Wallabies 2025

[Major Tom]

Were there really many situations where there was the opportunity to go wider and instead Ikitau crashed the ball up?

Getting the ball to the edges when there isn't really anything on is just recipe to lose ground and/or turn the ball over because you end up with an isolated ball carrier with little support.

I generally thought Ikitau's decision making was good.

I think he went bloody close to crashing over a few times and it's good for him to add this to his arsenal.
But would rather he tried to use more footwork to find soft shoulders more often.

 

[Backintheolddays]

It's a sensible move that offers a genuine option for young Australian talent currently in the French youth system to play for the Wallabies—players like Lemoto, for example. I do wonder, though, whether this change might make Australian players less appealing to French clubs, now that they remain eligible for the Rugby Championship and Northern Hemisphere tours. Fewer players may head overseas than expected, especially with Japan also tightening eligibility rules for foreign-born players.

RA need to be smart with French clubs but they can be a fantastic development opportunity for 18-23 that we do not have domestically. French clubs will be wary of balancing developing top tier players and then potentially losing them in their prime.

 

[John S]

French clubs will be wary of balancing developing top tier players and then potentially losing them in their prime.

They'd rather us develop the players, and then get them in their prime

 

[Strewthcobber]

They'd rather us develop the players, and then get them in their prime

Nah, the JIFF regulations make this a poorer outcome for the clubs.

They want JIFF qualified players who don't play international rugby - so young players developed in France. That's their ideal.

 

[Major Tom]

Nah, the JIFF regulations make this a poorer outcome for the clubs.

They want JIFF qualified players who don't play international rugby - so young players developed in France. That's their ideal.

Yeah they're signing these kids to academies so we're hardly gonna pick them until they play in the D1 team. But then when they do play in that D1 team how difficult are they gonna try and make it for them to be released? Seeing as they've put the effort into developing them, I don't feel like they'll want them to play Tests (even though it should further their development). And I can see the players not wanting to piss their French overlords off.
I can see this relaxation only effecting established test players (Gleeson) but not others.

 

[Backintheolddays]

All true, hence a little outside the box thinking required by RA. The $$ to match this development experience for young Aussies is beyond our capabilities pure and simple. RA need to embrace it and come up with some viable options to keep the French clubs interested.

 

[Backintheolddays]

For example RA fund the first $50K for our top 20 kids outside the domestic program till age of 23, simply as a conversation starter.

 

[Wilson]

For example RA fund the first $50K for our top 20 kids outside the domestic program till age of 23, simply as a conversation starter.

I'm going to need way more detail to understand what you're suggesting, but on the face of it it sounds like a bad idea and largely unworkable.

What exactly are RA getting for this $50k? Is that $50k across the 20 players or per player?

 

[Major Tom]

Yeah, I don't think there is much ability to compete with them money wise. RA should be trying to bring them back as soon as possible though. At that point we should have more evidence to work out how they would go if we signed them to a Super Rugby franchise.

 

[Adam84]

For example RA fund the first $50K for our top 20 kids outside the domestic program till age of 23, simply as a conversation starter.

That’s $5million a year, and realistically any player of significant talent is going to be offered a contract substantially more then $50k a year by the age of 23

I think RA and Super Rugby need to do better, and one of those is broadening the number of younger players signed but I think it needs to be a bit more targeted then this to justify the returns.

 

[noscrumnolife]

Realistically if a kid like Lemoto goes to France, kills it, we try to cap him and he refuses not to piss of the club (even in the international window) and holds out to get JIFF qualified. I would argue in that case the players desire to play for the Wallabies is clearly very low and I don’t necessarily want them around the group. Its not a jersey you should have to be convinced to want.

to be clear I’m just using Lemoto as a hypothetical example, don’t know anything about his allegiances/desire for going to France. He’s a weapon though.

 

[Adam84]

hopefully RA have a plan to stay engaged with him and dangle test selection that doesn’t require a 5 year residency period.

 

[Dctarget]

That’s $5million a year, and realistically any player of significant talent is going to be offered a contract substantially more then $50k a year by the age of 23

I think RA and Super Rugby need to do better, and one of those is broadening the number of younger players signed but I think it needs to be a bit more targeted then this to justify the returns.

Where’d you get $5 mill from? Unless you’re saying each year has top 20, so it’s 5 x 20 x $50,000.

 

[Backintheolddays]

Yep I’m suggesting $5M a year to keep a finger on the pulse of the offshore junior talent. Now that could go straight to clubs or any model, don’t care. We spend more on those we retain domestically but I believe local opportunities are materially limited (and don’t foresee any opportunity to effectively uplift) and therefore embracing some form of global development channel without losing them as foreign qualifying players has merit. Getting the offshore clubs to bite would take a lot of work but worth pursuing.
What are the viable alternatives? If you think we can develop a similar experience locally for less you’re smoking the good stuff.

 

[Adam84]

Where’d you get $5 mill from?

Are they not proposing the 20 best kids by age group under 23 be on a $50k contract?

$1million per age group across the 5 age brackets: 18,19,20,21 & 22 year olds = $5million

if it’s only the 20 best kids, how do you discern the best between ages, is it best potential or best performing regardless of age.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Run Australia A games in July. Select Australian-eligible 21-year-olds in France. Play the game against whichever PI team wants a run. Play it in London. It's out of season for the French clubs, no reason for the club to block it, or the player not to play and it captures them for the future, at the cost of 23 x match fees.

 

[dru]

Were there really many situations where there was the opportunity to go wider and instead Ikitau crashed the ball up?

Getting the ball to the edges when there isn't really anything on is just recipe to lose ground and/or turn the ball over because you end up with an isolated ball carrier with little support.

I generally thought Ikitau's decision making was good.

Sorry BH to be contrarian (kind of).

The set up was not behind having a second playmaker at 12. So yes you are (mostly) right in that comment, but because of decissions made earlier. The issue starts with the coaching team working through how they set this up. And imo they chose not to use Ikitau as second fly. The upside to that call, mostly I would think, is the sort of thing we saw with Kerevi. And Ikitau was not this. So we have a polemic, Ikitau at 12 was discounted as a second fly, but also did little in the alternate, all to ensure that JAS was on the filed (a good thing). He was simply played out of position and was highly constrained because that changed position significantly dropped his effectiveness.

On the good side, is "well is JAS good enough to justify some weird selections such as playing our best 13 at 12"? I'd say yes. But at the same time on the back of the Lions, might we think of better ways of handling this?

I don't know the answer to that, but I really hope that the WBs are thinking it through.

 

[Adam84]

Yep I’m suggesting $5M a year to keep a finger on the pulse of the offshore junior talent. Now that could go straight to clubs or any model, don’t care. We spend more on those we retain domestically but I believe local opportunities are materially limited (and don’t foresee any opportunity to effectively uplift) and therefore embracing some form of global development channel without losing them as foreign qualifying players has merit. Getting the offshore clubs to bite would take a lot of work but worth pursuing.
What are the viable alternatives? If you think we can develop a similar experience locally for less you’re smoking the good stuff.

if they have the moment to increase spending, then id argue it should be done via the Super Rugby clubs rather then centrally controlled.

Increase funding to Super Rugby clubs for academy contracts, but just coordinate this funding with a national plan/talent identification program.

 

[Dctarget]

these kids aren’t on that much in french academies, you could gamble a little and offer two or three of the best $50,000 to sign a contract that they won’t apply for eligibility in France.

 

[Major Tom]

these kids aren’t on that much in french academies, you could gamble a little and offer two or three of the best $50,000 to sign a contract that they won’t apply for eligibility in France.

Yeah, bit like the Jorgensen deal. Splurged for him to get him away from league and that's been vindicated.