What is the biggest mistake made with Australian Rugby?

[Derpus]

No but you said he is doing everything a number 8 is expected to do.. and the reality is, the the balance of the backrow is compromised when you play two short backrowers, his strengths of playing 8 are offset by weakening the lineout..

It's absolutely subjective, or maybe objective as to whether a weakened lineout is worth the benefit of playing POOPER..

And this isn't a thing against Pocock, I think I would prefer Pocock at 7 ahead of Hooper, not because he is a better player, rather I think his skill set would balance the backrow and forward pack better.

 

[Killer]

Those three all did pretty well, particularly Lote.

That's not my memory, they all had the good occasional game but basically were consistently inconsistent. IMO no better than the blokes running around at the time and payed a whole lot more which was not good for the culture. Overall a bad decision from a rugby pov imo.

 

[Micheal]

That's not my memory, they all had the good occasional game but basically were consistently inconsistent. IMO no better than the blokes running around at the time and payed a whole lot more which was not good for the culture. Overall a bad decision from a rugby pov imo.

Memory's funny, innit? Your memory certainly isn't mine.

As a young fella in that generation Matt Rodgers, Lote and Wendell were three of the players that excited me the most.

Massive marketing drawcards and I think their onfield performances were fine to great.

To say they are the biggest mistake rugby union in Australia has ever made is hyperbole to a tee.

 

[Braveheart81]

Tuqiri's tries per cap is the 5th best for the Wallabies.

 

[ACT Crusader]

To say they are the biggest mistake rugby union in Australia has ever made is hyperbole to a tee.

I guess there’s no hyperbole then, because no one has made that claim or point.

They were quite inconsistent. Rogers wasn’t a regular starter. Wendell’s form was poor so much so he struggled to even make test day 22’s. Lote took a couple of seasons at least to learn how to hit a ruck properly. H did come good in the end though and was pretty effective at test level without being a star. Again these guys were on massive money and I don’t think relative to their pay it was a success. What we saw after was the likes of Cross and Tahu also demanding big money.

 

[Killer]

Memory's funny, innit? Your memory certainly isn't mine.

As a young fella in that generation Matt Rodgers, Lote and Wendell were three of the players that excited me the most.

Massive marketing drawcards and I think their onfield performances were fine to great.

To say they are the biggest mistake rugby union in Australia has ever made is hyperbole to a tee.

Yeah, agree good for promotion. My memory was Matt was always injured and well past his best/too old and broken. Lote looked threatening but rarely did much, same with Sailor ran over a couple of blokes but that was it. For so called stars didn't make much of an impact on the field or for Aust imo.

 

[Micheal]

I guess there’s no hyperbole then, because no one has made that claim or point.

They were quite inconsistent. Rogers wasn’t a regular starter. Wendell’s form was poor so much so he struggled to even make test day 22’s. Lote took a couple of seasons at least to learn how to hit a ruck properly. H did come good in the end though and was pretty effective at test level without being a star. Again these guys were on massive money and I don’t think relative to their pay it was a success. What we saw after was the likes of Cross and Tahu also demanding big money.

Highest Wallaby tryscorers:

David Campese - 64
Chris Latham - 40
Adam Ashley-Cooper - 37
Drew Mitchell - 34
Lote Tuqiri - 30
Joe Roff - 30
Matt Giteau - 30
Tim Horan - 30
Israel Folau - 30
Matt Burke - 29
Stirling Mortlock - 29

Lote's equal 5th in terms of highest Wallaby tryscorers with 30 tries. Most people would say that most players in that list are 'stars'.

He's also one of only four Wallabies to score 4 or more tries in a game.

That's pretty star-like in my opinion.

Matt Rogers has scored the most points ever by a single player in a Wallaby match. He also played 45 games for those who suggest he was "always injured". In those games he scored 14 tries. Pretty good strike rate.

Wendell scored 17 tries in 16 games for Australia.

I'm not saying they're the greatest players we've ever had, but I also get annoyed when people make them out to be sub-par players who only had the odd, far-inbetween moment of brilliance.

Cross and Tahu were flops but Rogers, Wendell and Tuqiri were great individuals to have in the rugby union camp.

 

[Braveheart81]

Cross and Tahu were flops but Rogers, Wendell and Tuqiri were great individuals to have in the rugby union camp.

Tahu was certainly a flop but I don't think Cross can really be put in the same category.

I don't think the ARU ever forked out big money to get him across from league.

He was an Australian schoolboy player who came back to union after a number of years in league.

I think the Force put a pretty strong Super Rugby offer to him but it was never a huge deal involving the ARU.

 

[Derpus]

That's not my memory, they all had the good occasional game but basically were consistently inconsistent. IMO no better than the blokes running around at the time and payed a whole lot more which was not good for the culture. Overall a bad decision from a rugby pov imo.

Pretty sure Izzy only just tied Lote's record for tries in a season for the Wallabies. The seasons were shorter back then too.

 

[Killer]

Statistics can be persuasive, but my thoughts at the time were that many rugby boys if given the opportunities that they were regardless of their early and mostly continuing poor form could have done equally as well.
As ACT Crusader said, 2 of the 3 were lucky to even be in the 22. I think they were an expensive PR stunt that probably hindered of stopped some careers. Don't ask me who.
Maybe some QLD or Tah supporters who watched most of their super games can comment.

 

[Derpus]

Statistics can be persuasive, but my thoughts at the time were that many rugby boys if given the opportunities that they were regardless of their early and mostly continuing poor form could have done equally as well.
As ACT Crusader said, 2 of the 3 were lucky to even be in the 22. I think they were an expensive PR stunt that probably hindered of stopped some careers. Don't ask me who.
Maybe some QLD or Tah supporters who watched most of their super games can comment.

See above.

 

[Slim 293]

The trio were certainly a big marketing boost going into the 2003 RWC, and all of them deserved their place in the team around that time........

Sailor was the only starter early on and the other two had to work their way in.........

Post 2003 Tuqiri turned out to be the best of the lot in terms of form and longevity, as other good outside backs emerged.

In hindsight I don't know if you'd do anything different......... the way they all left the game was probably the biggest disappointment.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I guess there’s no hyperbole then, because no one has made that claim or point.

They were quite inconsistent. Rogers wasn’t a regular starter. Wendell’s form was poor so much so he struggled to even make test day 22’s. Lote took a couple of seasons at least to learn how to hit a ruck properly. H did come good in the end though and was pretty effective at test level without being a star. Again these guys were on massive money and I don’t think relative to their pay it was a success. What we saw after was the likes of Cross and Tahu also demanding big money.

And other forgettable converts, though probably not so highly paid: Blacklock, McLinden (or was it McFadden), Schifcofske. Anyone remember them?

 

[Derpus]

The trio were certainly a big marketing boost going into the 2003 RWC, and all of them deserved their place in the team around that time....

Sailor was the only starter early on and the other two had to work their way in...

Post 2003 Tuqiri turned out to be the best of the lot in terms of form and longevity, as other good outside backs emerged.

In hindsight I don't know if you'd do anything different... the way they all left the game was probably the biggest disappointment.

Why did tuqiri leave union?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Why did tuqiri leave union?

I think someone better call the Mods

 

[Derpus]

I think someone better call the Mods

eh?

 

[Sauron]

And other forgettable converts, though probably not so highly paid: Blacklock, McLinden (or was it McFadden), Schifcofske. Anyone remember them?

Schif was great. He wasn't paid stupid money, and was great for the Reds at the time (after the devastation of the Force). Not sure why anybody would put him in a list of bad converts.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

eh?

Anyone who posts the version Ive heard will probably be banned

 

[ACT Crusader]

On Lote’s try scoring record refered to above, of his 30 test tries, 10 of them came against tier 2 nations and further 6 against Scotland during an era of a very poor Scotland side.

It doesn’t tell the whole story but it does put his try score if record in some context.

He wasn’t a bad player and I don’t think anyone here is saying that, but i do recall grumblings inside and from fans at the time that he wasn’t really delivering what he was brought in at and subsequently revalued at.

I just don’t think it was a smart move to pay so much for these guys when there were large question marks over them. I accept every player presents some risk, but there was huge risk with these guys.

 

[Derpus]

On Lote’s try scoring record refered to above, of his 30 test tries, 10 of them came against tier 2 nations and further 6 against Scotland during an era of a very poor Scotland side.

It doesn’t tell the whole story but it does put his try score if record in some context.

He wasn’t a bad player and I don’t think anyone here is saying that, but i do recall grumblings inside and from fans at the time that he wasn’t really delivering what he was brought in at and subsequently revalued at.

I just don’t think it was a smart move to pay so much for these guys when there were large question marks over them. I accept every player presents some risk, but there was huge risk with these guys.

I certainly don't think Wendell Sailor was worth $700,000 way back then. Supposedly that is what he was on. Had to have been the biggest salary in the world at the time. Hell Charlie Piutau just became the highest paid player at a million pounds a year some 10 years later which isn't that much more. So you may have a point. Just don't think Tuqiri in particular is a good example.