Aussie Player Exodus

[Viking]

Orrrrrrrrrrrrr, like most happy couples, they enjoy spending time with one another and don't want to spend considerable time apart? At the end of the day, you can't be expected to perform well if your house isn't in order. If you're miserable consistently because you miss your partner how is that beneficial to Australian rugby or the Brumbies?

The 2016 season will be Matt's eighth season with the Brumbies. How much more does he have to give to demonstrate his "loyalty" to the Wallabies jersey?

Maybe it's because I'm a similar age and at a similar point of my career and life to Matt, but I don't see the problem. The ARU is a business, like all businesses, if you want to retain your best and loyal employees you need to make accommodations. The problem with having those specific metrics is that there will be "loyal" players like Matt who slip through the gaps.

To be clear I don't see a problem with it either.

 

[Viking]

Maybe he is sick of all the travel, time away from home?


Maybe he wants to enjoy life a bit: how many young people would jump at the chance to work in England for a few years in a highly paid job?


Good on him, there is more than one path in life for most of us, he has chosen to march to the beat of his own drum.

I agree.

If i had my time again:

2007: Play for the Brumbies
2008: Win a title for the Brumbies, Play for the Wallabies
2009: Play in London for a year
2010: Return to the Brumbies, play for the wallabies
2011: Win a RWC
2012: Play in France for a year or 2
2014: Return to Aus, Play for the Rebels (so I'm not stuck living in Canberra).
2015: Win another RWC.
Play out my days for the Rebs with a short sabbatical in Japan. Whilst winning a couple of Bleds and RC along the way.

The perfect life.

 

[Brumby Runner]

At the same time, do you hang around in your job that maybe one day you'll get that promotion you want?

Cheeks has made the ARU change the rule once, I'm sure it can be modified to be X number of Wallaby caps or Y amount of Super Rugby caps. Surely having say 100 super caps demonstrates a players sacrifice to staying in the Australian rugby.

Especially if it accompanies ten years playing at the one franchise.

 

[qwerty51]

Cheika comments on To'omua

“With To'omua, he’s not coming until 2017 so he’s still got a season of Super rugby and international rugby to play this coming season.

“He’ll be considered for full international commitments; there’s no reason why he wouldn’t be. He’s committed to Australia until that time and he’s been a big part of the Australian team.

 

[formerflanker]

I agree.

If i had my time again:

2007: Play for the Brumbies
2008: Win a title for the Brumbies, Play for the Wallabies
2009: Play in London for a year
2010: Return to the Brumbies, play for the wallabies
2011: Win a RWC
2012: Play in France for a year or 2
2014: Return to Aus, Play for the Rebels (so I'm not stuck living in Canberra).
2015: Win another RWC.
Play out my days for the Rebs with a short sabbatical in Japan. Whilst winning a couple of Bleds and RC along the way.

The perfect life.

What? You didn't want to be captain at any stage?

 

[Viking]

What? You didn't want to be captain at any stage?

Yes! And also World Player of the year.

 

[Latts1992]

But he doesn't have to give up his fiancée in order to stay in Aus and play for the wallabies.

I guess you could say, as a couple they value her career over his.

I think it simply comes downs too To'omua and his fiancé values travel, life experience, and their own finances over playing for the wallabies. Not that there is anything wrong with that but that's the reality.

And who wouldn't make that a priority. In reality Elyse is also a highly gifted athlete and she can probably get paid more in England - I dont know whst the pay rate for female athletes is there but it's gotta be better than Australia. This way they can both enjoy competitive professional careers without Matt being away for much of the year.

 

[Marcelo]

At the same time, do you hang around in your job that maybe one day you'll get that promotion you want?

Cheeks has made the ARU change the rule once, I'm sure it can be modified to be X number of Wallaby caps or Y amount of Super Rugby caps. Surely having say 100 super caps demonstrates a players sacrifice to staying in the Australian rugby.

Then when Toulon's owner buys Greg Inglis the ARU can create a new rule like: "Anyone whose name is Greg Inglis is eligible for the Wallabies"

 

[KevinO]

Stephen Moore transfer to Munster has been blocked by the IRFU.

http://rugbylad.com/rugbyladblog/are-munster-unfairly-treated-by-the-irfu-transfer-policy/

 

[Upthenuts]

Toomuas had heaps of head knocks lately too, kind of like mcdonald did in the abs, going away to make money with less impact on the body is a wise choice. Another year of head knocks in the super rugby and RC and hed be done anyways.

 

[Bullrush]

I still have no idea why Gits and Mitchell were brought back for the RWC.

Neither were that crucial to the Wallabies that they couldn't have been replaced by guys like To'omua. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a factor in his decision as well.

And now some here are saying the selection criteria could be loosened again. Honestly, who would any youngster stay and get overlooked for guys who didn't want to stick around instead of getting paid good coin somewhere else and getting the experience, life-style etc that France or Japan etc may offer?

Good luck to To'omua - I hope this means we se Christian more at 10 at the Brumbies this year.

 

[Sully]

60 tests is almost every game for 5 years. They clearly have stuck around.
Perhaps 80 or so super games could also qualify you.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

60 tests is almost every game for 5 years. They clearly have stuck around.
Perhaps 80 or so super games could also qualify you.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

I'm with you Sully. Eighty or thereabouts Super games really do mean a player has been loyal to the cause and if good enough should be eligible for selection after going o/s.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I still have no idea why Gits and Mitchell were brought back for the RWC.

Neither were that crucial to the Wallabies that they couldn't have been replaced by guys like To'omua. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a factor in his decision as well.

And now some here are saying the selection criteria could be loosened again. Honestly, who would any youngster stay and get overlooked for guys who didn't want to stick around instead of getting paid good coin somewhere else and getting the experience, life-style etc that France or Japan etc may offer?

Good luck to To'omua - I hope this means we se Christian more at 10 at the Brumbies this year.

Agree on Gits to a degree, though he had a good RWC I thought. Some of his reads and heads up play during the tight moments was excellent though. I still would have gone with To'omua as a starter. Mitchell was fantastic and fully justified his place for mine.

 

[USARugger]

Agree on Gits to a degree, though he had a good RWC I thought. Some of his reads and heads up play during the tight moments was excellent though. I still would have gone with To'omua as a starter. Mitchell was fantastic and fully justified his place for mine.

For mine I'd have it the other way around - I thought Gits was quietly brilliant and more importantly consistent throughout the tournament. He didn't really light the world on fire with ball in hand but he played his role in the defensive structure perfectly and some of his kicking out of hand was sublime. Biggest mark against him would probably have to be some fairly soft turnovers that occurred when he was carrying at the line.

Mitchell had some really brilliant moments but also plenty of below-par moments as well. If he had been able to consistently perform at that higher level he would be hard to drop even post-RWC but I don't think he was ever really able to stay there even throughout the entirety of any single match. I thought he had a bit of a shocker in the grand final too.

 

[Brumby Runner]

For mine I'd have it the other way around - I thought Gits was quietly brilliant and more importantly consistent throughout the tournament. He didn't really light the world on fire with ball in hand but he played his role in the defensive structure perfectly and some of his kicking out of hand was sublime. Biggest mark against him would probably have to be some fairly soft turnovers that occurred when he was carrying at the line.

If that was his main role (and I don't know if it was, but as you note he made very little impact in attack) then I honestly believe Matt To'omua would have been better value especially against the better attacking sides such as the ABs. The kicking games of both were pretty much on a par, seeing that it is the chase as much as anything that makes a kick effective or not. MG did find touch with some of his kicks, but as I remember, MT put in the only kick to the try line that resulted in a try (to the best of my recollection). I do not understand the reluctance to use MT even off the bench in the later important games.

 

[Gnostic]

I still have no idea why Gits and Mitchell were brought back for the RWC.

Neither were that crucial to the Wallabies that they couldn't have been replaced by guys like To'omua. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a factor in his decision as well.

And now some here are saying the selection criteria could be loosened again. Honestly, who would any youngster stay and get overlooked for guys who didn't want to stick around instead of getting paid good coin somewhere else and getting the experience, life-style etc that France or Japan etc may offer?

Good luck to To'omua - I hope this means we se Christian more at 10 at the Brumbies this year.

I would disagree very strongly about Mitchell. The Tahs got burnt four times in Super Rugby because they had no effective exit strategy against a side that had an effective kick and defend game plan. In part because none of the back three could kick reliably, and the ability to respond with an exit kick relied totally on 10, 12 and 13 dropping back to return the kick. OK, that can be managed once or twice in a group of phases but if those players are committed in defence it falls to pieces and that is what happened.

The addition of Mitchell and moving AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to wing provided two effective kicking options to the back three. None of the other wing options in Oz provided the kicking option that Mitchell did and hence he was a vital addition IMO.

As for Gits, as a specialist 12 and a very good one he allowed Beale to be moved into the role of reserve utility which better suited the side and gave better depth coverage without sacrificing the attacking structures that Chieka wanted to run. I do not see To'omua as having those skill set/attributes in his game and importantly doesn't have the experience that Giteau brings.

 

[Gnostic]

If that was his main role (and I don't know if it was, but as you note he made very little impact in attack) then I honestly believe Matt To'omua would have been better value especially against the better attacking sides such as the ABs. The kicking games of both were pretty much on a par, seeing that it is the chase as much as anything that makes a kick effective or not. MG did find touch with some of his kicks, but as I remember, MT put in the only kick to the try line that resulted in a try (to the best of my recollection). I do not understand the reluctance to use MT even off the bench in the later important games.

We have discussed this before BR, and I think you will find that To'omua's propensity to look for the dominant tackle and rush up exposes him on quite a few occasions, and while Giteau is not a dominant tackler he has very few misses and his mode of defence allows the Pooper system to come into the game.

 

[eastman]

The addition of Mitchell might have added an additional kicking option (not a fantastic one mind you, Mitchell does have a very high tendency to shank his drop punts) but it also added a player who has a propensity to make errors and he seemed to make a fair few in the WC. Granted there were the trademark incisive runs but I don't think his added value was 'vital' compared to what Horne, Speight and To'omua could have provided.

And with regards to Giteau, while he played consistently (defensively at least) and his leadership was probably beneficial, To'omua probably would have added a slightly better running game and dominant tackling with the trade-off for a lesser kicking game. I honestly thought we would have been a more dangerous team with To'omua there (I bet the All Blacks would prefer to have played Giteau than To'omua).

So basically in summary, the two players who were brought in from overseas were not more outstanding than their Aussie counterparts at all and their inclusion at the risk of alienating Aussie players wasn't really warranted.

(All good in hindsight)

 

[Jagman]

I disagree. They're left foot kicking was enough to warrant their selection. And would be enough to warrant it again next year. Ain't no playmakers or left wingers in Aus who can kick like those two... From the left boot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk