Wallaby Coaching Staff

[Tomikin]

“We’re here as much for the off-field stuff as the on-field,” Mitchell said at the time. “We want to help the younger guys and Cheika has wanted that.
“We’re not going to be handed jerseys for free. If we don’t get a jersey, we will still around to hand out knowledge and support.
“If we can give the boys clarity or ease nerves, that’s a big part of the reason we’re back.”

Plenty of experienced Wallabies in and around the squad, including Moore, Kepu, Sio, Simmons, Hooper, Fardy, Pocock, Genia, Foley, Kuridrani, Folau etc, who could have and should have been performing that task. No need to go to the expense of bringing yesterday's heroes back for such a trivial purpose, if that was indeed the actual purpose at all.

Michell and Gits have played all over Europe, probably against alot of the oppersition regularly. Its a different type of experience.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Really?, I think you have demonstrated why they were called back

Genia should never have been selected... if he wants to wear the Wallaby jersey that badly then make the opportunity to do so via an Australian team.. right now Genia, Gits and Mitchell are having their cake and eating it too..

Make the honour of wearing the Wallaby jersey as an incentive to return to Australia, use its as an intangible assett to lure and retain the top players.

 

[Joe Blow]

Genia should never have been selected. if he wants to wear the Wallaby jersey that badly then make the opportunity to do so via an Australian team.. right now Genia, Gits and Mitchell are having their cake and eating it too..

Make the honour of wearing the Wallaby jersey as an incentive to return to Australia, use its as an intangible assett to lure and retain the top players.

60 tests.....they earned it.
The point is many choose the cash over the honour. There needs to be balance in the policy. I think they have it right

 

[Forcefield]

Genia should never have been selected. if he wants to wear the Wallaby jersey that badly then make the opportunity to do so via an Australian team.. right now Genia, Gits and Mitchell are having their cake and eating it too..

Make the honour of wearing the Wallaby jersey as an incentive to return to Australia, use its as an intangible assett to lure and retain the top players.

Its a tough one, isn't it? On one hand I agree completely. On the other hand, Genia is head and shoulders above all our over 9s it is folly not to play him. Perhaps the best thing would be to have a compromise- Genia plays a couple of tests to remind him of what he is missing while time is put into Nick Phipps. In my opinion, Phipps is a confidence player and Michael Cheika erred greatly in relying too heavily on Genia and Foley where time could have been given to Cooper and Phipps.

 

[fatprop]

Genia should never have been selected. if he wants to wear the Wallaby jersey that badly then make the opportunity to do so via an Australian team.. right now Genia, Gits and Mitchell are having their cake and eating it too..

Make the honour of wearing the Wallaby jersey as an incentive to return to Australia, use its as an intangible assett to lure and retain the top players.

And then we would have been relying on Phipps; and this place would have been unbearable

As to the intangible asset, that lasts for a while, but it comes a time when a player needs to consider their financial future. The current rule of 60 tests to be considered is not unreasonable, it is a minimum for 5 to 6 years of being a wob. It isn't like these guy haven't put in and with bigger squads it may take players longer to get there as well

 

[Quick Hands]

And then we would have been relying on Phipps; and this place would have been unbearable

But, we still had to rely on Phipps for what team management described as the most important match of the tour - and yet he hadn't played for 3 weeks.

The perefect example of why it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[fatprop]

But, we still had to rely on Phipps for what team management described as the most important match of the tour - and yet he hadn't played for 3 weeks.

The perefect example of why it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Well, not a great example, Genia could have been injured with the same result.

As was Gits; and then spent a few games working out an option.

 

[wamberal]

And it could well be that Genia's presence was significant in our winning the games we did win.


Who knows? That's the thing about hindsight, who really knows how the alternative scenario would have played out?


While we are on the "what ifs", what if Phipps had played and been injured? Frisby to start? Jeez.

 

[Sully]

But, we still had to rely on Phipps for what team management described as the most important match of the tour - and yet he hadn't played for 3 weeks.

The perefect example of why it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Maybe the ARU shouldn't schedule matches outside the November test window.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Or maybe the dispensation should only be used for RWC and during the 3 years in between we should be developing players who are playing super rugby at test level. Any serious deficincies in the year leading to RWC could be filled by overseas based players.

 

[Quick Hands]

A

While we are on the "what ifs", what if Phipps had played and been injured? Frisby to start? Jeez.

How Frisby is even in the squad is frightening enough.

 

[Brumby Runner]

And it could well be that Genia's presence was significant in our winning the games we did win.


Who knows? That's the thing about hindsight, who really knows how the alternative scenario would have played out?


While we are on the "what ifs", what if Phipps had played and been injured? Frisby to start? Jeez.

Well W, doesn't take a lot of hindsight to see that Will wasn't needed to win the games against Wales and France. Hard to say what would have happened against Scotland though had he not been there.

 

[TOCC]

And then we would have been relying on Phipps; and this place would have been unbearable

As to the intangible asset, that lasts for a while, but it comes a time when a player needs to consider their financial future. The current rule of 60 tests to be considered is not unreasonable, it is a minimum for 5 to 6 years of being a wob. It isn't like these guy haven't put in and with bigger squads it may take players longer to get there as well

ARU rescinded their biggest bargaining chip they had to retain senior Wallaby players for short term gain, once a player reaches 60 test caps what incentive is there for him to stay in Australia if he can plunder European gold whilst also representing the Wallabies, alternatively what incentive is there for them to return to Australia if he has 60 caps.. Hooper will have 60 caps by hos 25th birthday.

I think the whole issue needs to be revisited, reserve the clause for RWC years if depth in certain positions is critical. Use the period between RWC's to reward those who have stayed in Australia, Phipps won't become a better player by sitting on the bench for 75mins a match, if he is the best available in Australia then thats who should be selected.

60 caps was an arbitrary figure selected because that reflected Giteau and Mitchell, now that the O/S door is open i expect them to adjust the figure depending on the quality of player available. ARU needs to leverage the honour of representing the Wallabies as a bargaining chip that no European Rugby Club can offer.

 

[TOCC]

Furthermore by selecting overseas players it reinforces and enhances the theory or opinion that Super Rugby is becoming a second class completion with the best players playing in Europe. Wallaby selection is important to expand the brand of Super Rugby, to build the profiles of Australian based players and improve the reputation of Super Rugby.

 

[wamberal]

Money or glory. Which would you choose, honestly?

 

[Sully]

Furthermore by selecting overseas players it reinforces and enhances the theory or opinion that Super Rugby is becoming a second class completion with the best players playing in Europe. Wallaby selection is important to expand the brand of Super Rugby, to build the profiles of Australian based players and improve the reputation of Super Rugby.

I can't agree with this. Super Rugby is recognised as the toughest comp on tje world. And you are the only person I've heard say different.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I can't agree with this. Super Rugby is recognised as the toughest comp on tje world. And you are the only person I've heard say different.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Maybe look beyond GAGR then..
Super Rugby is hanging their hat on the standard of play of teams like the Chiefs and Crusaders.. unfortunately that's not the standard across the board..European Rugby Champions Cup has plenty of matches which are equal or above the standards of Super Rugby matches.

Super Rugby may still have a handful of the best club teams, but the overall quality of the competition has declined. Selecting foreign based players for the Wallabies will only begin to further this perception..

 

[Quick Hands]

Money or glory. Which would you choose, honestly?

There's no one single or simple answer to that.

 

[TOCC]

Money or glory. Which would you choose, honestly?

There's hundred's of variable to consider, there's no simple answer

 

[Sully]

Maybe look beyond GAGR then..
Super Rugby is hanging their hat on the standard of play of teams like the Chiefs and Crusaders.. unfortunately that's not the standard across the board..European Rugby Champions Cup has plenty of matches which are equal or above the standards of Super Rugby matches.

Super Rugby may still have a handful of the best club teams, but the overall quality of the competition has declined. Selecting foreign based players for the Wallabies will only begin to further this perception..

You assume that I spend all my rugby time here. There is a difference between saying super rugby is hanging by a thread and saying some matches in Europe are as good as super rugby.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk