Big change to eligibility rules

[qwerty51]

It seems strange timing then to announce it now and not after the WC. What if we win the WC without overseas players, do we need this policy?

 

[BDA]

I'd suggest this is more a long term issue that the ARU has been no doubt thinking about for some time. Cheika would have certainly had some imput, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this was all about him wanting to select a particular player from overseas. I'd suggest the biggest factor in this decision being made now is what is about to happen in 2016. 2016 will be the worst year yet for the wallabies in terms of losing experience. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Kepu, Cooper, Genia, Palu, White, etc all leaving. Cheika's main goal is surely to bring home a Bledisloe over the next 2 or 3 years and his chances of doing that with so much experience leaving are low. In particular Kepu is a major loss, because we haven't yet developed quality THPs to replace him. I think this is a preemptive strike more than anything.

If Cheika was planning on selecting a player overseas I'd say it was Douglas and that he'd discussed with the ARU a rule about allowing him to play provided he contracted with ARU to return home. We'll never know now that he's injured.

 

[BDA]

It seems strange timing then to announce it now and not after the WC. What if we win the WC without overseas players, do we need this policy?

If we were to win a world cup with our current crop of players, it'd be a real shame to think we'd lose a good portion of our most experienced players from our world cup winning team immediately after the tournament.

 

[KOB1987]

That rule might have been for Douglas.. The other one was for giteau and/or kepu


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[vidiot]

IMO

More players than ever before are heading overseas despite being absolutely in the frame for selection for the Wallabies.

At least theoretically many of them should be the old heads in and around the team that prevent the wallabies being constantly a young team without big match/tournament experience.

This is one way of stretching players careers (like Cooper, or Genia, Horwill, Ashley-Cooper) across two or more world cups by dangling a carrot if they go beyond a threshold.

I don't know that is directed at any one player. I reckon it is designed to curtail the bleeding to the NH in a more systemic fashion.

 

[BDA]

im personally really excited about the future of OZ rugby under this rule. It's nice to think that in the years to come we could have a situation whereby some of our most experienced stars will return to Australia to fight for the Bledisloe Cup. It could really give us a big confidence boost in taking home a big trophy

 

[qwerty51]

Yet no one seems to care what this means for Super Rugby?

 

[BDA]

How would this possibly effect Super Rugby?

This rule only has application to a very select few of our rugby player, most of which are already heading overseas.

If anything it'll cause certain players to stick around for a year of 2 extra

 

[Bullrush]

Who has come back from the NH better players than what they left? Is anyone think Burgess is better than when he left? How average was Epsom when he came back? Does anyone remember how much crap Gits was getting here on this forum for his play before he left? Do you guys think he's much better than when he left?

Hard to think of anyone from either Aus or NZ who has come back better players.

 

[qwerty51]

How would this possibly effect Super Rugby?

This rule only has application to a very select few of our rugby player, most of which are already heading overseas.

You're kidding right? What is keeping 60+ Test players in Australia? Pretty much nothing, if you've got your 60 Tests you head overseas it's that simple with the amount of money on offer. James Slipper, why should he stay? Rob Simmons? Polota-Nau?

 

[BDA]

Well very few player are still in their prime if they do ultimately return to their country of birth. Those players you names were all past their best.

Francois Loew is a good example of a player that moved to Europe and is at the top of his game. I would imagine a lot of props become technically better playing in europe

 

[BDA]

You're kidding right? What is keeping 60+ Test players in Australia? Pretty much nothing, if you've got your 60 Tests you head overseas it's that simple with the amount of money on offer. James Slipper, why should he stay? Rob Simmons? Polota-Nau?

haha Qwerty how about you name 10 players that have 60 tests that are playing in Australia??

You're ignoring the fact that that ARU will always have enough funds to retain a few of those very experience players and there will always be some players that prefer living in Australia.

 

[qwerty51]

Yes Bullrush you've named players who left after/in their prime. They were never going to come back better players. The difference is now we're seeing 23-26 year olds leaving.

 

[qwerty51]

haha Qwerty how about you name 10 players that have 60 tests that are playing in Australia??

You're ignoring the fact that that ARU will always have enough funds to retain a few of those very experience players and there will always be some players that prefer living in Australia.

So we need 10 to leave to have an impact on Super Rugby? Don't come crying to me when Slipper and Simmons don't re-sign their next deals because it will be directly because of this new policy.

 

[Blue]

Who has come back from the NH better players than what they left? Is anyone think Burgess is better than when he left? How average was Epsom when he came back? Does anyone remember how much crap Gits was getting here on this forum for his play before he left? Do you guys think he's much better than when he left?

Hard to think of anyone from either Aus or NZ who has come back better players.

Gitaeu? Lots better. Elsom got hurt in that last year with Leinster and never recovered. Burgess was never really good.

 

[Blue]

This really looks like the ARU felt that they had to look like they are doing something but they really aren't doing very much are they?

 

[Bullrush]

Yes Bullrush you've named players who left after/in their prime. They were never going to come back better players. The difference is now we're seeing 23-26 year olds leaving.

Gitaeu? Lots better. Elsom got hurt in that last year with Leinster and never recovered. Burgess was never really good.

Elsom is only 32 now? He would have been what - 26 or 27 when he came back? Injury or not that should be in his prime. And I really don't remember anyone back then thinking that he was old or past it. He just wasn't good.

If guys are only heading over when they are past their prime, how do you know if Gits is any better than when he left? He's playing against guys whose best is behind them.

Burgess was the basically the 2nd best half-back in the country when he left right? I don't remember but in his years away, he certainly slipped down that pecking order in a hurry.

Finally - how many 23yr-old will have qualified to be selected if they go overseas? They would have had to have been 16 when they started their service to Aussie Rugby.

 

[ChargerWA]

This is pretty much in response to Kane Douglas IMO.

The 60 cap rule is supposed to make a guy in his position stay and give his best years to his super franchise and the Wallabies. And if he then goes overseas and is still the best for his position he's available again.

Really clever move by the ARU. I like it.

 

[vidiot]

Its obvious to all Qlders that it's designed to keep Kurtley Beale available for Cheika into the next decade. He just needs to find eleven more tests...

 

[qwerty51]

I forgot about Beale, he is definitely another that should be gone from Super Rugby. TPN, Slipper, Simmons, Beale. Why should they stay?