As someone who dreamed of playing for the Wallabies, I imagine that the first time you get handed your jumper would be an amazing moment.
You have toiled away, trained and played hard, and have finally been recognised for your efforts. You are one of the best in the country, one of the elite.
This is how it should be. But it is not.
The ARU scheduled a Wallabies test for Tuesday, and then another test for the immediate Saturday following that game. How can you have a competitive team playing Test match rugby with a three day turnaround? You can’t.
So what is going to be put out for the first two tests of the year is two distinctly different teams, both of which are representing the Wallabies. This frustrates me.
It is clear that the team picked to play Scotland is going to be more of an ‘Australia A’ (albeit not as much now due to injuries), even though they will not be recognised as this.
Could you imagine 10 or 20 years ago, Cadeyrn Neville getting a run in a Wallabies jersey after three Super Rugby games? All the best to him, I think he is a good player with a bright future, but he should not be thrust into that type of arena yet.
If the Scotland game was a week before the Welsh test, he probably would not be.
On the other side of the coin, I would be happy for him to play for ‘Australia A’. The same goes for Dave Dennis, Jesse Mogg, Bernard Foley etc…
But these guys playing for the Wallabies? Not yet.
I know the schedule is crammed, and the ARU needs to fill up the coffers, but this to me just seems to cheapen the Wallaby Jersey.
If there is not enough time for the tests (much of the team will be playing 3-4 days before in the final Super Rugby round before the break), please don’t cram them in. Fans want to see strong, competitive Wallabies sides.
We realistically should rack up a big score playing against Scotland on a (hopefully) dry track in Newcastle. But because of the team likely to be put out and the lack of preparation time, I’m not so sure.
Why not put out an ‘Australia A’ side against Scotland on the Tuesday? As it is not called the Wallabies, Quade would not be expected to play, and players like Neville and Mogg would be playing without as much pressure, pushing for a spot in the Wallabies, as opposed to being thrust into the Wallabies prematurely.
Some might say that an Australia A side would not be appealing to fans in Newcastle. I wouldn’t be one of them.
I would happily go and watch Australia A play against Scotland. I believe that they could be a more entertaining side, free to throw the ball around and push for a spot in the Wallabies. And they would be more than competitive against Scotland.
This would leave the more established Wallabies with a week to prepare for the first Wales test. And who knows, a bolter may emerge from Australia A and play his way into that Wallabies side.
I hope that this type of scheduling does not become a common occurrence in future Test series, as it is robbing fans of what they expect when they watch the Wallabies play.
All Blacks #1
Guest
Just a friendly update for you Dan, I'm afraid to tell you this but the Wallabies just lost to Scotland again,I'm sorry. I hope the Wallabies can get past this humiliating defeat at home and back to back losses to Scotland and at least make a game of it against the Welsh. :D
Dan
Guest
Serious Simon we got held up 4 times with no TMO referall you being there you should of known that. Little bit dodgey to say the least... One off will never happen again especially here.
Dan
Guest
LOL took yas another 22 years to get your second bill mate , Oz still the only team to win 2 Bills in a decade. 17 seconds away from winning 3 out of 4 World Cups then the forwards didnt see what i was seeing but anyways.... Not even the All Blacks let alone the Boks have done that and we are somewhere in the dark areas of International Rugby. Got your stats beached as bro.......
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
Scotland will. I have my reservations about what team the Wallabies will play. The focus will be squarely on Wales next week and I can see a side not too different to the one the Samoans smashed last year lining up here.
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
What I cant believe here is how two international matches can be scheduled in the same week straight after a round of Super XV rugby. This is poor planning by the ARU who just looked at revenue rather than the well being of its players.
bluerose
Guest
i respect your comments and opinions, i was glad to read so many different views to mine and i have a clear understanding.............if i have offended or disrespected any Boks/ABs/Welsh fan then my humble apologies to you all, have a nice day and please continue to support the game of rugby. GO RUGBY.
El Gamba
Roar Guru
Correct, the best Australian side is the best Australian side. It's probably easy to say with 20 20 hindsight that the scheduling wasn't the best due to the injury rate at present. That could not be predicted and the positive will now be some exposure for others at test level. A tough ask here or there but that's how real Wallabies are made. Injuries are a constant and I for one am looking forward to this interesting new phase to the season.
All Blacks #1
Guest
bluerose, you totally missed my point. I'll keep it simple. If you want your comments to be taken seriously try not to make exaggerated claims about teams like samoa destroying teams like South Africa and blaming failed results on short turnarounds when history suggests a totally different reality when short turnarounds didn't play a role. South Africa has earned their history and they are the second greatest test playing nation in rugby of all time behind the All Blacks. samoa has never beaten South Africa in 7 attempts, obviously any team can have a good game every now and then but to say something as silly as you did in your first post doesn't make sense. Will they beat South Africa in the future? Maybe. But they haven't yet so please pay the proper respect to the countries that have worked hard and earned their respect. You would have been better served saying something like 'samoa would have had a better chance at victory in the world cup had the breaks between the games been the same', you would have gotten more sympathy that way don't you think? By the way, if you read my previous comment properly you would know I wasn't comparing 7's to 15's I was merely pointing out that in my opinion too much is made of short turnarounds between games than are necessary.
Kuruki
Roar Guru
I think this is a good opportunity for guys to get a run that otherwise may not have. Better to have a short turn around now then during the World cup. It's great that some of the bigger protected species get a taste of what the minnows go through during the biggest Rugby event on the calendar.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
You were a Wallaby if you went on tour to NZ, South Africa, France or Britain, even if you did not win selection for a Test match. If you played for the Wallabies at home, then you were a Test player. I'm not aware of the Wallabies playing non-Test matches at home. Although in the 1940s and 50s the ARU conferred Test status on matches against Fiji and New Zealand Maori. Test "caps" were awarded for those matches.
bluerose
Guest
the Georgians never complained because they had no real chance of reaching the playoffs while Samoa had the chance to reach the playoffs...........and please donot compare 7s with 15s........7s is fast. high intensity for 7mins each half while 15s is fast, brutal, high intensity for 40mins each half.........my argument is about the 15s NOT the 7s
bluerose
Guest
7s is different from 15s
Bigbaz
Guest
AD maybe it was you had to tour to be considered a Wallaby ?
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Bigbaz, I don't think you ever had to be a Test player to be regarded as a Wallaby. Newcastle's Mike Jenkinson toured South Africa with the 1963 Wallabies as the reserve hooker behind Peter Johnson. Jenko played eight matches on that tour but did not get on the field in any of the four Tests. He's still in the history books as a Wallaby. Your second point was that "you are a Wallaby if you are picked in any Test side". Well, yes . . . exactly. If both unions, in this case Australia and Scotland, confer Test status on an international match, and if the IRB recognises that status, then the match by definition is a Test match.
Brett McKay
Expert
Mantis, once you declare players unavailable for whatever reason, you then select the best team available. It doesn't matter that there will be less unavailabilities for the Test against Wales, or that the team will be theoretically stronger. The team that faces the best rugby team Scotland can select on Tuesday night will be the best rugby team Australia can select. That's all there is to it..
Mantis
Roar Guru
Will we be playing our strongest possible team (barring injuries obviously)? I'm not so sure. I hope so, but Deans has said plenty of times that he wanted to make the team predominantly from Reds and Force players, because of the bye. I think that plan has been thrown out the window because of only 4(?) Force players in the squad. Without the injuries though, I imagine there would be a fair number of players rested.
Mantis
Roar Guru
I agree with you, I don't think thats right either. The draw obviously favoured the better sides, I don't think thats right either but thats not what this article is about.
Mantis
Roar Guru
Yeah true. But for a town that sees nothing but local club Rugby, I don't imagine that would be an issue.
Moaman
Guest
Ben Farell
Guest
Spot on.