With the increasing numbers of Australian players signing with European and other overseas clubs, the debate over the Australian Rugby Union’s willingness to select overseas-based players rages on.
I believe the solution is quite simple, but perhaps I’m missing something and the good readers of The Roar could help pick a few holes in my argument.
Why can’t the ARU adopt a policy whereby players will continue to be eligible for the Wallabies, regardless of where they play club rugby, after that player has reached a threshold number of Wallaby caps?
Now, what that number is could be calculated by smarter people, but I would think somewhere around 50 caps.
This would mean a player has spent around four to five years in the Test side. But it depends how flexible the policy-makers want to be.
For me I see a few benefits.
Firstly, it would allow those players who have already given good service to the domestic game to explore overseas options, while not weakening the Wallabies.
Secondly, it would create a pseudo sixth Super Rugby franchise for Aussie depth. As an established player heads overseas, a place is opened up for a hungry youngster to get exposure to Super Rugby with his province.
Most importantly, this won’t see large swathes of talent leaving these shores and weakening the Super Rugby product in an irreparable way. In the current Wallaby squad for example, if we took 50 caps as the threshold, then this would only affect seven players: Ben Alexander, Stephen Moore, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Will Genia, Wycliff Palu, James Horwill and James Slipper.
From the injury list we could also add Quade Cooper, while David Pocock is on 45 caps.
So if this rule were introduced, with 50 caps as the threshold, then at the current time only seven current Wallaby players from the combined five Super Rugby franchises would be eligible to play overseas and still be available for Wallaby selection.
It’s unlikely that all of them would want to go overseas either, so Super Rugby would probably not need to replace them all.
This change would not weaken the Wallaby side, with all these players still available for national duty. In fact, we would also add a few to the list available for selection such as Matt Giteau, Drew Mitchell, Digby Ioane and Berrick Barnes.
This suggestion differs from the sabbaticals which we have seen across the Tasman. As when a person decides he wants to move to the other side of the world, it’s not just the money, but the whole experience, and I’m sure many players would not want to uproot themselves and their family just for three to six months.
This option allows players to be eligible for the Wallabies indefinitely, as long as their form warrants selection.
It’s also fair to say that this rule would be unlikely to stop players like Kane Douglas leaving these shores, as he currently has 14 Wallaby caps, and may not be willing to wait several years to make his move. So this won’t solve the problem of the loss of promising players early in their careers.
But perhaps if they knew this was an option, then players would be more willing to stay and play domestically for a few years in order to hit that threshold.
This to me seems like a simple and workable option which doesn’t solve all problems, but solves a few. Am I missing something?
Armchair sportsfan
Guest
Well, it seems Ewen McKenzie isn't a fan of this suggestion (towards the bottom of the article) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/queensland-reds-in-the-running-to-sign-karmichael-hunt/story-e6frg7o6-1226937784202 It also seems that Wayne Smith or Brent Read are readers of The Roar!
Tricky Ricky
Guest
Rugby Union lacks free to air coverage and is on its deathbed in Australia as demonstrated by rapidly declining attendances to matches and public interest. Player participation rates are down and the game itself has with rule changes become so technical it is now so boreing to watch. Wallabies should be drawn from competitions across the globe in an effort to rekindle public interest. Outlandish ticket prices to international matches should be reduced so the average person may afford to attend a live Wallabies match.
Derm
Roar Guru
"They have no hang-ups about picking players at a national level who may be plying their trade offshore." Really? Not sure this is as certain as you make it out to be. In recent years, three players come to mind who played outside of Ireland and got international call-ups. Geordan Murphy, Tommy Bowe and Jonny Sexton. The majority are persuaded to stay in Ireland and play for provinces. Or if they're starting, they go to overseas clubs to gain experience but return to play for provinces. Bowe spent some time with Ospreys in Wales, but because he played in the same league as the Irish clubs, he was rarely out of sight. He's back playing with Ulster again. Geordan Murphy did extremely well at Leicester, but was constantly overlooked for tests. He's now retired and coaching at Leicester. Jonny Sexton is the only player currently in the test squad plying his trade in France. Already the sounds and signs are that he won't last there. He has the advantage of being one of the best - if not the best 10 - in European rugby at the moment. I suspect that if his potential back-ups, Jackson, Keatley, Madigan, start really performing, his absence could start to tell against him. The focus is on the national side, because that is what brings in the money. It's absolutely essential. Fail at that and the whole structure and funding falls apart.
Derm
Roar Guru
"I don’t rate the northern hemisphere comp so such Aussie players who go there will only go backwards." Matt Giteau has gone so far backwards, he met himself running forward to score a try and win the H Cup last weekend.
Scrumpoacher
Guest
Guys the practicalities just don't work! SA kind of works cause they are on the same time zone as Europe and the flight is about 11hrs from London-double that and change a few timezones for Australia. The tests outside windows are good for growing the game elsewhere too-its makes money and the SR teams have flexibility to let guys go. as you say as well is that some will be playing year round rugby-burn out for sure, if from europe. Our best squad is in Australia too. Who, from outside The SR teams would realistically make the squad today? Not one I say. As for the argument of no one from Rebs or force being able to play for the walla's cause the core come from the other teams-they still play in the same league. I'm sure some of you are players agitating for this so you can have your cake and eat it...
Glefty
Guest
On the fence at the moment due to the need for deeper consideration but definitely leaning your way, AS, a lot of merit in your ideas, especially as it seems an inevitability anyway that RUPA will cry foul, forcing the ARU's hand so might as well get some front foot ball & get over the gain line on this issue. Definitely a 50 WB cap minimum on eligibility for this dispensation & perhaps a time/season limit included but it's the eventual price we'll have to pay for going professional I guess. Who or how many of the current WB's & o/s club ex-WB's would be eligible in the 50 caps limit?
jeznez
Roar Guru
Well done for getting an article up.
jeznez
Roar Guru
No we don't get the show in HK.
Redsback
Guest
There aren't many, but there are a couple who went that had a lot of potential - Rodney Blake, Palmer and now Longbottom... I know Blake has since flopped, but it could just as easily have gone the other way.
Redsback
Guest
I think you are missing the point a bit. Say we wanted Giteau for the first France test, he would be getting on the plane with the other 7 French players that are going to be flying in after that game. That's also a worst-case scenario. If he wasn't playing in the final, he would have been able to fly out 2 weeks before the last game and have a week off before the test - so he might actually be fitter than those playing Super Rugby this weekend. The fact is, in the last 2 seasons, they would only not have been able to play in 1 test which fell outside of the test window in November. That's the ARU's issue for overworking its players. If it didn't have such a big salary bill, it wouldn't have to play tests outside of the window. Taking your argument, no one from the Rebels or Force should ever be picked because they wouldn't have the combinations with the Reds/Waratahs/Brumbies who habitually make up the majority of the squad. Pocock always seemed to go fine when he was at the Force, same with O'Connor. They play enough tests together that they develop combinations. The only real issue that I see is someone playing club football in the northern hemisphere and test football in the southern hemisphere would basically be playing rugby or training year round. The truth is it would be difficult to pull off because of this reason (Argentina ends up resting European players during the June tests, which is not ideal). For that very reason, not that many people would actually take up the option. If it became clear that anyone who went overseas was seriously risking their international career, rather than ending it entirely, because priority would be given to local players and only in the case of an exceptional talent or a specific deficiency would they be called upon, not that many people would actually take up the option. But the fact is, we are potentially costing ourselves a RWC victory by not picking our bext available 23. I don't think Australia can actually afford to throw away a RWC by not picking its best team. What is going to bring the crowd and sponsors into Australian rugby - high quality super rugby or being world champions? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Everyone talks about beating the ABs, but we have to first beat England and Wales on heavy tracks to even reach them. Who is going to be better prepared to do that - people playing with and against them regularly in the HC or people playing on fast, dry Super Rugby tracks?
scrumpoacher
Guest
Bakkies, I am not missing any points. Hcup is more physical- but not better rugby. Also take away the 13 saffers in that game and it would have been less physical. Im not advocating anyone sitting on a beach getting paid-where did you get that idea? Sabbaticals are that-unpaid by the ARU and if they want to play o/s let them, just dont let them play for the wallabies. A reward for more than 50 tests could be good, but with stringent clauses about availability during test windows and a week either side of them.
Bakkies
Guest
The Irish sides have big squads and academies so there are opportunities for most of those players throughout a season. They are very loyal to their province so you don't get many who move internally like you do in Australia. There are players that would rather stay in the Second XV or move abroad then switch to another Irish side. The players get good exposure and media opportunities. Rugby is now on tv virtually every week of the season.
Armchair Sportsfan
Roar Rookie
i agree with Tane here. the gap in quality is quickly closing. But, surely a large reason for this is the 'trickle' of Aus, NZ and Sa (as well as PI) players is starting to turn into more than a trickle. So if the growth of players moving is not being arrested now by a blanket 'no-go' policy; then I cant see how doing nothing is going to change the trend.
Bakkies
Guest
The lure of staying at home isn't enough any more particularly for players with young families. They travel a lot playing Super Rugby. In Europe and in Japan there is travel but the players are able to come home every week. It's the same with coaches that go to Europe as they are older then the players all their kids are generally at late primary/secondary school age so being at or around home (whether it's the coach's office in the club's hq) more often is important to their family. Joe Schmidt is a case in point he has a daughter in NZ that is in uni. The rest of the kids are in school in Ireland. He has to be around his youngest son Luke who has severe epilepsy. If he was coaching at Super Rugby level he would be all over the place. His older son Tim is in the Terenure Senior Schools Cup team.
Bakkies
Guest
French players do occasionally play abroad but there is less incentive to do so. Ludovic Mercier, Freddie Michalak, Julien Brugnaut, Chabal, Serge Betsen, Raphael Ibanez and more had stints abroad.
Armchair Sportsfan
Roar Rookie
this is the real 'Armchair':).....member since 2007....big reader, infrequent commenter. More your ROAR Voyeur....
Armchair Sportsfan
Roar Rookie
thats an interesting comparison DC. And as someone now based in the London, I def know that also the irish provinces are are well supported too. But the point has been made elsewhere on this thread (even if rather crudely) that the distances and timezones of Aus V Europe; and Ireland V England/France certainly present more of a challenge. The flip side is of course is that the irish provinces are full of imported players as well as local irish, and this perhaps keeps the passion going for the local province as they continue to be successful. Would Australia be able to offer similar incentives for Euro player to play Super Rugby? I would guess not. Hence, I still favour my suggestion of a 'Cap-limited' overseas policy, as a means of partially controlling, and partially harnessing players desire's to head OS
Armchair Sportsfan
Roar Rookie
That's a fair point Ben. Def a weakness of this suggestion. Of course these older heads would still be there for international matches. but take your point that they will be missed during the provincial games. With regards to the pride in the jersey, the players im suggesting go, are players that have worn the jersey with pride for most of their career, and from my point of view, I think that perhaps rewarding that service and loyalty is a fair trade. furthermore, it can encourage those thinking of going to stay a few more years. For example, Digby is on 35 caps, perhaps he would have stayed another season or two if he knew he could still go after that and be eligible for the wallabies (I mistakenly listed digby as over 50 caps in the article, but he would be the perfect player that this suggestion may help retain for a while longer.
Eddard
Roar Guru
hog, I agree that super rugby is all over the place. But the main reason it's 4th is because it doesn't produce anywhere near the same amount of local product that the other codes do. But Super Rugby matches do tend to out-rate A League games on TV. That's despite the fact there are many more soccer people in Australia than rugby people. You make it a lower tier product and you'll get less fans watching it, without doubt. The A League is no where near as popular as it would be if it contained the world's best players. There are many soccer fans in Australia that support the EPL but not the A League. Why? Quality of the product. Do you deny that? Imagine if Messi and Ronaldo and Suarez were running around in the A League. It'd blow the AFL and NRL out of the water in Australia. The marquee players generate a huge % of the A League's publicity and have helped build the league to what it is. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a dispensation for signing them.
hoqni
Guest
I wholly agree, and time and again, did mention this in my comments at this great debate site. The plus 50 WBs can now: (1) go and experience a different competitive environment, at NH; (2) provide late minute replacement in several positions, given that rugby does come with injury down time. It would be exciting if in an EOYT, Giteau is called to assist with the team when other players are not available; (3) be in real contention for the RWC - certainly it should be available to all; (4) pose less pressure on ARU's payroll. Not to mention: (a) the benefit of having extra seats for scrum half, 10s, 14s, 2s, 7s, in Super Rugby; (b) a current serving Wallaby in Europe brings more exposure to the WBs.