Are we seeing the last of the 100-cap Test international, the loyal player who ends their career in exactly the same place as it began? In the current state of the game, it looks like it.
Of all the 29 active and retired players that have achieved 100 international Test appearances, only Dan Carter and George Smith ventured outside their native country and returned to the Test arena.
However both of their international sojourns deserve an asterisk.
Carter spent a season at Perpignan in 2008-09, only making five appearances for the French side after an achilles injury. George Smith was brought out of semi-retirement in Japan to replace David Pocock during last year’s British and Irish Lions series.
I’m leaving out the two Italians Sergio Parisse and Martin Castrogiovanni. They have remained in Europe, competing in the Heineken Cup which is only a stone’s through away from home. In this environment, coaches can constantly keep an eye on their progress.
Of the current Wallabies squad, Adam Ashley Cooper and Stephen Moore are the most experienced members, both with 91 Test appearances.
They will likely go on to achieve the milestone prior or during next year’s World cup in the UK.
So perhaps it’s not the end of an era.
But it’s hard to see anyone other than Richie McCaw eclipsing Brian O’Driscoll as rugby’s most capped international player.
Many factors point towards the opposite, suggesting we should be seeing far more centurions.
The average age of Test debutants has dropped dramatically. More matches are being played within a season, and spring tours are now month-long excursions. There is greater demand for rugby than there has ever been.
However it’s a combination of this demand and the consequences that it brings that contribute to players being unable to reach the statistical heights of household names like George Gregan, Ronan O’Gara, Jason Leonard and George Smith who have gone before them.
Both the mental and physical implications of the modern game and the increasingly profitable overseas opportunities available are the main reasons why players are either choosing, or being forced, to cut their international careers short.
The physical demand on the professional rugby player is the highest it has ever been. GPS units worn by players in games tell us that they are covering more distance, running at higher speeds, and encountering greater impacts and collisions than in previous seasons.
All this puts greater stress on the joints and muscles, leading to a higher risk of succumbing to an injury.
Most rugby players have had time on the sidelines at some time during their career – unfortunately some more than others. How many Test caps David Pocock would have amassed by now if he hadn’t been forced to undergo two knee reconstructions within the last two seasons?
Concussion of players is occurring more frequently, forcing the IRB to adopt new on-field testing regulations. Player welfare is at the forefront of the game, as insurance companies battle to provide clubs and individuals the best possible cover.
Ten years ago this was not in place. Players would play on with severe injuries and concussions because there was no way of detecting how bad it was.
Nowadays, there are scans and ultrasounds that can pick up even the slightest of injuries, forcing players to rest, recover and to follow the return to play procedures put in place by the medical staff.
Mentally, the demand is just as influential on the length of players careers. Higher profiles, increased media exposure, and the constant pressure to perform on the big stage all weigh heavily on the mind of the the professional rugby player.
James O’Connor is an example of this. He has already spoken of the benefits of getting away from the spotlight in the United Kingdom and what it has done for his personal game and mindset as a person.
As much as everybody wants to play every game of every season, there is always the risk of playing ‘too much rugby’, and getting burnt out.
Individual players are managed throughout extensive Super rugby and international seasons, to allow them to perform at their best each time they take the field.
In some special cases like Richie McCaw, players are even given months off to switch off and get away from the game, in the hope that it will prolong their international career.
The lure of contracts too good to refuse overseas is the final factor that is impacting on shortened international careers.
In many ways it is the most concerning of all, as rugby boards can no longer rely on the loyalty and ambition of a player to wear their nation’s jersey.
You can’t put a price on a Wallaby jersey, and the proudest moment of any player’s career is when he wears it, but it’s keeping them in the jersey once it’s on is the main problem facing bodies like the ARU.
In many cases, like that of Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell, both currently at Toulon, form and performance contributed to their move, so it’s hard to know if they would have worn the gold again.
But in the case of incumbent Wallabies captain Ben Mowen, who will move to France at the end of this year’s Super Rugby season, the difficulty is clearly evident.
Up until October last year, it seemed Ireland had the best way of encouraging their homegrown players to remain in the country rather than talking up lucrative contracts elsewhere in Europe.
Under a scheme introduced in 2002 by then finance minister Charlie McCreevy, professional sports people across any code could reclaim 40 per cent of the tax paid on earnings from the best 10 years of their careers so long as they were tax resident in Ireland when making the claim.
This meant a generous payout to the likes of O’Driscoll and co. on the announcement of their retirement.
However, the scheme was amended late last year to individuals being able to make the claim outside of Ireland, so long as they finish their career and make the claim within an European Economic Area.
While not impacting heavily on the national side , as Irish players who play elsewhere in Europe like Johnny Sexton at Racing Metro are still considered for Test matches, the effect felt down the line is more of a concern.
The struggle for provinces to hold on to their big name players, who have a major role in mentoring the academies and attracting others to the club will now become harder as a result of the change in scheme.
Although the game has changed dramatically over the past 10 years, the best thing about rugby is that it still retains its authenticity and rawness.
Players are getting paid more, but nowhere near the ridiculous contracts seen in football, baseball and basketball, where the ‘business’ is more important than the sport itself.
I hope it remains this way.
Harry Jones
Expert
You would suspect his scrummaging skills are well developed by now. Not sure about his tackling, which is Jannie's Achilles heel.
Agree Harry, from what I have read he is well liked up north, he even wrote a few pieces for local media, good reading in fact and our tighthead pickings are slim when you look at the form of the incumbents.
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, BB. Zimbabwe and Namibia are special cases. They were always, from way back, integrally involved in SA rugby, and a lot of SWA/Rho families sent boys to school in SA, or had a foot in both places. You mention Mujati; strange saga with him, but I really think he'd bolster our prop depth.
jack
Guest
wishfull thinking simon but the nzru are not clowns and they have a few tricks up there sleeve, the aussie sides can recruit as many nz born players as they like but if it got to the situation where it was affecting the abs being on top off world rugby then a quick change from the nzru and suddenly abs can be picked from aussie super teams, then the aru would suddenly be paying the wages of abs. the nrc going to pay nz players? the aru is broke how are they going to pay them more than an npc player gets paid in nz? the nzru is not broke thats for sure. And if the aru thinks nz needs them thats a joke sure the aru could pull out of the super 15 but nz wont follow and if the aru think that they could make a comp with an island and asain team thats also wishfull thinking cause the moment that the aru left the super 15 the nzru would have the island and asian teams in the super 15 before the aru knew what hit them, so no the nzru should not be more worried than the aru about players moving overseas
jack
Guest
get real paul the whole samoan team are pretty much kiwis and steve tew has said many a times that at irb meetings nz and aus are always trying to bring in rules to help make the island teams stonger and guess who votes against it...the six nation countrys as they have the most to lose with strong island teams, scotland and italy and other teams would lose alot to strong island teams and its the irbs responsability to help the islands not nz and aus.
Combesy there are a lot less African (immigrants) in the Springbok team than you would think. Firstly we have 3 million Zimbabweans in SA, I don't think I need to tell you why. So it is inevitable that a few of them would feature such as Beast (his younger brother also lives in SA) Chavanga, Mujati. Prior to isolation there were actually (in the amateur era) more Zimbabweans playing rugby for SA as they formed part of our Currie Cup and many moved here for job opportunity One thin we don't do and have ever done was go seek talent outside our borders, those who do come here to play rugby does it out of their own accord.
Katipo
Guest
@Kane. Most of those 49 foreign 'Boks are passed there use by date. How many foreign players do you think will be selected in to the 2014 Springboks? 2 or 3? That's the number we should be looking at. The ARU should be able to cope with a similar situation especially as it saves them millions of dollars in salary payments.
Kane
Roar Guru
Someone mentioned the other day there was 48 capped springboks playing in Super Rugby and 49 playing overseas
Nobrain
Guest
Most of the foreing players in the Aviva and Top 14 are getting paid more money than the ones that play in SR, but that does not mean that the best rugby ,in mi opinion , is played in in those two cups. As an Argentinian I ussually watch some of the games in these three tournments and I can assure that SR is much more fun than the Aviva and Top 14 games. SR should aim to have more players from overseas, specially from Europe, and then you will have more european viewers intrested in how those players are doing in the SH, as much as I am intrested in how the argies are doing in Europe. Doing that ,with time you wiil find out that it will not matter where your nationals play as long as they are willing to play in test matches, RC, and WC. You cannot fight money for money with Europe at the time, so you must recognized the problem and deal with it. By preventing the best players not to wear the national shirt because they are playing overseas is damaging not only the quality of rugby at national level but also the audiences because they are not getting the best possible players defending your national colors. Not having the best players from AU wearing the national shirt it damages audiences because they know that the best are not there and it is a valid excuse for not going to a game or paying to watch beacuse they feel are not well represented. I really do not think that you can stop players from trying to get the most money since rugby is a very short live for a player and will try to make the most out it in that short period of their lives . So we have to think a different approach if we want to keep the best players in the SH than forbiding them to wear their national colors.
Katipo
Guest
Except for the 4 home nations Citizenship should be the rule. Players should be allowed to represent the country they hold a passport for. If you are a dual citizen you would be eligible to represent both countries if selected at different times in your career. Governments administer Citizenship. If the ARU restricted Wallaby representation to Australians then they would reduce admin costs too! Sean Maitland should apply for a GB passport. Once he has it. Fine. If Henry Speight wants to be a Wallaby he should become an Australian Citizen. Ben Mowan should be eligible for Ewen McKenzie to select wherever Ben lives because he carries an Aussie passport. Just sayin'
peeeko
Roar Guru
definitely agree the grandparent rule needs to be scrapped
Johnno
Guest
No Eligbility rules are Iron-Clad perfect, or restrict foreign-player mercernarie movement, but simple way to tighten it up are. IRB -Scrap 3 year, make it 5 year player must live in another country -And scrap the grandparent rule -Done. Already you would reduce the numbers. eg Blokes like Sean Maitland would not have been able to play for Scotland, as he used the grand-parent rule. I'm open to player playing for a 2nd country, but only on heritage grounds eg heritage extends to where Parents were born only, not grandparents. And in your playing career your only allowed to play for 2 nations max, even if you qualify for 3 or 4. -Have a waiting period. 4 years. You can't play for another nation for 4 years waiting-period from the last time you played for the nation you were playing for. Example- Siteleki Timani, he last played for Wallabies in 2013. He would then under this rule, not be able to play for Tonga his place of birth until 2017, 4 year wait time. That could help the pacific island nations, and teams like US/Canada/Namibia. -Also set rules on teams to play for 2nd nation, and i admit this is where it get complex and murky. You have to look at things like population and world rankings. But say you can only play for 1, Tier 1 nation in your caeer only(NZ,Aust,SA,Eng,Wales,Scotland,Argentina,Italy,Japan). -If you played for those Tier 1 nations or large nations, you can also play for 1 other nation if you eligible, or the rugby Tier or size of nations like (US/Canada/Fiji/Samoa/Tonga/Namibia/Chile/Uruguay/Georgia/Romania etc). Those ideas create balance and flexibility, and more fairness across the board.
Katipo
Guest
@Paul Crann... Only Australian citizens should be eligible to represent Australia at rugby. It is a nonsense that non-Australians can play for Australia. Rugby has these quirky representation regulations because of the 4 home nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which are actually only two nations Great Britain and Eire. Passports don't work for the 4 Unions because they are not actually countries. The situation causes all this representational nonsense (another example is the islanders who can't represent their own country because they played one match for another country of their residence) so the IRB ought to have two sets of regulations:- A) Citizenship determines eligibility (like the Olympics). You can represent multiple countries in a career as long as you hold a valid passport. B) The home nations are exempt and use current laws - one 'country' for life. As far as I'm aware there is nothing stopping the ARU making Australian citizenship part of their eligibility criteria.
paul crann
Guest
I agree, poaching is unfair, unwarranted and undesirable. Remember ARU & NZRU they who live by the sword .... Etc. Time to lobby the IRB to curtail this nonsense. We here at the Roar want to strengthen world rugby not weaken it.
Katipo
Guest
Tane I think it's an over reaction to think that ALL of the Tahs Wallabies would head overseas if the policy changed. I mean how many springboks are left playing in South Africa at the moment? The vast majority. So we could expect Australia to be much the same. Catastrophe would be avoided. Fox would still be interested.
Combesy
Guest
Tane I'd be interested to know the birth and heritage around SA players. I'd suspect their would be a few Zimbabwean's in the team and probably a hand full of other African nation decent. I agree on all those players you have listed. Me personally, I don't care for speight playing for the wallabies. I think we have enough talented outside backs to go without him. Yes he is talented, but is it worth not playing a aus born/bred player instead? Otherwise international teams are gonna become clubs
Tane Mahuta
Guest
The reason is them all leaving and all playing overseas like Argentina, Samoa, Fiji etc. Who will go and watch the Tahs when they have no Wallabies? Will Fox still be interested in Super Rugby when all the best Australians play in Europe? Will Rugby in Australia survive a mass exodus of its best players? Eng, Fra, NZ, Aus only select players playing in their home countries. Wales, Ire, Sco, Ita only select players who play in Europe. SA and Arg are the only tier 1 nations that select players that play on a different continent.
Katipo
Guest
I have never understood the logic of NOT selecting eligible players for Wallaby duty just because they earn their living overseas. In fact I can see many advantages - the foreign clubs pick up the salary bill saving the ARU millions. And the ARU needs to save money. The players get fantastic life and rugby experiences. The biggest risk is for players. Because they are less visible than Aussie residents they may not get selected for national duty. They leave and open the door for a local player to usurp them. Equally, I see the benefits of allowing foreign talent in to the NRC. This system works fine for the Soceroos and the A-league is booming. Rugby needs to consider the same policy.
44bottles
Guest
Franks and Whitelock definitely, considering tight 5 can play to an older age. I reckon Nonu will hold out for another 12 games (1 full year?), though I don't know if smith will make it to 100. Read should last unless some prodigious talent comes out in the next few years.
Brumbies Jack
Guest
Players do want to stay but bring professional means they need to be paid...Aust spends too much in administration and marketing with nothing left for the entwined that is the players!!