Waratahs 2018

[Braveheart81]

If not we probably will have Clark and Kellaway on either wing. Both are solid but aren't match winners. TN will likely come off the bench.

I agree with this. I think Clark was substantially better than Kellaway in 2017 but also think he needs to match with someone on the other wing with more x-factor.

Clark is really solid and will work to a plan very well (timing on set moves/decoy runs was really good), defends well, kicks decently. He isn't going to beat four players to score though.

I think Alex Gibbon is rock solid and a quality finisher, but Latu Latunipulu looks bloody brilliant.

Yeah, he has looked good. Pretty and pace and also good size and step.

 

[jimmydubs]

There is a strange duality in the opinion of non-tah fans. On the one hand, the Tahs should be great because we have so many Wallabies. On the other, the Wallabies are shit because they have so many Tahs.

It's not really duality at all. if you hold the view some of Tahs don't deserve their test spots, the Tahs then being shit if anything reinforces that point.

Don't crucify me I only partly hold that view.
I sit on the fence between that and just staring in wonder at comments that you need better players in the pack when you can trot out basically a wallabies pack.

I'm a Reds fan and we have a lot of wallabies and we are shit. We don't need better players we need better coaching and team performancs to get the best out of what we have. We won the thing with a lot ropier squad.

So long story is there seems to be a sense of entitlement with Tahs fans that you should have the best player in every spot and call other guys you have crap and need replaced. It seem some want a world xv in light blue.

Now you can crucify me.

I just like reading all the threads and this one is a bit, we'll like I describe.

 

[kiap]

There is a strange duality in the opinion of non-tah fans.

Opinions? …

- Tahs record was 16th best of 18 teams

- Tahs received most in ARU top-ups

 

[Braveheart81]

Opinions? …

- Tahs record was 16th best of 18 teams

- Tahs received most in ARU top-ups

Citation needed.

 

[jimmydubs]

Actually the duality is "these guys are good enough for the Wallabies but not good enough to start for the Tahs"

 

[Braveheart81]

Actually the duality is "these guys are good enough for the Wallabies but not good enough to start for the Tahs"

That is entirely based around Hanigan and Dempsey isn't it?

I too would put one of them on the bench because I think Holloway at number 8 provides better balance to the backrow than the two of them starting at 6 and 8.

I think Phipps will start in 2018. His form in the latter part of the season is chalk and cheese compared to the form that saw him rightfully dropped for Gordon early in the season.

 

[jimmydubs]

Citation needed.

Citation needed that it's not the case!
I don't see why they can't publish a number (all topups combined) for each team, in the interests of transparency, agreed?

But seriously you think a team with folau, Foley, Beale, hoops doesn't have the biggest topups budget by far?

 

[kiap]

Citation needed.

That's my statement in testimony.

Subject to confidentiality: Understand, Senator, for me to release the terms of these contracts will require approval of the players. I'll take on notice your request and see whether it can be revealed.

In camera, of course.

 

[jimmydubs]

That is entirely based around Hanigan and Dempsey isn't it?

I too would put one of them on the bench because I think Holloway at number 8 provides better balance to the backrow than the two of them starting at 6 and 8.

I think Phipps will start in 2018. His form in the latter part of the season is chalk and cheese compared to the form that saw him rightfully dropped for Gordon early in the season.

Nah, some posters say bemch Robertson or Phipps as well.
And yes I doubt it's exactly the same poster defending Robertson at test level but calling for him to be benched at the Tahs. But I was responding to the duality accusation levelled against all non sky-blues so that's fine.

 

[Braveheart81]

Citation needed that it's not the case!
I don't see why they can't publish a number (all topups combined) for each team, in the interests of transparency, agreed?

But seriously you think a team with folau, Foley, Beale, hoops doesn't have the biggest topups budget by far?

Players salaries aren't public (as is the case in pretty much all sports in Australia) for privacy purposes.

Lots of foreign leagues make them public because it then makes scrutiny of salary caps easy.

It may well be the case in 2018 but Beale didn't play for the Tahs in 2017.

Reds have Slipper, Moore Douglas, Simmons, Cooper, Kerevi.

Brumbies have Sio, Ala'alatoa, Carter, Arnold, Kuridrani, Speight and Pocock (albeit Pocock didn't play in 2017 but was paid).

I think there's a reasonable chance the Brumbies or Reds would have had the most top up dollars in 2017.

I also don't think it really matters. It's a fact of life. The ARU are going to pay to keep their key Wallabies in Australia and they aren't going to dictate that they have to play for certain teams.

 

[jimmydubs]

Players salaries aren't public (as is the case in pretty much all sports in Australia) for privacy purposes..

One number per team Tahs got $x.xx million, Brumbies, Reds etc. That doesn't reveal anything more on a per player level than the publishing of the fact there is a salary cap.

Not doing it makes a mockery of even having a salary cap. Regardless of who gets the most.

They need to shitcan the topups. Increase the amount each club gets proportionately. EDIT as my phone is a f#$*%. And/or increase match fees for wallabies.

I know this is a diversion but your honour I was led down the garden path by a 1 "braveheart

 

[kiap]

Reds have Slipper, Moore Douglas, Simmons, Cooper, Kerevi.

Brumbies have Sio, Ala'alatoa, Carter, Arnold, Kuridrani, Speight and Pocock (albeit Pocock didn't play in 2017 but was paid).

I think there's a reasonable chance the Brumbies or Reds would have had the most top up dollars in 2017.

Wow. This is fun.

 

[Braveheart81]

One number per team Tahs got $x.xx million, Brumbies, Reds etc. That doesn't reveal anything more on a per player level than the publishing of the fact there is a salary cap.

Not doing it makes a mockery of even having a salary cap. Regardless of who gets the most.

They need to shitcan the topups. Increase the amount each club gets proportionately. EDIT as my phone is a f#$*%. And/or increase match fees for wallabies.

I know this is a diversion but your honour I was led down the garden path by a 1 "braveheart

Why would the ARU can the top ups and increase Wallabies match fees? The guaranteed contracts help keep players in the country. Players who have left in the past have known they may well earn close to what they get overseas but it involves playing every test and if they get injured their earnings get slashed. They can go and play in Europe where almost all the income is guaranteed.

If they truly push the salaries back to the Super Rugby teams it would be detrimental to the Wallabies because the needs of the Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies are different.

I don't think they will ever link the availability of an ARU contract to a requirement to play for a certain team. They are trying to keep the players in the country, not provide reasons for them to leave by forcing people to relocate to somewhere they don't want to.

Players don't become cheap to the Super Rugby side because they get an ARU top up contract.

 

[jimmydubs]

Why would the ARU can the top ups and increase Wallabies match fees? The guaranteed contracts help keep players in the country. Players who have left in the past have known they may well earn close to what they get overseas but it involves playing every test and if they get injured their earnings get slashed. They can go and play in Europe where almost all the income is guaranteed.

If they truly push the salaries back to the Super Rugby teams it would be detrimental to the Wallabies because the needs of the Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies are different.

I don't think they will ever link the availability of an ARU contract to a requirement to play for a certain team. They are trying to keep the players in the country, not provide reasons for them to leave by forcing people to relocate to somewhere they don't want to.

Players don't become cheap to the Super Rugby side because they get an ARU top up contract.

A super rugby club can be paying less for a Wallaby than a non Wallaby, no? So yes the players do come cheap to the super teams.

I fundamentally disagree on the rest as you can make a system work that is fairer to all than the current system with higher match payments and some more cash to super clubs.


You have yltopped up player getting more to only play for there state than a guy who cracks yhe wallabies based on current form. You have an uneven playing field for super teams.

For me this would increase the chances of a Gill or Jones sticking around and probably increase a rob Horne type leaving earlier. Fine. Maybe wed also losepocock foe a spell, But We Have anyway!!

Anyhow. Garden path must end here somewhere and a mod lead me back somewhere else surely

 

[Jagman]

The duality is that someone makes a positive statement about Tahs players and the Tahs thread becomes an argument about salary caps. Plenty of over zealous praise toward players on brumbies and reds thread and so there should be on those threads but I rarely see other fans going on there to poopoo all the positivity.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

He has the bulk of a number 8, the pace of a winger and the rugby ability of neither.

Put him at 8, give him the ball, and tell him to run that way (points towards opposition 10). Cannot be all that hard?

 

[RoffsChoice]

Money be damned. I'd bet Australian Rugby pays more per player than New Zealand. I bet every Australian team is paying more now than the Reds payed in 2011. Quality of coaching and team cohesion are far more important to a team's success than if one team is receiving 5% more in ARU top ups.

 

[Derpus]

Money be damned. I'd bet Australian Rugby pays more per player than New Zealand. I bet every Australian team is paying more now than the Reds payed in 2011. Quality of coaching and team cohesion are far more important to a team's success than if one team is receiving 5% more in ARU top ups.

Costs money.

 

[kiap]

One number per team Tahs got $x.xx million, Brumbies, Reds etc.

Numbers can be revealed … ARU top-ups for 2016:

Tahs: $2.60 m

Brum: $1.30 m

Reds: $1.05 m

Force $270 k

Rebs: $120 k

-------------

TOTAL $5.34 m

Cite

Differences aren't 5% here or there. A squad making 150% of the cap versus one making 102%.

 

[Derpus]

Numbers can be revealed … ARU top-ups for 2016:

Tahs: $2.60 m

Brum: $1.30 m

Reds: $1.05 m

Force $270 k

Rebs: $120 k

-------------

TOTAL $5.34 m

Cite

Differences aren't 5% here or there. A squad making 150% of the cap versus one making 102%.

Not an ideal outcome but could you propose a better one. I don't think you can just force test quality players to move to another city so you can evenly distribute them between teams?