Aussie Player Exodus

[Dave Beat]

Dave, that's a cop out. All NRL and AFL signed players do the same thing. In fact, all professional players in all sports around the world do the same thing. And if he's not in the 1st team at Bayonne he will be doing something similar.

He was employed by the Rebels, he is obligated to play in their system.

Not having a dig at you, but this attitude towards entitlement from players and clubs needs to stop. It's directly against professionalism.

Train - cop out - no way!!!!

Neither you or I can prove my views can influence the decision making process - so we are both right (or wrong). This thread is about players exodus - ?Rebels system? - Given the state of rugby in Aust I think we should all look at keeping them in the Australian system.

It should not be missed that NRL & AFL are Australian dominated sports, i dont see that as a relevant comparison. Rugby has a strong presence and $$$ around the world. I don't have answers I have ideas.

I no you are not having a dig - but - the forum has indicated a number of areas need review.

 

[It is what it is]

Tala Grey did similar as Foketi may be about to do.

A couple of years in Biarritz for him, and back to Sydney in to the Tahs, although not much game time this year behind Palu.

And boy can Tala Grey play.
He hits like a tank in defence and runs over people with ball.
Great squad back up for Palu.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I just think it's the fact that if you want to be a professional athlete, you have to go where the franchise that signs you decides. This is not something that Rebels or even Australian rugby have started.

If you sign with a Major League Baseball team, you go to play with their affiliate teams. If you sign with an NRL team you go to play with their affiliate teams. If you sign with an AFL team, you go to play with their affiliate team in their state. When you sign with Bayonne, I guarantee you play with their affiliate second string team. I'd put my house on the fact that they won't be flying him back to the Marlins every Saturday if he's not playing in the first team!

Why Australian rugby has this view that a players link to their amateur club is stronger than the obligations to their employer, I don't know.

 

[fatprop]

Dave, that's a cop out. All NRL and AFL signed players do the same thing. In fact, all professional players in all sports around the world do the same thing. And if he's not in the 1st team at Bayonne he will be doing something similar.

He was employed by the Rebels, he is obligated to play in their system.

Not having a dig at you, but this attitude towards entitlement from players and clubs needs to stop. It's directly against professionalism.

I would suggest it isn't "professionalism" to do so.

The NRL and AFL "feeders" are often in other states to ensure a decent standard so development is not limited.

The Melbourne storm farm out players to the NSW & Qld cups, they don't stick them in the Victorian RL comp because it isn't near the same standard

The swans do the same, they send guys to the South Melbourne Swans so they get a decent sporting education

In the end they need to be playing decent rugby every weekend, not training hard and playing subbies standard social rugby on the weekend.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The Swans play in the NEAFL for their Swans affiliate. The Brisbane Lions for over a decade have played their players in the QLD top division, much like the GC Suns do now.

The Rebels are trying to lift the standard of their local competition, to improve their development pathways, much like ACT and WA are doing, whilst also ensuring they have full access to their players and are able to monitor their progress and potential injuries, etc. rather than them coming back on Monday morning learning of an injury from Saturday afternoon. Explain how this is not professionalism.

Also, just so you're aware, these players are employees, not students. They have an obligation to provide value to the employer. They aren't just their to get their own benefit then fuck off without giving anything back.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And also, in regards to your NRL example, that's not completely correct. They are sent where the club has an affiliation. As one of QLD and NSW is superior, the choice is not made on that, but where there affiliation lies.

South Sydney players play for North Sydney. Manly players play for Sunshine Coast.

As somebody who lives and works in South Melbourne I'm very intrigued to hear about these South Melbourne Swans. They must play and train in stealth because I don't know of any such team or ground. I know where the Port Melbourne VFL team, which is of no affiliation is. I find it very interesting that a team that would play out of a similar standard ground can be so well hidden in my neighbourhood.

 

[Lindommer]

The rest of fatprop's facts are right TWaS, he's not perfect, he got one wrong.

The determination by the Rebels and Force to improve rugby in their backyards is to be admired, but it's a two-edged sword: teammates of the pro players MIGHT improve, however it's hard to see how the Rebels/Force bloke keeps his standard up when he's a couple of levels better than others on the field. Spose the Force's decision can be justified due to the travel involved, but Melbourne? It's a tough one for the franchise brains trust. Hopefully, some of these problems will be alleviated with the NRC.

If it was me I'd let the fringe players (ie, not in the matchday 23 plus 1 or 2 spares) turn out in Sydney or Brisbane.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Lindommer, the only correct example is the Melbourne Storm RL example. And that's due to a less developed competition with minimal desire to change that.

But anyway, it's not an unreasonable request. If a Melbourne player went to the Waratahs he would have to play Shute Shield. If a Sydney player went to the Reds he would have to play Hospitals Cup. Ditto for ACT. Why do the Rebels get heat for asking their players to do the same thing?

Whilst the level is below Shute Shield, it's hardly subbies standard social rugby and the level is rising each year, partially due to these initiatives.

It's a simple solution, if a player doesn't want to do that, don't sign for the Rebels. Nobody is putting a gun to their head. If you want to play Shute Shield, keep playing Shute Shield and going to you scaffolding job (or whatever employment any perspective player has for that matter) on Monday morning.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think the squad is currently selected as much on form as it ever will be.

The days of selecting the Wallabies purely on form is long gone. When you're playing around 15 tests a year, the Wallabies are a team in their own right and selections will be a mix of form, experience and building on the previous team.

I don't think making overseas players eligible will lead to a mass exodus.

My main concern would be how to compare foreign players to local players. Clearly this issue is coming to a head again because of players leaving and particularly Matt Giteau's form for Toulon.

The problem is how do you compare overseas performances to local ones? It's much easier in Super Rugby where you can see players playing against each other and against the same opponents.

How do you tell exactly how well Giteau is playing? Would he be better at 12 than To'omua etc.?

Then you've got the Japanese situation. I don't think anyone was quite sure how well George Smith was going to go in Super Rugby before he returned from Japan last year. If he'd only played in Japan how do you effectively judge form?

I think an overseas selection policy would work best if it was clear that unless it is obvious, local players get selected. It would be terrible for morale and Super Rugby if players started feeling like overseas players were getting the inside running on some selection decisions.

If a player signs with an overseas club and wants to come back to have a go at the Wallabies, he should have to put in a full Super season to display his credentials, as is pretty much the current situation. Different if a top player is given the ok to take a sabbatical where he goes for one season anly with the clear intention of returning by a certain date.

The comparative form of players in Europe against those still playing Super rugby is a real issue. Just taking the Top 14 final as an example, I would not offer a test spot to any of the SH players involved, including Giteau, Mitchell, Botha, Ruan Smith, Kockett, Ali Williams etc. The standard of play was complete shit and none of these players performed to test match standard. Then again, neither did the French.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's ludicrous to say the system is broken. It achieves the best of what it can with the limited resources available.

What overseas based player would be a definite pick based on their most recent Super Rugby form? James O'Conner and he's overseas because he's contract was terminated.

Digby Ioane was subpar in 2013. Would he take a spot over Tomane and Cummins based on the form shown?

Matt Giteau was widely and rightly lambasted for his lateral attack and seeming unwillingness to play 12 any more. Would you have him at 12 over To'omua today? Would you even benefit with a 10. To'omua & 12. Giteau combo? It brings the same weaknesses in the 12 channel of direct attack and strong defence and is less evident with To'omua playing 10.

Drew Mitchell. Same as Ioane.

Peter Kimlin was indeed great in 2013. Would you say he is definitely better than Fardy and Jones, who are both that similar Lock/6? Would you rather we kept Noodles and lost Fardy?

Hugh Pyle is leaving. There's a reason he hasn't been capped.

Kieran Longbottom is leaving, but he's an uncapped player who has not really entered discussions until 2014.

Are we really missing Dean Mumm, Mark Chisholm, Julian Salvi and Blair Conner?

Nobody we have lost is first choice. Some not even second choice. Most would only be injury replacements and that's where the issue lies. You cannot throw more money at these players. You have limited funds and quite simply the gap between what they get here and what they can get overseas is too high. The only way to keep them would be at the expense of better players.

The system only hurts the Wallabies in the case of multiple injuries. But then, that is part of the system to protect Super Rugby. Changes would only decimate Super Rugby, which would ultimately be to the detriment of the Wallabies.

Any view to change to allow overseas based players being selected is short sighted. Strengthening Super Rugby will strengthen rugby in Australia, develop more players and therefore benefit Australia long term.

I'd maybe be personally open to a 100+ cap exemption. Only for legends. When you considering that players like Dean Mumm and Rob Simmons have 20+ caps, 50 is far too few.

@TWAS you have nailed it completely. I agree with every observation you've made in this post. Spot on.

 

[Train Without a Station]

BR I can't help but think that the provincialism of some people is a little too biased and every time a regular starting player from there province leaves people get up in arms and carried away saying the system is broken when really, that's not what it's designed to do with it's limited funds.

Besides, players leave NRL for Europe too and the average wage for non-rep players who are regular first graders is considerable higher.

 

[fatprop]

The Swans play in the NEAFL for their Swans affiliate. The Brisbane Lions for over a decade have played their players in the QLD top division, much like the GC Suns do now.

The Rebels are trying to lift the standard of their local competition, to improve their development pathways, much like ACT and WA are doing, whilst also ensuring they have full access to their players and are able to monitor their progress and potential injuries, etc. rather than them coming back on Monday morning learning of an injury from Saturday afternoon. Explain how this is not professionalism.

Also, just so you're aware, these players are employees, not students. They have an obligation to provide value to the employer. They aren't just their to get their own benefit then fuck off without giving anything back.

I always thought "value" was a two way street

These fringe players need to be getting the best quality game time they can get, every week, not be stuck lifting the standard of the some local league.

They need their standards being lifted by playing the hardest rugby they can get, week in, week out

 

[Train Without a Station]

If they play in the Shute Shield, it's a one way street. They're being paid as a full time professional and provided a professional environment to be developed in and then if they go play somewhere else, they are offering nothing to an employer.

In addition they are also 2-3 days a week 1000km from this environment and injury problems, etc. cannot be accurately monitored by the team medical staff.

The competition, development opportunities and pathways aren't going to improve without bringing the players to play locally. As said previously, if a player feels this isn't best for his development, don't fucking sign. Further, if they feel it's harsh they cannot go play for their local club, I'm not sure how playing overseas would alleviate that.

Even an apprenticeship is based on offering value and being provided development and wages are structured accordingly.

 

[It is what it is]

There are big differences between the exodus of league players and union players.
The vast majority of league players leave for the UK/Europe on the back end of their careers when they're looking for some easier dollars from a less challenging standard of game. You'll find the English league $$$ aren't as plentiful or available right now as in years gone by. Lately there seem to be more coming this way to Australia.
The concern in rugby is that an ever increasing number of young high potential players, on the way up, are leaving.
Bottom line, we're in a global market for players and we need to adjust our strategies and tactics accordingly.

 

[Braveheart81]

By the same token, Australian Rugby can gain something from young players going overseas for opportunity and then coming back with more experience ready to take up a professional contract with a Super Rugby side.

Assuming Foketi goes overseas for two or three years and then comes back, it's surely better that he's leaving now than when he's 23 or 24.

 

[swingpass]

Foketi is of ? Samoan extraction. he could well end up playing club rugby his entire career in France and still representing Samoa. there is no garauntee he will ever return to rugby in Australia let alone at the Rebels or even Manly

 

[TOCC]

Players in Melbourne will play at a higher level, through the NRC

 

[Braveheart81]

Foketi is of ? Samoan extraction. he could well end up playing club rugby his entire career in France and still representing Samoa. there is no garauntee he will ever return to rugby in Australia let alone at the Rebels or even Manly

He at least finished his high schooling in Sydney (not sure when he moved to Australia) so you'd imagine he has some roots in Australia.

Certainly there is the possibility that he can spend his entire career overseas and still play test rugby (albeit on a limited scale).

 

[Dave Beat]

All fair posts above, this thread is about trying to keep all good quality players in Australia - not about whether they play with a Premier Club or not. Whilst I raised - could family, mates & club have swayed a players decision to stay or not a didn't want a dogs breakfast to read through whilst I'm trying to work.
Train - haven't disagreed with you.
Fat Prop - raises good points.

 

[swingpass]

my very original post was about are we going to see the perfect storm with players bolting OS before the RWC.
whilst not a flood (as yet) of talent is departing, there are some notable players forgoing the chance to be part of the Wallabies this and next year. i am certain their reasons are many and varied, but it is still a loss to the local scene, and i think we will see quite a few more before the rugby year is out. the trend of younger players going is a disturbing one, although i agree that if they come home in 2 -3 years better than they left then thats a good thing, the big if is, will that actually happen ?