Wallabies must choose: Silver, or gold jersey

One of the Ironies of this statement is that a number of players playing for Australia over the years are not playing for their country and pride in their country, if they were they would be playing for New Zealand, Fiji, Zimbabwe, etc. Rather they or their parents have made economic decisions to live in Australia because of the opportunities it offers. So why should a player be shut out of contention for a place in the Wallabies, to our detriment as much as theirs, because they made sensible financial decisions? The reality is the price differential between pay in Europe and Australia is higher than it has ever been. After the World Cup it wouldn't be unrealistic to imagine that we may have the majority of the Wallabies first choice team playing overseas. If this happens why should we cripple the Wallaby team. There is a fairly reasonable solution, negotiate with New Zealand, who also have the same issues, to simultaneously announce that both countries would start selecting overseas based players. This will marginally weaken our super franchises relative to SA, as some extra players will move overseas, but not relative to each other.

Who would enforce it? We also don't want a debt problem in Rugby like in Football where certain clubs can't afford to pay transfer fees. Plus the transfer of players from a different confederation are highly suspect. Mascherano, Tevez and Neymar come to mind. The first two were allegedly owned by an agent. Rugby players tend to be free agents by moving after their contract is completed. Contracts are paid out per agreement if the player or coach leaves before it expires to get a release. Some players ask for a release for various reasons. Often to move to another club. I would call that resigning. We don't want the nonsense like in Football where an agent advises a disgruntled player to ask his manager for a transfer request. Players in Rugby are already testing their coaches with poor attitudes, agent led circus involving "testing the market" and that is bad enough.

He played for Sale. At Toulouse he has been a flake.

What about okes like Meale who are all smiles and cheerful with the ABs after yet another loss to them?

Tahs week in week out provide all the spark andpoints.

Cheika is as confused as everyone else, pretending to be old school and yet picking up a fat cheque for being Wallaby coach! Professional rugby means money and the short window you have to earn it, the powers that be are deluded with this crazy policy that you must be a Super rugby boy inorder to qualify for country but at the same time talking of sabbaticals so we can have it both ways, let the boys earn as much money as they possibly can and still be eligible to play for the Wallabies!! These rules are too draconian and the Saffas are way ahead of the stuffy Kiwis and Aussies!! Stroke of a pen and we have all the depth we want, most of the decent players are jumping ship anyway after RWC!!! Sabbaticals, what a bunch of hypocrites, should give the vote to the players to decide about eligibility instead if the old farts and has beens in the ARU!!

You really do just try to start arguments everywhere don't you.

WHat makes no sense at all, the fact that players leaving their countries have different priorities? You are lumping 2nd tier nations who has no professional league with those that have, that makes no sense. One has a choice were he earns his money the other doesn't

You talk about restraint of trade in Wallaby selection and then want the ARU to both restrain and devalue an Australian player by applying a transfer fee...... What right does the ARU have to dictate where a player earns his living? Last I checked, thee ARU doesn't actually "develop" players, the players do most of that themselves.

I am not concerned about where Sexton plays his rugby, besides that he plays in the same european cup competition, Leinster, Munster and Ulster plays. Our guys don't

I did exclude Beale, but fair enough that was a bit of a dig at Hooper... Chieka I think is a good coach, but I'm starting to doubt him as a selector...

Where does J.Sexton play his club rugby?

and players know they cant play for Aus too. But for me, he is making a judgement of a players dedication or passion for Aus, if not then why say it? Everyone knows you cant play for Aus when you go overseas. He is implying that if you go overseas then your heart isnt in it anymore and thats nonsense. It is a difficult decision that is forced on a player and many of those players that go overseas are no less deserving than Cheika, a man who also went overseas for rugby but now coaches the national team and preaches about his version of loyalty because it suits him and his new cause. Just my opinion.

That makes no sense at all, none. Heres why, SA players can still play for SA as can Arg, Wal, Jap, Sam, Sco, Ital, Ton, Nam, Can, USA, Fiji and Geo players so the idea that leaving their country means they dont prioritise playing for their national team does not compute at all. Although for Aus and NZ players it is about priorities. You are forced to chose between representing Aus and having a better life. Just because you chose a better life does not mean you are in some way lesser of a national player than those left back in Aus, that is nonsense, pure and simple. To suggest Mowen values playing for Aus less than any other player in Aus is misguided, it assumes Mowen values money more than playing for Aus and that Mowen thinks less of playing for Aus now than when he was still in Aus. Wheres the proof of that? Aus cant have overseas based players in the squad imo but thats an unfortunate result of circumstance. In Aus you are forced to make a decision, for some it is extremely difficult I assume and for Cheika or anyone to stand there and preach about priorities and how others are more deserving of Wallaby positions because these people have been forced to think of family and life after rugby stinks imo.

That's 4 fair points biltong, this is why I completely understand that it makes full sense to give priority to home based players. I just don't want it to be 'a rule' or players based overseas to be told they ditched their country for money. The main reasons home based players should be picked are logistic and purely 'rugby based', not some kind of 'moral high ground', or patriotism home based players have and others don't. This is why I applaud the fact Welsh players have started to leave their French clubs to go back to Wales as they realised it was very hard to be a rugby international based in another country. I think Gatland and the Wales federation did the right thing, encourage them to come back without ostracizing them while they were away.

Your comment above seemed to insinuate that both Hansen & Cheika had gone overseas so shouldn't believe in the current policy. I am saying that they went overseas knowing that excluded them from being their countries national coach but returned to NZ / Australia so they could be available. Not sure why that would mean they don't believe in the current selection policy.

Nick, what you are suggesting has too many grey areas. Forget for a moment the player and think about the national team. 1. preparation - coach does not have all his players for the full periods available to him. 2. availability - clubs hold players ransom for when they are available 3. conditioning - look at the condition of Jaque Fourie, JP Pietersen, Frans Steyn as examples 4. form - how do you assess it? There are more, but the fact is why must the national team be compromised because of the reputation of an overseas player

I don't disagree with that biltong. We usually all have more than 1 'priority' in life, representing your country being one of them. I just don't think anyone can say that 'the guys staying at home all put playing for their country as their top priority and the ones leaving don't". No one will make me believe that QC, Folau or Speight for example (nothing against these guys btw) have playing for the wallabies as a higher priority than Cummins or Mowen. They made a different choice because they had different aspirations/circumstances etc. Maybe they have private sponsors here that others don't have, maybe they were given guarantees by the aru others weren't, maybe, maybe, maybe.... There are so many variables that we aren't aware of (financial status of the family/player, just general aspirations, wife or gf work situation etc). Imo it should be assessed on a case by case basis. As I have said to you many times, I think the saru have the right rules, they just need imo to be more drastic and emphasise on the fact priority will be given to players staying at home. They have the right regulations but they imo don't use it the right way. aru have the wrong rules, just far too black and white. To see that guys like Mowen, Cummins, Douglas, Mitchell etc are told 'no, we don't want you, you made yourself ineligible" while others who haven't always been irreproachable towards the wallabies (qc, Kb) are still in the group, well I cant help but feel something isn't right. Nothing against qc and kb, but I just don't think they should have priority over cummins and co 'just because they still live in oz".

Nobody has ever disputed that.

And...