• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Aussie Player Exodus

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Alternatively, younger guys may choose to go earlier.

Let's say Kepu and Slipper head overseas next year as the 2 best Wallaby props.
A young guy may just decide there's no benefit to staying here and playing for the spot that would have been left vacant by these guys - they are still eligible and probably will continue to be top choice for at least another year or two.

May as well go and make some money in France or Japan for a year or two.

The sword cuts both ways.

I don't see this change influencing this. If you're a young player and you're clearly behind Slipper and Kepu what does it matter where they are playing (now that the rule has changed)? They're going to get picked ahead of you anyway.

There are four props in every matchday squad and with Kepu leaving you'd expect another top up contract to be available. There's still substantial financial reward available for players staying in Australia together with the chance of securing a regular Wallaby spot (even if it ends up being on the bench).

I think the Wallabies will remain a team largely made up of locally based players. It will very much be the exception for foreign based veterans to be selected in the team. As others have said, European players only get released for test windows so they miss out on training camps etc. Due to those drawbacks I think in any close run situation, the local player will get picked.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
I don't see this change influencing this. If you're a young player and you're clearly behind Slipper and Kepu what does it matter where they are playing (now that the rule has changed)? They're going to get picked ahead of you anyway.


This rule changes that when Kepu goes O/S, he actually doesn't leave a spot vacant on the Wallabies. So a youngster may think to himself it's not worth sticking around on a smaller salary - he may as well go overseas and make a few dollars.

Up until yesterday, Kepu dropped right out of contention which opened up a contest for that spot. A younger guy would then weigh up whether the money overseas was worth giving up on a Wallaby dream and not having:

1. The opportunity to prove himself in the best non_test competition in the world.

2. The opportunity to ask for bigger $$ down the track if he DID crack the Wallabies and play Test rugby.

There are some benefits to this new rule but as I said earlier - I think the sword will cut both ways.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
This rule changes that when Kepu goes O/S, he actually doesn't leave a spot vacant on the Wallabies. So a youngster may think to himself it's not worth sticking around on a smaller salary - he may as well go overseas and make a few dollars.

Up until yesterday, Kepu dropped right out of contention which opened up a contest for that spot. A younger guy would then weigh up whether the money overseas was worth giving up on a Wallaby dream and not having:


It will still free up the bigger Super Rugby contract and ARU top up that Kepu previously held. Everyone still effectively moves up a rung in Australia even if the chances of earning test selection don't increase because Kepu is still in the mix.

I agree that it will be a bit of a double edged sword. Everything has consequences. I just don't think the downsides will be that substantial.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Interesting that Dennis' big offer was from Harlequins, I wonder if they're trying to offload Horwill after paying big overs for him.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Another point to consider is that those test contention players OS will not be "in front" of the Wallabies selectors every week. Yes games might be televised, but as Grant Fox said when interviewed during last week's Blues match, 'there are things that you see during a game at the match that you just don't pick up from the broadcast or from video analysis later'.

I still think that players in Super Rugby will have a distinct advantage over OS players for this reason. The advantage swings the other way when the incumbent local player and back-up are injured and the fringe players are not regarded as ready. For instance imagine next year that Phipps is injured (heaven forbid), at this stage I'd suggest that Stirzacker is next in line locally (or maybe Frisby), but neither has been capped and who is then the reserve?

Add into this the advantage that locals will have in that they can have contact with national S&C people throughout the year instead of just during the "window".

The law of unintended consequences is at play as well and we will just have to wait and see what happens in actuality.

I think the design intentionally picked 60 caps to exclude fringe players who haven't been regular starters over a the extended period for a reason. I do not think the 60 caps was an arbitrary number they came up with for the sake of rewarding "loyalty" and "service".
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Alternatively, younger guys may choose to go earlier.

Let's say Kepu and Slipper head overseas next year as the 2 best Wallaby props.
A young guy may just decide there's no benefit to staying here and playing for the spot that would have been left vacant by these guys - they are still eligible and probably will continue to be top choice for at least another year or two.

What you're essentially describing though goes to the heart of why the wallabies need this rule. Our test team should be the best of the best. The best way for us to improve as a test nation is to have strong competition for positions across the entire team. We're better off creating a situation whereby the up-and-coming local props have to usurp the established props by showing their better players, not just because those players are no longer available. Healthy competition for spots is what will really increase the value of playing for Australia, rather than the "everyone who's half decent in Australia gets a wallabies jersey" mentality. Rod Davis was a wallaby FFS.

I'll add to that, as BH mentioned earlier, the best way to get selected for Australia will continue to be by playing in Australia for a Super team where coaches can gauge your worth against the best players from South Africa and New Zealand. Hell Matt Giteau has been the best player in Europe for several years now and people are still questioning whether he'd match up to our talent in Super Rugby.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
What you're essentially describing though goes to the heart of why the wallabies need this rule. Our test team should be the best of the best. The best way for us to improve as a test nation is to have strong competition for positions across the entire team. We're better off creating a situation whereby the up-and-coming local props have to usurp the established props by showing their better players, not just because those players are no longer available. Healthy competition for spots is what will really increase the value of playing for Australia, rather than the "everyone who's half decent in Australia gets a wallabies jersey" mentality. Rod Davis was a wallaby FFS.

I'll add to that, as BH mentioned earlier, the best way to get selected for Australia will continue to be by playing in Australia for a Super team where coaches can gauge your worth against the best players from South Africa and New Zealand. Hell Matt Giteau has been the best player in Europe for several years now and people are still questioning whether he'd match up to our talent in Super Rugby.

When Jimmy Goppeth is the starting 10 in a top 4 team, it's not hard to see why.

How do you know who the 'best of the best' is when they aren't even playing each other? Or when the level of the respective competitions may not be the same?

Again, I hope NZ never goes down this track as I think it lowers the value of the jersey and what it means to wear it.
 

the plastic paddy

John Solomon (38)
Alternatively, younger guys may choose to go earlier.

Let's say Kepu and Slipper head overseas next year as the 2 best Wallaby props.
A young guy may just decide there's no benefit to staying here and playing for the spot that would have been left vacant by these guys - they are still eligible and probably will continue to be top choice for at least another year or two.

May as well go and make some money in France or Japan for a year or two.

The sword cuts both ways.

I understand why the ARU is doing this and there are some benefits but to me, it doesn't add to the value of the Wallaby jersey. No matter how good you are, no matter how many years service you've given, no-one is more important than the jersey and if you value it enough, you'll stick around playing in the best non-Test competition in the world to prove it.

I truly hope the ABs don't follow this line at all in the future..
But most of the market in the NH is for SH test players. You would have something to fear from the Irish but, given the whole Island has the same number of foreign players as one French club that shouldn't be a priority.
 

Tangawizi

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Bugger

3f63cf0d544a9732cf2f47f4acc5f587.jpg
 

Grandmaster Flash

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Yep, Quade gone for two years to Toulon. Would be 29 when he's off contract, potentially leaving the door open for a tilt back in Oz rugby/RWC19?

Pretty devastated but to to be honest it's not much of a shock.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Year on year growth is the key statistic here. Meanwhile the popularity of rugby as a television product appears to be in decline.


And how do you think it would be doing if it contained most of the best players in the world? Have a look at how many people go to watch English Premier League teams play friendlies in Australia to get your answer.

Super Rugby will be on thin ice if it loses most of its star players in their peak.
 

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
Year on year growth is the key statistic here. Meanwhile the popularity of rugby as a television product appears to be in decline.

My theory on that is that unless its one of the traditional culturally entrenched sports like soccer in Europe, Baseball, Basketball in the US and even AFL that possess the "social and traditional elements" then you need to be adaptive to your market and audience.

NRL has tried to modify its game to make it more marketable, cricket has / is, AFL is still tinkering ....all to make sure people can watch an entertaining and constant product. Even the WEC (Le mans cars racing) have ordered all commentary be simple and be full of explanations to suit first-time views.

Rugby - The first worrying element is the word "interpretation". Knowing the wife and I don't always see things the same , the chance of agreeing with the "interpretations" of a particular ref is starting on a slippery slope. Then, if you watch a few games like over this weekend you would end up confused and frustrated unless you are rusted on.

As an average punter - The game is stoppy-starty. Apparently we love scrums and lineouts but no one seems keen on them and its rare the players know how to do it and they work. By the look of things it begs the question do the players want to play as they don't seem keen to get on with the game, rather slow it down and only throw in to a line out or scum when ordered to!

The rules seem to change from game to game. An example is over the weekend in one game scrum was going backwards and didn't collapse it was Ok, but in the other its was a penalty as the team going backward wasn't pushing forwards straight......WTF? Í dare not want to try explaining the physics of this to the average punter!

To show you how "silly" the laws are, and how poor the language is in regards to the rules was the hilarious debate we had in the stands at the Brumbies game. At one point the Landers replacement 9 did a behind the back pass that went to a player in front of him. One of the Landers fans behind us said its fine, look at the replay, it was backward out of his hand and "drifted" forwards. Funny thing was its exactly what the replay showed! So was it legal? I mean, it was backwards out of the hand!

The game needs to be made more contemporary without losing the essence of the game, and the rules need to simplified and more black and white.

Simply put, even though i am rusted on the slowness and inconstancy of refereeing is a making it hard to watch. I dare not fast-forward some sports in case i miss something - I am sure rugby is designed to be fast-forwarded!

Even Hugh Cavill admitted to Fast forwarding through the Tahs game in his write up.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
La Rochelle just scored a try after the siren to beat Toulon.. was scored by Mali Hingano.. Alofa scored the first try.

Yep injuries hurt Maile for 2 - 3 years, went over there as a reserve for a reserve - and I don't think he's lost a game. Taken his chance and good on him.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Jessie Mogg off to France

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/uni...-french-club-montpellier-20150507-ggwry0.html

One of the big factors in Mogg's decision to leave Australian rugby was knowing that Israel Folau stood in his way as the Wallabies fullback.

"Izzy has that locked down. Could I break into the team on the wing? Probably not," Mogg said.

"Maybe something on the bench? That's fairly slim. I didn't want to stay and not play [for Australia]. My intentions were to get back into the Test team. It was just a long shot.
 
Top