• 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.

No Ben Mowen thread?

Status
Not open for further replies.

maxdacat

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Sad to hear but I guess he needs to do the best by his family.

ABC radio this morning saying that the night out in Dublin may have had something to do with it....but it seems a long bow to draw.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
A clever title - any way you read it.
I was surprised that there wasn't more outrage on here.
I have been critical of Mowen's leadership in tests but he has chased his dream and maximised his potential and through hard work he got there. If some of our "stars" worked as hard we'd be in better shape more of the time.
Should have had more games and been given a chance about 2 seasons earlier.
The lack of complaint on this site suggests that the ARU made the right call in not offering him a top up.
However - what does it say about the state of the game in this country that a bloke can be blocked by the national coach when at his peak, then picked from oblivion by the new bloke and made captain but not be worth keeping around.
It is a weird look suggesting that something is not right: 15 tests - 6 as captain, in a team with 2 former captains - both on top ups and whose careers continue.
Evidently Mackenzie did not go into bat for him.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Happy new year fuckers.

Brave move by Mowen but anyone with kids would know you've got to put them first. I couldn't stand three hours of commuting every day because I was missing out on them growing up.

As IS says above - should have been a Wallaby a year or two ago, and the ARU fucking around with his contract negotiations, and Deans being a pillock.

Throw in Jake White chucking his toys out of the pram in Canboring, in addition to the Fagan moving on and the tussle between Gandalf and Bernie for the top coaching spot, and you have to wonder whether he didn't see the writing on the wall and just realise it was time to go earn some cash and play out his career while he still could.

Don't forget the chronic neck injury he's been dealing with day to day, rather than having surgery.

I, for one, will never question his commitment to Australian rugby. And if you do, then you're probably some kind of bottom-feeding twerp.
 

mjw

Larry Dwyer (12)
I don't think it is unfair to say that Mowen made the test side due to injuries to Higginbotham and Palu. The same can probably be said about Hooper and Pocock. They have both made good of their chances but can anyone say that Hooper will be preferred to Pocock if fit or Mowen preferred to Palu or Higginbotham. I look forward to see how Link will answer these questions in the new season.
And the ABC report this morning perhaps suggesting Mowen snitched on his team mates on the Dublin night out is interesting too.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Sad to hear but I guess he needs to do the best by his family.

ABC radio this morning saying that the night out in Dublin may have had something to do with it..but it seems a long bow to draw.

It is a long bow to draw, and the reasons he's leaving have already been covered extensively and explained by Mowen himself..........

There's also several pages of discussion in the Brumbies thread........
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Sad to see him go because he would be a nice option to have available at the WC in 2015. To be honest, it was hard to see him in the first choice 22 come 2015 but you never know with injuries. He's not really a genuine 8 (we should be looking at Higgers and Palu to be our Wallaby no.8s for 2014-2015). In terms of number 6, I think most people would agree that Fardy is now the incumbent, although after him I'm not sure. MMM could be a great option if he can stay fit, but that remains to be seen.

I'd like to see the ARU make a play for Kimlin to return to the brumbies in 2015. I know McKenzie had his eye of Kimlin after the Lions tour and he would be a handy replacement for Mowen.

Going forward, I think it's time for the ARU to review it's rules regarding eligibility of overseas players, particularly having regard to the implementation of the new super salary cap. I'm not necessarily saying we should or shouldn't change the rules but it should be looked at. With the disparity in salaries between the two hemispheres growing, situations like these are likely to increase in the coming years. We are now at a stage where we have more top level aussie talent than ever before playing overseas (Kimlin, Palmer, O'Connor, Giteau, Mitchell, Barnes, Timani, Chisholm, Ioane, George Smith - the list goes on). Whilst I appreciate the motivation behind the current rules, we should look at whether they are necessary. I'm a big believer that the strength of the national team is as important as ground-roots development in terms of building the sports profile. South Africa certainly benefit from their more relaxed rules and they don't have the same problems that we have in terms of lack of depth. Changing the rules is some way might result in an increase in players going a abroad, which would probably hurt our provincial teams in the short run, but that would also create more opportunities to create player depth. Furthermore, im not so sure there are a large number of players that would not prefer to be living and playing in Australia despite a rule change.

Anyway, I think it's worth discussing these issues now and throwing around potential solutions. We could perhaps implement a quota system which allows players who have played X number of tests for aus to be available for X number overseas. (i.e. a player that has played 5 tests for a Australia is eligible to play 1 test whilst contracted abroad). this would mean that senior players who have played 50 to 100 tests, could remain eligible whilst playing overseas). That's just one idea, but I'd like to see more thrown around.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
The system works fine.

Giteau, Ioane, O'Conner and Smith are the only potential top line players there. 2 out of 4 of them left as they started being phased out of the Wallabies. Surely a factor.

O'Conner had his contract terminated due to off-field issues.

That leaves Ioane. That's 1 player, who may or may not have been first choice starting 15 anyway.

From there you've got Mitchell and Barnes. Two players with lengthy injury histories. This has surely factored into their decision. In addition both have been both surpassed, and even barring that, likely would not have been fit for selection in 2014.

Chisholm was on his way out, Kimlin and Palmer left because it appeared they weren't going to crack it. Part of Palmer's decision was reported that he felt he would improve there and then come back a better player.

In fact in the last decade, the only player I can think of who we have lost, purely for money, and not with other factors at play like being phased out of the Wallabies which made taking the money easier, and have really thought to myself, fuck we miss him, was Rocky Elsom. So that's one in 10 years. Hardly worth reviewing the system over. The damage it would do to Aus Super Rugby as players could take up more lucrative overseas deals and still play for the Wallabies is unthinkable. Then there is the consideration of the tyranny of distance and potential lack of conditioning due to playing in weaker comps and having less intensive training, etc.

The fact of the matter is there's a limited pot of gold. The ARU are spreading it the best way the can. The only potential changes is to spread it further, which means the best get less. Then when the disparity between what they get and what they can get overseas becomes greater we actually may see more leave. No system with limited funds will be perfect. If you want to talk about changing the system, throw up some ideas to make some more fucking cash, because otherwise it's a waste of time changing it.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Oh, but I would agree with concessions being made in extreme circumstances. E.g. George Smith. If you've got 100 caps you can be picked from overseas. That would limit it to the absolute best to start with, and ensure that only 1 or 2 players a season could possibly be picked.

Though some could see that as opening it up to further concessions down the track, so not even allowing that may be for the best.
 

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
Mowen has left Aussie rugby with a public explanation that sits well with all.
Am sure there are some other reasons but they are now irrelevant and do not need to be aired.

Needless to say, he was a champion captain for the Brumbies, a fill-in captain at Wallaby level. To me he is a very very good Super 15 player and captain and should also be congratulated for his contribution to Australian Rugby (irrespective of all opinions as to his playing ability or captaincy)

Brums will find it tough this year without White and tougher in 2015 without Ben
 

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
A clever title - any way you read it.
I was surprised that there wasn't more outrage on here.

There's at least three pages of it over on the Brumbies 2014 thread. Quite restrained though. Imagine if it had been Genia, Cooper, To'omua, Lilo, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) or Izzy. But then again not many of them were only getting match payments!
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Train Without a Station, you say the system shouldn't be changed, then in your next post you agree there should maybe be some concessions. Simply assuming the status quo is what's best going forward is not a great way to do business. All I'm suggesting is that we consider our options going forward. Perhaps we could benefit from some market research, or player polling through the RUPA. My general impression is that this issue will come to the forefront in the next few years. In fact it came to the forefront last year with the question of George Smith's eligibility, and I think most people agreed that there should be exceptions to the rules.

I never suggested that the players I listed would be selected, but many of them probably would get a look in to join a touring squad. Ioane certainly would. Smith certainly would. Timani would. McKenzie has previously indicated that he would be looking at Palmer and Kimlin if they were available. Guys like Mitchell, Barnes, and Giteau are long shots but they would probably be considered welcome injury back up on tour if required. For a country with such dire depth at test level, that is a fairly significant number of players that might otherwise be involved in our national team in some form or another.

I tend to agree with you that minor concessions are probably for the best, but there is no harm in exploring these issues. Personally I would have no problem with Ioane or Giteau being eligible to play for Australia. Both played for the Wallabies for more than 5 seasons.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
There were some pretty strong rumours that Mowen was the one who dobbed everyone in on Dublin and that relationships went sour because of that.
 

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Another suggestion would be to allow a maximum of 1 overseas based player to be chosen in a Wallabies 23. That would provide a little bit of flexibility, whilst still discouraging players leaving Australia.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Qwerty, when you say "dobbed", you mean essentially called out these players for not upholding the standards expected of elite professional athletes chosen to represent their country.

Yes, BDA, I said perhaps slight concessions, in "extreme circumstances, like players who have represented Australia over 100 times.

That would generally leave about one active player at a time eligible, who may not even be playing overseas. As I said, that may lead to further erosion so may not be the best idea.

The system has got to where it is due to the fact it has to make the most of a limited revenue, and do it's best to help the Australian Super Rugby franchises be competitive. Any concessions will only serve to affect the latter to an extent. You allow 1 overseas player? The best player at each franchise figures that could be him and starts exploring options. You could potentially lose the top player from each team.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
The system works fine.

Giteau, Ioane, O'Conner and Smith are the only potential top line players there. 2 out of 4 of them left as they started being phased out of the Wallabies. Surely a factor.

O'Conner had his contract terminated due to off-field issues.

That leaves Ioane. That's 1 player, who may or may not have been first choice starting 15 anyway.


Dan Palmer? Some people think he is our best THP. Technically he probably is.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I mentioned him. Similar to Kimlin and felt he could improve with the experience there with the intention of coming back.

Regardless, still an unknown quality at test level and whilst he has been injured, has not managed to impress enough to gain more than a single cap in his time here. In fact you'll find many to discuss his flaws around the park.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Dan Palmer? Some people think he is our best THP. Technically he probably is.

He's a bit of a Hugh McMeniman. Amazing on paper and very good in selected games but kept sustaining serious injuries when it counted.

In an ideal world, players like him would have played their entire career in Australia because Super Rugby salaries alone were high enough to keep them here, but the reality is that someone who isn't a regular Wallaby will always earn a vast amount more playing in France.

You'd have to be paying Wallaby top ups to around 60 players for people like Palmer to be kept in Australia I'd imagine.
 

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
There were some pretty strong rumours that Mowen was the one who dobbed everyone in on Dublin and that relationships went sour because of that.

Mate, I espoused that view closer to the time and felt I copped a bit on the forum.

I still hold that view.

Whether or not a player should have done that is totally debateable but it does fly in the face of footy and Aussie culture, rightly or wrongly. Certainly it would polarise opinion in any group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top