Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Not comparable in any way, I made reference to respect, served, distinction, Smith for years would have been one of the first chosen in any world 15. Burgess possibly luck to be first picked half at the Wobs.
Wallabies Watch
- Thread starter qwerty51
- Start date
- Status
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
At least Smith has played Super Rugby this year, unlike the farce that was the contracting of Elsom and Vickerman to allow them to play in the Wallabies. It really is a case of playing favourites IMO.
I would like to see total integrity in the system and if that was the case this issue wouldn't even be open for debate because people would say there can be no exceptions and we don't bend the rules.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Qwerty, he was talking about them being rushed into the Wallabies set up, without playing Super Rugby, coming directly from overseas.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Yes and they had ARU contracts. They committed to Super Rugby sides the following year, Vickerman actually played Super Rugby that year.
Grandmaster Flash
Johnnie Wallace (23)
My team to beat the Lions:
1/ Robinson
2/ Moore
3/ Palmer
4/ Douglas
5/ Horwill
6/ Higginbotham
7/ Smith
8/ Palu
9/ Genia
10/ Cooper
11/ Ioane
12/ Tapuai
13/ AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14/ JOC (James O'Connor)
15/ Barnes
Reserves: Alexander, Slipper, TPN, Simmons, Hooper, White, Lealifano, Mitchell.
Of course this is pure fantasy - with players out of form, injured and one not even eligible (yet) to play but I would be content with this team. I think Higgers is transferrable with Dennis/Mowen depending on how the next few weeks go as is Palmer and Barnes with their back-ups. I would love to see Kurtley fit and firing with his head screwed on but time is running out.
1/ Robinson
2/ Moore
3/ Palmer
4/ Douglas
5/ Horwill
6/ Higginbotham
7/ Smith
8/ Palu
9/ Genia
10/ Cooper
11/ Ioane
12/ Tapuai
13/ AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14/ JOC (James O'Connor)
15/ Barnes
Reserves: Alexander, Slipper, TPN, Simmons, Hooper, White, Lealifano, Mitchell.
Of course this is pure fantasy - with players out of form, injured and one not even eligible (yet) to play but I would be content with this team. I think Higgers is transferrable with Dennis/Mowen depending on how the next few weeks go as is Palmer and Barnes with their back-ups. I would love to see Kurtley fit and firing with his head screwed on but time is running out.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Hasn't Smith already played more super rugby this year than Vickerman did on his return?
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Thanks for outlining the farce that they are talking about. The whole purpose of the ARU contracting system is to have these players playing in Australia. Smith is currently playing in Australia, whilst Rocky was let to finish the Euro season and rushed into the Wallabies, based on him playing Super Rugby the following year.
I have absolutely no problems with George Smith playing for the Wallabies again. He is clearly more than good enough. He'd be one of the best players in ANY team he plays for.
Whilst the injury to Pocock is a massive loss for the Wallabies, we have Michael Hooper who was pretty much the standout Wallaby in the second half of the test season after Pocock got injured last year. We also have Liam Gill who so far this season is playing a bit better than Hooper. These two guys are both extraordinary players who are likely to play many tests for Australia. Michael Hooper at this point in time looks quite likely to be a future Wallaby captain.
George Smith is one of the all time Wallaby greats and would become the first Wallaby to play two Lions series (I'm guessing that, I could be wrong).
For most players there is only ever one chance at playing against the Lions if at all (Sharpie is the obvious example who played over 100 tests and never got to play the Lions). If you pick Smith, you're probably going to deny Liam Gill a chance of playing the Lions during his career considering it's unlikely that Hooper won't be selected after his breakout season for the Wallabies last year.
Whilst I think that the situation would be worth revisiting should Hooper or Gill not be available, it seems a massive call to change the ARU policy in terms of being available for the Wallabies at this stage given that it's likely to deny one of our great young and very deserving flankers from a possibly once in a lifetime chance to play the Lions.
Whilst the injury to Pocock is a massive loss for the Wallabies, we have Michael Hooper who was pretty much the standout Wallaby in the second half of the test season after Pocock got injured last year. We also have Liam Gill who so far this season is playing a bit better than Hooper. These two guys are both extraordinary players who are likely to play many tests for Australia. Michael Hooper at this point in time looks quite likely to be a future Wallaby captain.
George Smith is one of the all time Wallaby greats and would become the first Wallaby to play two Lions series (I'm guessing that, I could be wrong).
For most players there is only ever one chance at playing against the Lions if at all (Sharpie is the obvious example who played over 100 tests and never got to play the Lions). If you pick Smith, you're probably going to deny Liam Gill a chance of playing the Lions during his career considering it's unlikely that Hooper won't be selected after his breakout season for the Wallabies last year.
Whilst I think that the situation would be worth revisiting should Hooper or Gill not be available, it seems a massive call to change the ARU policy in terms of being available for the Wallabies at this stage given that it's likely to deny one of our great young and very deserving flankers from a possibly once in a lifetime chance to play the Lions.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Let us make the assumption that, one way or another, Smith is able to make himself available to play against the Lions.
The ARU then has to make a decision: is it better for the future of the game for the Wallabies to field the best available squad (which would probably include Smith), or is it better to maintain the principle that overseas based players (which Smith is, in reality, he will be going back to his long term overseas employer after the series) are not available for selection?
If I had to make this decision, based on what I know about the state of the game here, and the importance of us achieving success against the Lions, I would be voting for Smith to be deemed eligible for selection. Lord make us pure, but not just yet.
If that means that either Gill or Hooper misses out, well, they are just sacrifices to the greater good of the game. However, my guess is that there will be injuries, there always are. Or it might be that the three of them are in the squad. Who knows? Smith and Gill in the 22 for the First Test, then Smith and Hooper for the Second. The best of the combos for the decider. If it is a decider.
The ARU then has to make a decision: is it better for the future of the game for the Wallabies to field the best available squad (which would probably include Smith), or is it better to maintain the principle that overseas based players (which Smith is, in reality, he will be going back to his long term overseas employer after the series) are not available for selection?
If I had to make this decision, based on what I know about the state of the game here, and the importance of us achieving success against the Lions, I would be voting for Smith to be deemed eligible for selection. Lord make us pure, but not just yet.
If that means that either Gill or Hooper misses out, well, they are just sacrifices to the greater good of the game. However, my guess is that there will be injuries, there always are. Or it might be that the three of them are in the squad. Who knows? Smith and Gill in the 22 for the First Test, then Smith and Hooper for the Second. The best of the combos for the decider. If it is a decider.
I think if a decision is made by the ARU to make overseas contracted players eligible for selection and then following that they will need to make a deal with Suntory to allow him to play for the Wallabies (and presumably pay insurance or something in case he gets injured), it will well and truly mean that Smith is in the test team.
I can't see them going through all that to pick him in a 30 man squad and then not play him. If they bother making him eligible it will be because they want him in the matchday 23 (and I'd argue that if they go down that road, he should be starting).
Personally I think the ARU should be sounding out Suntory about what sort of deal would have to happen for it to become a reality but not act further at this stage. I would only be changing policy and making Smith eligible for the Wallabies if either Hooper or Gill was unavailable. They just need to ensure that if that happens at the 11th hour, they're in the position to put George Smith in the team, not to begin negotiations with Suntory and internal ARU board meetings to discuss whether they want to change their policy at that point.
I can't see them going through all that to pick him in a 30 man squad and then not play him. If they bother making him eligible it will be because they want him in the matchday 23 (and I'd argue that if they go down that road, he should be starting).
Personally I think the ARU should be sounding out Suntory about what sort of deal would have to happen for it to become a reality but not act further at this stage. I would only be changing policy and making Smith eligible for the Wallabies if either Hooper or Gill was unavailable. They just need to ensure that if that happens at the 11th hour, they're in the position to put George Smith in the team, not to begin negotiations with Suntory and internal ARU board meetings to discuss whether they want to change their policy at that point.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
Bringing Smith in may also give the selectors more flexibility in including younger guys in other positions with the experience that Smith will be bringing balancing it out somewhat. It is important to think of a squad as a whole when you're talking about Experience vs. Youth, as well as the positions and "units" (can come down to how the game is played, ie. French have their #9 as the primary playmaking axis) those particular players will play in.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
With all this talk about trying to extend Smith's stay for the Lions tour, I think people are forgetting that the Brumbies will possibly be already looking into trying to extend his tenure even further if they're in contention for the finals.........
Hopefully Jake White can have a word with his old friend Eddie to try and grease the wheels.........
Hopefully Jake White can have a word with his old friend Eddie to try and grease the wheels.........
Unfortunately they won't just be able to offer Eddie Jones a truckload of whisky.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Slim, i believe George's relationship with Eddie is very very strong there is alot of mutual respect (something the Beale needs to learn), and I'd think if George wanted to play in the Lions series and form warranted it he'd just have to ask.
I've said all along, this takes nothing from Hooper or Gill we are blessed with 7's. George brings what they do and more - that simple.
I don't think it would be that simple. It isn't Eddie Jones paying his salary.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
I know that, but a good employee often gets looked after by the employer.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
It won't do Suntory any harm to have their star player in the Wallabies against the Lions, especially given the corporate nature of rugby in Japan. If I was Suntory's marketing manager I'd probably need a few calming whiskies.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The ARU could bring 'em all down to watch the show.
They could pay out his contract (yeah right).
Isn't the problem with all of this the fact that Deans showed Smith the door? Or have I remembered that incorrectly?
- Status