglas were not available for Australia Super sides in 2015, they should not therefore be eligible for test rugby in 2015. That is the spirit of the rule, but it seems for "special" people it doesn't really need to be followed.

 

[Braveheart81]

Elsom, Vickerman, Mumm and now likely Douglas were not available for Australia Super sides in 2015, they should not therefore be eligible for test rugby in 2015. That is the spirit of the rule, but it seems for "special" people it doesn't really need to be followed.

You're deciding that is the spirit of the rule whereas all evidence suggests that isn't the intention.

I accept that you don't think these players should be eligible to play for the Wallabies the year before they play Super Rugby but that is the reality of the rule.

The ARU has struck a balance between ensuring Wallabies are in the Super Rugby competition but also giving them the opportunity to select what they consider the best team they can.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

BH81 - the problem with your viewpoint is that for the top level "elite" players or those determined by the selectors to be first 23 wallabies, they will follow the script set by Elsom et al. All the depth players and those who make the Super sides viable will see that regardless of their efforts in Oz they will be blocked by players who chase the dollars in Europe or Japan and return in time for the tests. Expect therefore that the second line of players to leave as soon as they are halfway established and are marketable in those other markets. They may not command a test player premium but they will be making more than Super Rugby without the travel demands, so they will win and Super Rugby will continue to decline in value and standard. The move by South Africa in that direction has destroyed their teams to a large extent IMO.

 

[Braveheart81]

We are averaging about one player a season who is getting into the Wallaby squad because they have signed a contract for the next year in Australia.

Those so called depth players have no right to expect to play for the Wallabies just because they are playing in Australia. If they're not good enough, they shouldn't be picked.

South Africa has made every player eligible regardless of where they play and I agree that is damaging their Super teams. I don't think we should adopt that policy and we haven't.

You could also argue that the coaching is damaging the South African Super Rugby sides more than the available players.


Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[BDA]

I dont have a problem with the selectors picking players that are returning from overseas (like Mumm). One of the advantages of the new rules is that it gives overseas players an extra incentive to commit to a Super Rugby team. I'm ok with that.

Also not sure if this has been mentioned, but I found it interesting to see Mumm make the recent cut but Dennis drop out. Could be an indication that Cheika sees Mumm as the best 6/lock option for the world cup. Given that he's been playing mostly lock up north for some time, he could be a good choice (depending on how he performs). Let's hope he shows that he's improved since leaving.

 

[Highlander35]

The likelihood is that Mumm will go unless Arnold tears it up at international level. And selecting a 6 who can play lock is particularly pertinent given Chieka will be selecting a backrow with 2 players who prefer 7 at international level and 3 players that prefer 8, or vice versa.

 

[Quick Hands]

I really don't see a problem with the rule, they have signed to play and the coach sees value in the selection.

It is a fair bit better IMHO than the Gits rule

Typos by SwiftKey, errors in tone by me

My opposition to the rule is that I believe that only players who are playing in Australia in 2015 (for example) should be eligible to play in 2015. If guys want to take the money in Europe, that's fine I don't have a problem with it, but if they aren't playing super rugby until 2016, they shouldn't be considered for Wallaby selection until 2016. How do we judge guys who have played in Europe during the NH 2014/15 season against guys who have played super rugby in 2015?

That's the logic for my view, and I accept that I am in the minority.

 

[Merrow]

My opposition to the rule is that I believe that only players who are playing in Australia in 2015 (for example) should be eligible to play in 2015. If guys want to take the money in Europe, that's fine I don't have a problem with it, but if they aren't playing super rugby until 2016, they shouldn't be considered for Wallaby selection until 2016. How do we judge guys who have played in Europe during the NH 2014/15 season against guys who have played super rugby in 2015?

That's the logic for my view, and I accept that I am in the minority.

I think you've got that spot on.

 

[Groucho]

Is "incentive" the right word? Elsom, for example, was allowed his overseas contract because of financial problems, reportedly.

Perhaps the ARU simply does what any good employer does: tailor their policies to the needs of their employees, as well as to the rest of the game's stakeholders.

Who is the loser?

I mean incentive in the economics sense wambers (although not a financial incentive, but a behavioral one). There's an incentive to return, because there's a benefit to players from making that choice. However there's also an incentive to leave, provided the intention is to return. The ARU will have thought in those terms when framing the rules, trying to find the optimal balance, because their main threat is player drain. I doubt they're quite as gormless as people paint them as being.

 

[mudskipper]

Cheika stated recently he saw value in players with current northern hemisphere experience. He believed they could add real value to the wider RWC squad preparing for a northern RWC comp. Personally I think he is right, it may give the Wallabies extra experience in knowing the opposition as against England and Wales in the Pool stages. Could mean the Wallabies making the semi-final cut...

The only way he can know is bring them into play...

 

[Brumby Runner]

We are averaging about one player a season who is getting into the Wallaby squad because they have signed a contract for the next year in Australia.

Those so called depth players have no right to expect to play for the Wallabies just because they are playing in Australia. If they're not good enough, they shouldn't be picked.

South Africa has made every player eligible regardless of where they play and I agree that is damaging their Super teams. I don't think we should adopt that policy and we haven't.

You could also argue that the coaching is damaging the South African Super Rugby sides more than the available players.


Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

I think the problem BH is that the rule that allows players who have signed for the following year to be selected for the Wallabies in the present year is only a new one. It did not exist when Luke Burgess returned a few years ago. That's a very small sample to be working on averages when in the more recent years it seems that more and more players are at least being considered even if eventually they don't make the squad. Looks to me to be a growing trend and one that I believe will have longer term detrimental impacts on the quality of the Aus Super teams.

 

[Braveheart81]

We are also adapting to the changing economics of World Rugby.

It's about striking a balance between keeping players in Australia and maintaining a strong Super Rugby competition whilst also trying to make the Wallabies as strong as possible.

Personally, I think they're striking a pretty good balance with the current policies.

I don't think it will be abused heavily because I don't think it would be a good career move to go back and forth between foreign and domestic contracts either from a financial or representative perspective.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

My opposition to the rule is that I believe that only players who are playing in Australia in 2015 (for example) should be eligible to play in 2015. If guys want to take the money in Europe, that's fine I don't have a problem with it, but if they aren't playing super rugby until 2016, they shouldn't be considered for Wallaby selection until 2016. How do we judge guys who have played in Europe during the NH 2014/15 season against guys who have played super rugby in 2015?

That's the logic for my view, and I accept that I am in the minority.

"We" don't, the coaches do.

Let me put it another way if a player misses the most of the S15 season like say Carter or Cooper, do we judge them on the quality of the minutes played only this season or a few games of club they may play after the S15 season, or their work on the training paddock and their history of work?

I would assume it is a combination of all of the above, and I don't see how a full NH season of work should be totally ignored

 

[KOB1987]

Reading these posts it seems that a lot of people have decided that Dean Mumm is already a dud selection just because the returning players rule wasn't successful for Elsom, Vickerman and Burgess. I think people need to remember that the post match threads after last year's tests were littered with criticism of the performances of our locks. We have identified a couple of emerging talents this season and Skelton has improved but we have also lost Carter indefinitely. So it's likely that the coaches are still viewing that as an area of vulnerability for the Wallabies and therefore are going to explore all of our alternatives. Mumm wasn't the best player when he left but he has 3 seasons of NH experience since then and the only way to line him up against the alternatives is to put him on the park. The fact that he is still in the squad implies that he performed well enough during last week's training camp.

The same goes for Giteau & Mitchell.

As for Kane Douglas, he is a completely different kettle of fish. He has simply realised that he made a bad call and has changed his mind, and wants to return to Australia. The only people suggesting that he will get a world cup call up are the media. Realistically he won't play for the Wallabies this year but as from next season if he is playing super rugby here he is just as entitled to be selected as anyone else. And that's how the KD show will play out, IF he can get a release from Leinster.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Reading these posts it seems that a lot of people have decided that Dean Mumm is already a dud selection just because the returning players rule wasn't successful for Elsom, Vickerman and Burgess. I think people need to remember that the post match threads after last year's tests were littered with criticism of the performances of our locks. We have identified a couple of emerging talents this season and Skelton has improved but we have also lost Carter indefinitely. So it's likely that the coaches are still viewing that as an area of vulnerability for the Wallabies and therefore are going to explore all of our alternatives. Mumm wasn't the best player when he left but he has 3 seasons of NH experience since then and the only way to line him up against the alternatives is to put him on the park. The fact that he is still in the squad implies that he performed well enough during last week's training camp.

The same goes for Giteau & Mitchell.

As for Kane Douglas, he is a completely different kettle of fish. He has simply realised that he made a bad call and has changed his mind, and wants to return to Australia. The only people suggesting that he will get a world cup call up are the media. Realistically he won't play for the Wallabies this year but as from next season if he is playing super rugby here he is just as entitled to be selected as anyone else. And that's how the KD show will play out, IF he can get a release from Leinster.

And plaese explain why this wouldn't include Luke Jones? One of the standout locks in Aus Super and can't make the squad. No argument in my mind that he deserves a spot before Mumm.

I agree though that if Mumm and Douglas play in next year's Super comp and carve up, then they are legitimate options for the Wallabies next year.

It is the appearance of favourable treatment towards Mumm over Jones that I think has most posters upset.

EDIT : And in Kane Douglas'case, it is the thought (suggestion) that the ARU is considering shelling out up to $370,000 to get him out of his present contract that riles most, just as is the case if they consider shelling out for either Cooper or Genia.

 

[Tomikin]

Have we signed a forwards coach yet, I heard the Tah guy was close but has there been an official announcement ?