Why 60 + 7 is the right formula

If somehow you haven’t hear the news, the Wallabies are now picking players based overseas. Or at least, Michael Cheika has been granted allowances to consider overseas-based players that meet a set of conditions.

Currently, the list of players meeting the criteria is very limited, but it will increase the day after the Rugby World Cup Final.

I’ve very deliberately slept and sat on Wednesday’s ARU announcement, but a few days on, it’s hard to see it as anything other than a positive. I did imagine that this day would eventually come, but happily, it has come in a form that I really can’t find a lot of fault with.

There is a lot to like about the new policy and so here’s my two cents:

1. Not too close, but not overly unachievable
The 60 Tests plus seven years of professional service to Australian rugby is a sensible qualifying condition.

While I certainly see the point of suggestions that the ’60 + 7′ benchmark is too low, and particularly the well-made points of colleague Andrew Logan on Thursday, I actually disagree with this view.

With amount of international rugby played these days, it really doesn’t take long to reach 60 Tests. A player making his debut on the Spring Tour of 2010 would be eligible now, if he’s played every Test since. James Slipper made his debut in June 2010, and has featured in 63 of the 71 Tests played since then.

Michael Hooper currently sits on 42 Tests, and would have a similar strike rate to Slipper, having debuted in only 2012. He could hit 60 before the 2016 Spring Tour and still be short of his 25th birthday. 2016 would also be his seventh season of professional rugby, after joining the Brumbies straight out of school.

These guys show how quick the Test caps can pile up. Hooper has been largely injury free, while Slipper missed the Reds’ Super Rugby title in 2011 and the first few Tests that year with an ankle injury.

2. Australia gets the immediate benefit of their development investment
While I think 60 is the right number of Tests, the ‘seven years’ part of the qualification might be the most important component.

Not every Australian player will rise through the ranks as rapidly as Slipper and Hooper, and reach 60 Tests well inside seven seasons of professional rugby. Most will be lucky to make their Super Rugby debut by their second season.

It’s vitally important for Australian rugby that young players remain in Australia for their rugby development, and equally, that the five Australia Super Rugby sides get the major return on their development investment in that player.

3. The next wave of Wallabies must stay put 
Australia simply doesn’t have the depth to lose 23 and 24-year-old Super Rugby players overseas. The NRC will improve this situation in time, but that is a medium-term project at the very least.

It’s only fair for the game locally that the best young players remain on our shores, and their reward for staying put is Wallaby eligibility.

Firstly, it ensures that the best young players remain under the control of Australian coaches and Australian conditioning and medical staff. It means that fitness levels and so on can be properly monitored, and removes the possibility of funny business from overseas club medicos acting under direction of owners.

“Bonjour M. Cheika. Nous regrettons de vous informer que le papier la coupe de Matt Giteau est bien pire que la première pensée , et il ne sera pas disponible pour votre campagne Rugby World Cup,” anyone?

Translation: “Hello Mr Cheika. We regret to advise that Matt Giteau’s paper cut is far worse than first thought, and he will be unavailable for your Rugby World Cup campaign…” Don’t think it’s not a possibility.

Older players will still go overseas; nothing will change under this policy shift. But keeping the best young players in Australia ensures the Super Rugby squads – and the NRC competition as a whole – remain as strong as possible. Australia can’t afford to lose the Phipps, Jones, Toomua, Godwin generation of players.

As a by-product, if the market value of eligible Australian players is now less as a result of the policy change, then that’s not necessarily a bad thing for the game locally, either.

4. A degree of exclusivity remains 
Only the best players will qualify under ’60 + 7′. The really good players will do it inside seven years, and good luck to them. Others will take longer to reach the required number of Tests.

’60 + 7′ isn’t designed to be a catch all, and nor should it be. Yes, it rules some out some pretty handy players overseas already, and may even work against more players in the coming years. But I don’t have a lot of trouble with that making it easier to qualify would only open the floodgates of players rushing for the departure lounge.

Furthermore, lowering the bar to 50 Tests, or even 40, will certainly increase the pool of players available, but at what cost? More players available does not equate to better players available.

The higher the number of Tests played, the better-performed the player has had to be over a longer period of time. Currently, the list is four: George Smith, Giteau, and Drew Mitchell, while Rocky Elsom is theoretically eligible too, even though he was medically replaced by former All Black Jerry Collins at French second division club, RC Narbonne, earlier this season.

Of that group, only Giteau will – or should – come into serious consideration. Backrow and wing stocks remain strong currently, and it’s debatable that Smith and Mitchell would make the Wallabies stronger.

Yes, the number eligible will increase next year, with Adam Ashley-Cooper already there, and the likes of James Horwill, Will Genia, Sekope Kepu, among others, likely to be eligible by the time they depart after the Rugby World Cup. But again, that certainly doesn’t mean they will all be considered for every Test.

Overseas players were never entitled to play for the Wallabies previously, and nor should every overseas-based player now. ’60 + 7′ means that only an exclusive group of players can even be considered, and that’s a good thing. The Wallabies jersey will still have to be earned, and it’s entirely plausible that overseas players will be judged harder than the locals will.

5. It doesn’t reward the early departers 
The part of ’60 + 7′ that I perhaps like the most is that not everyone will qualify, and particularly those players who elected to leave Australia at a much younger age after making life experience or lifestyle decisions at the time.

The Hugh Pyles, Digby Ioanes, Nic Whites of the world aren’t now rewarded for going early, and it means that younger players will have to seriously consider whether their desire to see the world can’t wait until later in their career.

Alternatively, the secondary element of the policy change, where players committing to return to two year Super Rugby deals can be considered for the Wallabies the home season before (not after, as is the case now), becomes more attractive.

All in all, and while I feared that a move to selecting overseas players would have an incredibly adverse effect on the game locally, the ARU have been very clever and careful in implementing this policy shift as they have. The outcome could have been far worse, and for their careful consideration of this important issue, the ARU needs to be applauded.