When the ‘we are building for 2027’ comment came out a week or so back, I genuinely thought that this is reason enough for an RU compensation claim for anyone who paid money to travel to France. A true statement or not, words have value, and there is a cost associated with its implication.

Unfortunately, this would only remove more money from where it’s needed most.

I was perusing stuff.co.nz the other day and there was a legitimate thread of numpties convinced that Hooper had intentionally flipped himself. Some people, man…

For the fun of it, I’m going to be as simplistic as possible about the benefits. I’ve historically been against it but going to throw this out here for the sake of being open to change.
1, International teams pay some of the best young and current talent, train them, test them, keep them in our game.
2. Financial pressure reduced, domestic comp can increasingly afford to support the talent that wants to stay and also pour more money into developing talent
3. Carrot to choose rugby over rugby league is increased because there is greater potential, bigger rewards, more options and opportunities in and out of Australia
4. Australian rugby needs to do something differently or perish accordingly. Our greatest success came just after professionalism when things were a little more even. Most of the other top tier countries have infinitely more resources than we do and will ever do.
5. We actually produce a lot of talent from a small rugby pool and we have to trust that we can still do that.
6. Let’s just give it a go and see what happens…

I like Brad Thorne but to give him credit for JOC’s resurgence (apologies if I misinterpreted) undervalues just how much work James did before coming back to Australia to improve himself.

The thing I love most about the JOC redemption story is that he seemed, for the most part, to take control of his own life and do everything he could to get back on track. For the record, I’ve always liked him and I could tell that he just needed a couple of things to change in his life to switch it around. You could tell by the way he always carried himself on the field that he had the capability to be a leader. He always played hard, rarely got caught in niggle, and never shirked in defence. He just attracted the wrong people off the field at an impressionable age and had money grubbing wanker agents telling him to focus on his ‘brand’ at 17 which so many people never let go of. The way I see it, you don’t turn it around as much as him without it having been some part of you in the first place.

I just hope he gets a couple of cherry’s on top of the cake by the end of the career.

I defended Cheika for longer than I should have.

I made excuses for him when the writing was on the wall.

I thought he was building a house when in fact he was just buying furniture and wondering why it kept getting wet.

I fell for the rhetoric until the last couple of years when it was clear there was just no Plan B.

Now I’m just a frustrated rugby fan pleading for RA to think VERY carefully about the next step. Please. Give our talented next generation the best possible start.

Old heads are part of almost every successful team set-up. If he is teaching the next generation how to marshall a backline defensively, then he’s good by me.

He takes them every game! The problem is he doesn’t swallow them properly and they mostly just affect his face.

I feel like most of the people denouncing the AAC pick are those who also said they wanted to win the Bledisloe first and worry about WC after. You can’t have both.

The fact is the match will be a war of attrition in the wet and defense will be key, not out and out speed, ESPECIALLY in the last 20 minutes.

AAC might be getting on but he is one of the best defensive organisers we have not to mention his ability over the ball and his experience, should we be attempting to hold on to a lead, could provide invaluable.

I think it’s a really good decision. I want to win the Bledisloe and if we are a few points up with 10 to go, I know who I want coming on.

Foley is tied to the old ways, his days are over and he should never play again

A tad hyperbolic. Foley is actually more natural closer to the line. The attacking structures have pushed him deeper. Just look at the first example from Nick, Foley was identified as setting up that short, sharp series of passes. I actually think he could profit from this change the most.

Do I think he should start? No. I think Lilo has earned his starting role. But to say that Foley should never play again fails to acknowledge that this strategy could make him more of an asset, particularly off the bench.

This is great news. JOC has grown up a lot in the last few years. He has admitted to his wrongdoings and matured a great deal (despite the fact that I always felt he was dealt with WAY harder than any of the ‘amigos’ and for relatively smaller indiscretions). I’ve always respected how he took setback on the chin and set about letting his rugby do the talking.

He has the potential to be an answer at fullback and we wouldn’t need to rely on AAC’s older legs for ‘utility’ value as JOC can literally play anywhere.

There are those that will always think he’s damaged goods, but I reckon he’s earned another shot. Whatever happened off the field, none can deny that he puts in 110% on the paddock.

He’s still ranks as the equal highest pilfers by an Australian player, right? I’m genuinely asking.

I think it’s an issue across the park in Aussie teams, not just Hooper.

‘The Southern Brumbies’. I kinda liked the thought. Games split between Melbourne and Canberra.

Then again the problem as we’ve seen is in drawing crowds. Both are performing the best in the conference, the Brumbies are playing great rugby and the Rebels are always improving. It would have been a shame to combine our two strongest.

Honestly, it would never happen but a NSW / ACT merger makes the most sense. Split games between Canberra and Sydney. The hatred runs deep though from Canberra and Brums supporters wouldn’t buy in.

Honestly, I’m so worried about rugby in this country that I would be willing to support whoever I needed to in the best interests of the game.

Mea culpa, Patto and cheers. I had no idea Rory Arnold was indigenous. I would 100% agree with you that, of the two, he is in superior form.

I was talking more about his being pictured in the jersey was important than he should be selected based on his race. I’m a firm believer that token selections on any non performance basis do more to damage whatever message is trying to conveyed.

My opinion, wrong or not, remains that he could still potentially earn it on merit. But like you said, nothing wrong with differing opinions. I am aware it’s not a popular one.

I’d like you to propose ONE other indigenous representative who you would have promote the jersey.

Rugby’s history in engaging the indigenous community has been horrible. If it wasn’t for the hard work of the late Lloyd Mcdermott and Glen Ella, there would be virtually no presence at all. Kurtley’s role in the game of rugby extends beyond his performance and comments like this seem to forget that there is more to our great game than who gets selected.

Kurtley hasn’t played like rubbish either. He’s been hot and cold for sure. Perhaps he is not our best 15 currently but to exclude him from the squad entirely would be a mistake. We lack game breakers and game breakers usually come with added risk on the field. It’s not like there is an obvious choice at fullback putting their hand up who doesn’t also have deficiencies or would be playing out of position.

It’s not as simple as just ‘not following him’ on Instagram. His message was not just for his hundreds of thousands of followers, it was intended to be shared and spread around to the wider community and impossible for it not to be.

It wasn’t something he said in private or in confidence. He used his significant platform as a vehicle to spread it and share it.

It’s not that he holds these beliefs that’s the issue. It’s that he chooses to share them publicly in full acceptance that they don’t align with his employers code of conduct.

I appreciate your feedback Ben and you’re right, it did come off as a little hypocritical, however I wasn’t suggesting the ‘purely pragmatic’ point of view was necessarily my own, it’s just the prima facie aspect of the ‘offence’.

You are also right about it not being ‘hate speech’. Perhaps I allowed my emotions to dictate my own pragmatism. The connection between what is said and ‘hate’ however is not as long a bow as you think because the demonisation of certain people does lead to fear and hatred. It’s certainly not a path to acceptance. It’s a snowball, that people are living ‘against’ a certain standard or norm (spritual or otherwise) and while I know that Izzy would never seek to incite violence or has any intention to do so, it is that type of rhetoric that leads to verbal and physical abuse from those who might agree with such hyperbolic and unhelpful language.

For me, I just don’t know why he uses social media to preach. Is it for his benefit or the people he preaches to? It would be easy to assume that he is making life harder for more people than the number he is ‘saving’. But then again I am not a religious man and I find it hard to understand the cognitive dissonance.

Sorry Jameswm, I could have sworn I replied earlier but I mustn’t have pressed submit.

You are correct in saying that Will didn’t advocate it as some form of punishment and I don’t want to put words in mouths, however punishment in its truest form is just an “imposition for the purposes of retribution”. If he thinks that gay people are going to the worst place he can think of for eternity, then I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t see a coaching stint or similar as anything other than an imposition unless he was tasked with ‘saving’ them, which I’m sure he wouldn’t try and do.

I guess my point is that I don’t think, at this stage, with his level of personal defiance in regards to his position, that it would do anyone any good. I have deeply religious gay friends who spend their lives struggling with this very thing and Izzy’s presence, knowing that it is not to progress his views, would just be a reminder to a lot of the Convict players of their daily struggle in an otherwise safe and relaxed space.

I don’t want to ‘straight-splain’ either, so I’m happy to be told I’m way off-track by anyone closer to the Convicts thoughts on the matter than myself.

YOUR Christian foundations. They are not my Christian foundations and my family has been here since the second fleet and my partner is Indigenous.

‘Non-believers’ are sensitive to what Izzy says because they know what it means to him and many others, right now. Those he vilifies are concerned with their life as it happens and provocative and divisive thoughts like Izzy’s on a VERY public forum only make their life, the one they are living right now, much harder.

So saying that he believes that some people, through no fault of their own, will receive the worst type of punishment that he can possible fathom i.e. an eternity of fire and damnation… isn’t hate speech?

From a purely pragmatic point of view, you are right, he can say what he thinks. He will never get arrested for it. Nevertheless, his multi-million dollar contract asks that in return for said millions of dollars, he refrain from doing things like this publicly. HE AGREED TO THESE TERMS! There is no grey area here either.

The outrage about the outrage is just as outrageous.

Agreed. The tone of this article is very naive and generalised. From the coaching Convicts comment as being some sort of punishment (because they have nothing else better to do than help him redeem himself despite his constant lack of respect toward them with his posts) to the unfollowing aspect.
All anyone needs to do is ask themselves if he posted the same thing but mentioned a race of people it wouldn’t even be a discussion.

So Izzy…

Let’s talk about idolatry ie. “extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone.”

You walk into a cathedral every week where thousands of people chant your name, bask in your glory and children want to emulate you and your ‘higher’ ability.

You literally have hundreds of thousands of ‘followers’ on Instagram.

Isn’t being a false idol worse than worshipping one?

Asking for a friend.

Sorry, autocorrect turned AlBo into Bwad somehow. I wish I could stay logged in.

Just an edit: I meant “sport and politics” not “sport and rugby”. Cheers all and go Wallabies!

I agree entirely that he is best as a roaming 1st and 2nd receiver, which is why if he were ever to be 10 he would need an inside centre to be able to shift in at first reciever effectively as well.

I see no reason to drop Foley as I still think he’s our best option at 10, but if Foley were to go down injured and Beale went to 10, he would also need a playmaker at 12 to allow him this freedom. It would be interesting to think about what 12 would allow this best… Hodge? CLL? Toomua?

I know there’s a lot of talk about Hodge at 13, 14 and 10 but I still do think he has the attributes of a good 12.

Kurtley Beale is proving more and more effective at first receiver. It always seems that when the Tahs are struggling to find holes or gaps, he shows up and finds one for himself or others. That straightening up of the line and inside ball to Foley was the kind of ‘playing what’s in front of him’ creativity that is missing in a lot of our 10s. I don’t think there is a better back up to Foley right now or potentially even a better performing first receiver (including Foley). That being said… a lot of what Foley does at second reciever is great too.

Say what you like about either of them individually, but there is little doubt that when they are both ‘on’, they are as good a combo as anyone. If they fire, the Waratahs fire, if they don’t… unfortunately we don’t seem to have much of a Plan B (as seen in the Brumbies match).