Big change to eligibility rules

[ChargerWA]

I disagree. You want as many people as possible to play in Australia - or at least in Super Rugby (I wouldn't be opposed to opening up eligibility within Super Rugby). If these sort of guys want to play test matches for Australia then they shouldn't go to Europe. I don't like this new rule at all, it's a slippery slope.

What's the point of opening up eligibility within super rugby when SA and NZ teams historically pay their players less.

The slippery slope is to ignore the declining popularity of Rugby in Australia and pig headedly carry on as you always have hoping things will get better.

 

[Bullrush]

What's the point of opening up eligibility within super rugby when SA and NZ teams historically pay their players less.

The slippery slope is to ignore the declining popularity of Rugby in Australia and pig headedly carry on as you always have hoping things will get better.

How will opening up the eligibility make rugby more popular?

 

[Bullrush]

Yeah, I agree too. Plenty of players have ended up with small numbers of Test caps where they otherwise would have got quite a few. Think Chris Whittaker behind Gregan, for example. Like the ones above. 100 Super rugby caps seems like a good marker of dedication to Oz rugby.

The reality is that there weren't good enough to be the No.1 Test choice. Not sure that this changes a lot simply because No.1 goes away.

I remember thinking how unlucky Marty Holah was when Kronfeld buggered off and McCaw came up. I thought that the gap between McCaw and Holah really wasn't that big - until McCaw got injured one year and Holah became starting 7.

There's usually a a good reason why those guys have lots of Super Rugby caps and not a lot of Tests.

Just don't remind me of this when we start talking about Luke Braid - hahahahahaha

 

[Omar Comin']

What's the point of opening up eligibility within super rugby when SA and NZ teams historically pay their players less.

The slippery slope is to ignore the declining popularity of Rugby in Australia and pig headedly carry on as you always have hoping things will get better.

Some players want a new life experience as much as anything else. And in coming years there'll be teams from places other than just NZ, Australia and South Africa.

Super rugby will die in Australia if it becomes a 2nd rate competition with 2nd rate players. The eligibility criteria will get less and less strict and we'll end up with a semi-pro NRC in its place and every Wallaby and fringe Wallaby based in competitions of which we have no part.

 

[ChargerWA]

Rugby in Australia is at its strongest when the Wallabies are playing well. It makes sense to strengthen the Wallabies and try to get more people interested.

You won't grow the game by winning Super Rugby titles in pretty much any state except QLD. The Tahs support levels this year make that abundantly clear.

 

[cyclopath]

The reality is that there weren't good enough to be the No.1 Test choice. Not sure that this changes a lot simply because No.1 goes away.

I remember thinking how unlucky Marty Holah was when Kronfeld buggered off and McCaw came up. I thought that the gap between McCaw and Holah really wasn't that big - until McCaw got injured one year and Holah became starting 7.

There's usually a a good reason why those guys have lots of Super Rugby caps and not a lot of Tests.

Just don't remind me of this when we start talking about Luke Braid - hahahahahaha

It's not saying they were #1, it's saying they're good servants of rugby who, if not for the guy in front, would have garnered a lot more Tests, so hardly mediocre players, just stuck behind a great one. I think good servants of the game in this country should be rewarded, not necessarily just the ones who make 60 Tests. A guy who played a moderate number of Tests, and lots of Super rugby probably deserves some recognition for their service to the game. 100 Super rugby caps sounded like a good number.

 

[Forcefield]

The risk of players moving overseas is a fairly big problem now while there is pressure on the talent pool. This will soon (in 2-3 years) be mitigated somewhat by Force and Rebels increasingly expanding their local talent pools and a few successive years of the NRC. The better, fairer age grade pathways currently in place will also help.

There might be a few lean years in the mean time but I reckon we will be buoyant again by the next (2019) RWC if we can hold out until then.

Given recent reports of many of the French clubs finances, I also wonder if they are capable of sustaining what they are paying players.

I reckon the new 60/7 idea is a good one. It rewards the few who stick it out while providing a bit of an incentive for players not quite in the 60/7 category to stick around.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Offsiders played some PUlver footage I hadn't seen.
In it he said that a side effect of the change in rules would be to make Australian players relatively less attractive to European and other clubs because they would not run the risk of having to release players for sanctioned tests. He said that knowing that a player could never be picked under the old rules made Ozzies more attractive.

 

[mst]

Offsiders played some PUlver footage I hadn't seen.
In it he said that a side effect of the change in rules would be to make Australian players relatively less attractive to European and other clubs because they would not run the risk of having to release players for sanctioned tests. He said that knowing that a player could never be picked under the old rules made Ozzies more attractive.

Interestingly one of the hottest topics in French rugby that has got a lot of press domestically and internationally in recent times in the on-going "problems" between the Top 14 clubs and the national side. Its a repeat of the EPL / English FA problem where the clubs are "protecting" their assets by making them unavailable through injury or requiring rest. The issue occurred during the 6 nations with players suffering as mere pawns in the game, including potentially now missing WC selection.

The way the Top14 owners run their clubs and the expectations they have of their contacted players IMHO Pulver is being a little naive to think its all that simple. Remember the $$ and market for Top14 is large. powerful and demanding.

End of the day we will never stop the flow of players O/S without more damage to the game. IMHO rugby is a job so if you are imposing condition on service against potential income elsewhere you risk having the lower paid less skilled workforce and no loyalty. My attitude is we need to work on the "return"policy and support the "money run" O/S.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

and there i was giving him credit - for the first time

 

[boyo]

and there i was giving him credit - for the first time

Will you make that mistake again?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Will you make that mistake again?

unlikely - but there are plenty of others I will

 

[Omar Comin']

Rugby in Australia is at its strongest when the Wallabies are playing well. It makes sense to strengthen the Wallabies and try to get more people interested.

You won't grow the game by winning Super Rugby titles in pretty much any state except QLD. The Tahs support levels this year make that abundantly clear.

The Wallabies will never be strong all the time and putting all your eggs in one basket is a terrible strategy. Especially as world rugby is becoming increasingly competitive and will continue to do so. And picking our players from Europe is not going to strengthen us compared to where we are now anyway.

If you have no strong professional competition that includes Australian domestic teams then there's little to grow. There's no base. The Wallabies play about 6 home games a year, it's a tiny amount of content. Both cricket and soccer have been successful in the last several years because their focus has been on diversifying their commercial offering so that the success of those sports aren't completely reliant on the performances of one national team.

 

[Pfitzy]

I think you're overstating the effect - the players will already have 60 Tests so they've done their time. Similarly, even if you played every Super match for your team and made the finals every year, you'd need to have been contracted at least 6 years to make 100 games happen.

The other benefit of course is that the ARU can offshore some talent and stop paying anything other than match fees for it.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think it could work out okay with the current criteria but already there are calls to make it less strict. This will only continue. Give an inch they'll take a mile. Even with this criteria the guys that could leave and be selected for the Wallabies in future will be guys in their prime. 26/27 year olds that are the stars of the game in this country leaving and adding prestige to the European comps at the expense of Super Rugby. Imagine if the NZRU do this too. You'd have the best All Blacks, Springboks and Wallabies playing in France in their peak.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm definitely against relaxing the eligibility rules to just being based on Super Rugby caps.

We need to encourage players to stay in the country as much as possible, particularly players with experience who are close to Wallaby squads for substantial periods of time.

I don't think you want to create a situation where you're likely to be picking more than one or two foreign based players in a Wallaby team so in order to do that, you need to only make a limited number of foreign based players eligible.

Getting to 100 Super Rugby caps isn't that difficult especially now that we have five teams.

 

[Viking]

If these rules were made earlier do you think players like Higgers, Digby, would have stayed longer? Surely they would have stayed another year to get there 60 caps. (surely both would be close to 60 - can't think of any others).

 

[liquor box]

I'm definitely against relaxing the eligibility rules to just being based on Super Rugby caps.

We need to encourage players to stay in the country as much as possible, particularly players with experience who are close to Wallaby squads for substantial periods of time.

I don't think you want to create a situation where you're likely to be picking more than one or two foreign based players in a Wallaby team so in order to do that, you need to only make a limited number of foreign based players eligible.

Getting to 100 Super Rugby caps isn't that difficult especially now that we have five teams.

Surely players with 100 super rugby caps have shown they stayed in the country and therefore have been close to the wallaby squads.

 

[Viking]

Surely players with 100 super rugby caps have shown they stayed in the country and therefore have been close to the wallaby squads.

100 super caps plus 20 Test caps could be something to think about. I certainly don't think any player with less then 10 Test caps should be considered no matter how many super caps they have.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think you want to actively encourage those players to stay in Australia so I think not making them eligible for the Wallabies is a better course of action.

I tend to think that those experienced players who might be roughly third in line for a Wallaby spot would not be likely to get selected if they were based overseas anyway unless there was an injury crisis.

I'd prefer to make a one off exception and say you're picking a foreign based player because there is an injury crisis rather than relaxing the rules to a point where far more foreign based players are eligible for selection.