The ARU has given itself some breathing space to deal with a post-Rugby World Cup apocalypse by finally granting senior players the privilege of representing the Wallabies while playing overseas.
It’s welcome news in a World Cup year of course, because it increases the depth of the experienced player pool available to the Wallabies. In particular, the 100 Test fairytale becomes a tantalising possibility for Matt Giteau.
It also goes some way to stemming the bleeding from the player exodus taking place after the showpiece.
However, in practice it won’t have a huge effect, because the onerous criteria that players have to meet to qualify means that most will go overseas early anyway.
According to the ARU, “Effective immediately, overseas-based players will now be eligible for Qantas Wallabies selection if they have played more than 60 Tests for Australia and have held a professional contract with Australian Rugby for at least seven years.”
At the moment that list is pretty sparse, with only George Smith (111 caps), Drew Mitchell (61 caps) and Matt Giteau (92 caps) eligible from the overseas ranks.
Others who would, or will, be eligible from overseas include Adam Ashley-Cooper (104), Stephen Moore (92), Ben Alexander (72), Benn Robinson (72) and James Slipper (63).
Several others from the current crop may qualify depending on how many Tests they play between now and the end of the World Cup – James Horwill (58), Sekope Kepu (52), Will Genia (58), Quade Cooper (53) and Wycliffe Palu (54).
Out of that list only Giteau, Kepu, Genia, Ashley-Cooper and Palu look to be real chances to make the World Cup squad anyway. Smith would appear to be too long out of Test rugby, Horwill is badly out of form and Cooper may well lose his race with injury.
Alexander is an unlikely selection given the power-scrum tactics likely to take centre stage in England. Robinson could actually benefit from that same scenario, but has been out of favour for a while.
In any case, this list shows the problem with the criteria when it hits the reality of the professional rugby pyramid.
At the base, there are a huge number of hopefuls entering Super Rugby, most of whom will either only last one contract and who will never represent the Wallabies. At the next tier, there are the established Super Rugby players who may last two contracts, say five or six years, but also never represent Australia. The third tier is those players who finally achieve some Test rugby, and at the peak are the very, very few elite Wallabies who manage to play a significant number of Tests.
60 Test matches is an enormous number. To get to 60 Tests, a player would conservatively have to play five full seasons of Test rugby, maintaining dominant form and with almost nil rotation or injury.
Add to this that most players won’t play Super Rugby until they’re at least 20, and most won’t play their first Test rugby for two years after that, and this puts even the fittest, most fortunate prodigies at 27 years old before they could take advantage of the ARU criteria.
The “seven years contracted” condition doesn’t necessarily make it harder, but it doesn’t make it any easier either – if a player is late getting contracted then he could easily be 28 or 29 by the time he is able to take off overseas and still remain eligible for the Wallabies.
By this time there is the obvious question of desire and performance after the age of 30. Unless we’re talking a Brad Thorn, a Brian O’Driscoll or a Keven Mealamu, then a lot of players suffer an inevitable physical decline at that age, none of which is helped by extensive travel.
Add in a family and the priority changes that go with that, and there are a raft of reasons why many players who meet the criteria may choose not to return anyway, or may not be playing at a level sufficient to warrant their selection.
But the ARU knows all that. Sure, they’re interested in keeping the long-term elite players in the Australian landscape. But they also know that because there are so few of them, it means that they will have a minimal effect on the average in-season Test match.
The bigger prize is keeping the mid-level Wallabies for longer.
This is the pain point in Wallaby-land. It’s not the Genias and Ashley-Coopers heading overseas that hurts. It’s the loss of the fresh princes, like Kane Douglas, that really rips the heart out of the national team.
Without the two-to-three-season Wallabies on deck, the team becomes a mix of a few predictable veterans, mixed with a swag of precocious, and easily startled, young bucks. What Australian rugby really needs is to hold into the middle of the bell curve.
The ARU move is the right one, but it hasn’t gone far enough to really give the newly minted stars something to shoot for. At 25 or 26 years of age, coming off a second Super Rugby contract, with 30 Wallaby caps under their belt, how many players will ignore the European millions and back themselves to win a further 30 caps, just so they can add to the Wallaby tally from overseas? Not many. 60 Tests is too many for the majority and the ones that have gone previously will still go under the new regulations.
If the number was, say, 40 Tests then almost all would hang around. Then not only are they kept in Australia for 40 Test matches, which is significant, they remain available for Wallaby selection in their ‘second prime’, and they probably play their 60 Tests anyway.
But when the number is 60, the chances of them playing 80 are pretty slim. There’s a reason most players don’t make it to 80-plus Tests and that is because it is incredibly hard.
To put it in perspective, even the great Tim Horan didn’t get past 80 Tests. Jason Little played 75. David Wilson 79. It doesn’t get any easier to saddle up for the Wallabies when you’re already under the load of a 40-game European season.
At a 60 Test requirement, lots of players will go overseas before they hit that mark anyway. The ones that don’t are too few in number to make a significant difference, and are unlikely to remain in top Wallaby form through years eight to ten of their professional careers. Some will manage it, but they’ll be the exceptions, so the net effect on the Wallabies depth is negligible.
At a 40 Test requirement fewer players are lost, because after one contract cycle they only have to play another 10 or 15 Tests to hit the 40 mark. That can happen in a year and they might sign for two years to get the milestone. If they’re then lost to Australian rugby, they’re still eligible for the Wallabies in the prime of their playing life, around years six to eight of their pro career.
It’s a great initiative and the ARU should be applauded for taking positive steps to keep overseas Wallabies in the frame. The next step is to make the numbers realistic enough to do what they should be doing – keeping players at their peak in Australia.
ROAR POLL – WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ARU’S MOVE?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It did not work. It impacted the set piece too much. No successful team plays left and right flankers. France and Argentina do this. All other nations play specific 6's and 7's with the 6 being a smaller lock like player. Rugby union is not about jamming the best 15 players into the team. it's about finding the best 15 players to perform specific roles. These differ greatly between 6, 7 and 8. Physically no player can do all of these well as the characteristics which help one role actually negatively affect another.
boonzie
Guest
Agree. Think we need to realize that it's a global sport and we are likely to be smaller player in the club market but could be a larger fish in internationals. To be honest, some of the shute shield games are more entertaining than a lot of super 15 games... So it might not be all bad unless AUS teams become whipping boys for NZ / SA
Brad T
Guest
40 tests better than 60 but if we scrapped the rule altogether and allowed any overseas player to be picked it could help in several ways. 1- Overseas clubs would have to release players for international duties making Australian players less attractive to poach. 2 - Those that do go broaden their experience 3 - More players brought through super rugby program giving us a larger pool of players to choose from.
redbull
Guest
Fair points. Though I think of players like Mowen, Cowan and Hodgson who may not break the test team till later in life. I was immediately pessimistic on the news of this but release of the eligibility constraints makes it appear a very sensible compromise.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
" I read it, I just ignored it because Smith is a 7 " The number on his back is largely irrelevant. Most countries play left & right flanker these days anyway. Smith played very when he teamed up with Waugh. He can handle it no problem. Likewise he can play Number 8 if required. It's this versatility and toughness that he brings to the table.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I read it, I just ignored it because Smith is a 7. He is not a test 8 or 6 as he does not possess the qualities we require in those positions at test level. That's why he was never hugely successful when used at 6 and 8. He is probably our greatest ever openside flanker. He is not a better 6 or 8 than any other alternatives who offer more as power running options and line out options.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
TWAS, your not actually reading my comments. You are focusing on the number 7 position of which we have sufficient depth of which I agree. I am also discussing the backrow as a whole. We are not flushed with depth in the 6 & 8 positions which is where Smith can come into the mix. So yes his form is relevant in relation to backrow cover.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Excellent comment Sheek. Agree completely. Hopefully realising that is why JK will be retained. I don't want to see another 3 years out of some new coach. He needs to finish what he's started, and JK was always a great finisher. Cheika suggested earlier that NZ are into longer term planning over the 'fix it now' methodology- also why an earlier appointed Hansen is able to manage issues beyond this years World cup where other coaches from what we can see are not.
taylorman
Roar Guru
So why is Beale getting tests, or contracts?
sheek
Roar Guru
I would like to clarify why I don't think Australian rugby can ever revisit the highwater mark of the early 2000s. It is because everything today is predicated on short-term money making revenues. Too little thought is given to implementing long-term plans that will bring the game eventually to fruition. We've all heard the saying, "If you don't plan for the future, you won't have a future." These five year TV deals remind me of the old Communist five year productivity plans. They rarely worked either.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
His form is irrelevant because we have so many options that's it's unlikely he would be necessary. If we only had 2 test options we would gain a lot because he is a huge step up from the next guy. But he plays in a position where we have 5 players who have starred in games for the Wallabies.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
What if? How do you know until you select them? More players come back inferior that superior so I think we're better off.
Connor33
Guest
Per today's SMH: "Given that the ARU's thinking is to ensure only those overseas-based Wallabies who have contributed long term to the game can now be considered, Dwyer said the provisos should have been lower. He believes a fairer criteria would be a mark of 40 Tests and an Australian professional contract history of five years." I'm happy to have preempted what Dwyer said.
Bakkies
Guest
It took the Tahs 16 years to complete their 4 year plan
Bakkies
Guest
Exactly happy players will stay and also why Joe Schmidt is still here. Doug Howlett, Shaun Payne, Brent Pope and Mike Storey are still in Ireland post career. Nacewa is coming back. BJ Botha hasn't left the island. Remember Ryan Constable? Been retired for over a decade and has a successful player management company here and does commentary for BBC NI
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Mike
Guest
Sure, but its not really selection policy we are talking about, but eligibility. Whatever number you set, there will be both more or less deserving players that meet it. But just because they meet it doesn't mean they will get selected.
Mike
Guest
Sure, anything is possible, but I see the prospect of French clubs being able to beat this as miniscule - provided the will is there on the part of both ARU and IRB. The clubs can draft any contracts they like between them and the player, but if the actual effect is to stymie regulation 9, then they'll be overridden.
RobC
Roar Guru
True sheek. Also, with all that trans oceanic crossings, there's going to be a higher need for people to be told to change their jerseys. Which means more coaches quitting etc etc
sheek
Roar Guru
It's probably too obvious to suggest that the best way to keep our best rugby players from going overseas, is to improve the local product. But of course, that's a massive effort that requires at least 10 years blood, sweat & tears. And the ARU may never get the game back to where it was circa 2000-2004. In fact, I suspect it won't. For me, the future direction of super rugby is all wrong, while the structure of the NRC is also skewed. The one shining light is the Rugby Championship. By the time the ARU & SANZAR realise they have the wrong structures, it might be too late. Imagine playing Top 14 rugby in France. Putting the huge contracts available aside for the moment, consider the travel arrangements. All your matches are in the South of France, either nestling the Mediterranean Sea along the Riviera, or the Bay of Biscay coastline nestling near Spain. It's close to heaven on earth, surrounded by the beautiful French language, culture, cuisine & women. And the two or three times you have to travel any distance, it's to where? Paris, the city of light, the enchanted city. If that's torture, give me more! And even the Heineken Cup matches are a short hop, skip & jump to the UK, Ireland or Italy. Plenty of culture & cuisine to soak up everywhere. Compare this to playing super rugby in the Southern Hemisphere on the smell of an oily rag for wages, so to speak. So you travel from Sydney to Auckland. That's a hike of several hours by air. And it's a bit more across the continent to Perth, with nothing but red dust below you. Then you hike across the indian Ocean to Jo'burg or Cape Town. Then back to Perth, then Sydney. Then you do it again. From 2016, SANZAR wants you to travel even more. Up the Timor Sea to Singapore, & past the deep North Pacific Ocean to Tokyo. But SANZAR's not through with you yet. There's a long haul involving the entire width of the South Pacific Ocean & South Atlantic Ocean to Argentina, depending on whether you're travelling east or west. Just for good measure. And this is all before you get the privilege to be selected for the Wallabies, or the All Blacks, or the Springboks, or the Pumas. Then you get to do all this vast travelling all over again. Year after year. Oh, what fun! Give me 5-10 years with a club in the South of France, or even in Paris. Any day.....