Like many of you, I choked on my cornflakes at the news earlier this week that plans were afoot to wedge Kane Douglas back into the Wallabies setup ahead of the Rugby World Cup.
Douglas, you’ll remember, left Australia last season for a three-year deal with leading Irish club Leinster.
There were suggestions that after a very strong championship season with the Waratahs, not enough was done to keep Douglas in Australian rugby.
In April this year, the ARU implemented its eligibility policy, whereby overseas-based players with more than 60 Tests under their belt and who had played at least seven seasons of professional rugby in Australia would now be eligible for Wallabies selection.
At the time, I wrote that the ARU was being “very clever and careful” in its ‘60+7′ policy shift, and that they should be applauded for setting the criteria at the levels they did. The ’60+7′ policy ensures that only the best Australian players overseas become available, and more importantly that Australian rugby gets the benefit of the crucial development years of a player.
60+7 is how Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell are now back in Wallabies camp, and also how the door remains wide open for another George Smith return.
However, Douglas, right at this point in time, does not meet that eligibility. He has played just 14 Tests, and falls short of the seven-year criterion after debuting for the Waratahs in 2010.
So how on earth is this going to work? And why does it appear that the ARU’s application for a World Rugby Regulation 9 release for Douglas this international season is in direct contradiction of their own policy, only three months into its implementation?
Well, like all good stories, there’s a little more to this than meets the eye. The key element was a quote from Michael Cheika from the Wallabies’ camp.
“I’m hearing there’s some noise he wants to come home,” Cheika told reporters. “If he is coming back to Australia to play and signs with an Australian Super Rugby team, of course we’d be interested in providing a top-up. But I think he’s still in contract in Europe.”
Leinster don’t think that he’s still in contract, they know he is; although they have signalled an intent to comply with the Regulation 9 request, their position beyond the Rugby World Cup was pretty clear, too.
“We have been in discussions with the Australian Rugby Union and with Kane for a few weeks now and we have made our position clear,” Leinster team manager Guy Easterby said in a club statement yesterday.
“Kane is contracted to Leinster for another two seasons and we look forward to welcoming him back when his commitments with the ARU come to an end.”
The only way Douglas can become eligible for the Wallabies this year would be via another slight policy shift, also announced back in April.
Lost among all the talk of ‘Giteau’s Law’ was a tweak to the policy for returning players:
“Under the revised policy, players returning to Australia from overseas who make a two-year commitment to an Australian Super Rugby club will also be eligible to represent the Wallabies immediately upon their return,” the policy stated.
Like Dean Mumm, Douglas would need to sign at least a two-year Super Rugby deal with an Australian side to become eligible immediately. The Queensland Reds have been mentioned, and would be an obvious solution, with the mail suggesting that Douglas wants to come home to be closer to his family.
Older brother Luke plays NRL with the Gold Coast Titans, and the family hail from the NSW far north coast. Their mother, Trish, lost her battle with cancer in mid-2013. Douglas announced his engagement over the weekend, and he and fiancée Jennarly are now also expecting their first child. It’s certainly the time of your life you’d want to share with family.
So the question then becomes one of the Leinster contract. Gloucester and former Brumbies coach Laurie Fisher told me in late April that the new ARU policy would almost certainly force European clubs to rethink the recruitment of Australian players, particularly the increasing number eligible under 60+7. Why recruit players who will then be missing during the international windows?
But since Douglas doesn’t qualify, Leinster would be within their rights to expect their contract to be honoured. But then, what’s the point of keeping a player who doesn’t want to be there?
So what happened first, the Regulation 9 application, or the “noise he wants to come home”?
And what of the remaining two years under contract? Leinster would want something in compensation if they were to release Douglas, but just like Quade Cooper’s deal-or-no-deal with Toulon, who pays the reported buyout figures?
My ARU source yesterday told me unequivocally that the financially perilous board “wouldn’t be paying a cent” on either deal. And given the Reds’ position on Cooper’s situation, they can hardly turn around and now offer to reimburse Leinster, can they?
Cheika’s “of course we’d be interested in providing a top-up” words were interesting, too. If Douglas wasn’t worthy of a top-up a little over 12 months ago – the major reason for his departure, we were told – then is he really worth one now, 20-odd games and a back injury with Leinster later?
Not to mention the dearth of lock options in Australia suddenly. Sam Carter is injured, and no room could be found for Luke Jones, Adam Coleman, or even Lopeti Timani in the 40-man Wallabies squad. “Of course we’d be interested in providing a top-up.” Really?
Having dug a little deeper, I’m satisfied that no policies – infant policies at that – are being bent, but there are bigger questions that need to be answered.
Like do the Wallabies really need Kane Douglas? Is the coach’s interest in providing an ARU top-up on return shared by the board? And who is really driving this sudden development?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
All players must wait 72 hours for injury replacements. A player can be flown over in less time than the wait to be replaced. This is to ensure that local teams are not receiving that benefit.
Sofa Coach
Roar Rookie
Good article thanks Brett. There's no questioning that Cheika's a cunning bugger who is not afraid to think outside the box, so there's a possibility that there's another advantage beyond the immediately obvious behind all of this interest in Gits, Mitchell, Douglas and George Smith, even if none of these players eventually make the final 31 man RWC squad. That advantage is, of course, that they are all Europe based. The advantage I am specifically referring to is not about the familiarity with oppositions and playing conditions, but rather the advantage of proximity. The same advantage would also apply to Genia, Cooper, Horwill, Kepu, Two-Dads, White, and any other Wallaby-desirable player heading to Europe for the coming club season who might miss selection in the final 31 man RWC squad. All of these Europe based players who miss out on selection become pseudo extended squad members. A distinct advantage of an English Word Cup for the European sides is that all of their eligible players will be in season or pre-season with their clubs, and no more than an hour or two away in the event of an emergency call up for their national teams as last minute injury replacements. Think 4th choice flyhalf Stephen Donald's emergency call up from his end of season fishing holiday for the ABs in the 2011 final. If the same scenario had confronted the ABs in a final hosted at Twickenham, could the Donald cavalry have arrived in time? Highly doubtful. Personally I believe the ARU have manoeuvred exceptionally well with their new overseas based player selection policy and probably have got the balance spot on- time will tell- but they have nonetheless consistently maintained the position that ineligible overseas players could be selected in emergency situations- surely the Stephen Donald example would fit such an emergency. It's a certainty that injuries will effect the squad at some point in the campaign, but with only 31 players, Cheik can't cover for every eventuality, plus maintain style and game plan options. So do you fill a valuable spot with a 3rd scrum half or the likes of Horwill, who certainly doesn't warrant a place on form this season, just so as to provide injury cover? Or do you opt for the luxury of taking both, say Kerevi and Toomua, as well as Gits, so as to allow multiple game plans? If Douglas is released and signs for the Reds, great! Great for him, for the Reds, and for Cheika's options. But I wouldn't be surprised if putting Douglas in the picture, like many of some of these inclusions is just canny bigger picture preparation.
30mm tags
Guest
With you on that Ken.
30mm tags
Guest
If the ARU pay out for Kane Douglas, Will Genia or Quade etc ,they are nuts. If you walk out the door then keep going and since when has the ARU been so flush with cash. The grass roots of rugby would treat the coughing up of $ for obtaining Douglas as a joke.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
THP's like Greg Holmes have looked very strong this year.
Pete from Singapore
Guest
If exceptions are to be made why not look at Salesi Maafu. For all the angst over the scrum for RWC 15 I'm surprised no one is looking at a TH who has been packing down in the Aviva as a starting TH for a leading English club. For all of Dean Mumm's supposed insights I can't help but think that a team mate of Alex Corbesiero, Tom Wood and Courtney Lawes might add a bit more value. Agreed he may not be world beater but who is amongst our THs? As for locks I can't see the value of bringing back Douglas. He looked like a run of the mill lock in Europe with Leinster and if we are looking for average locks there are plenty to pick from domestically. Basically I can't see him bringing anything on top of what we already have.
Jagman
Guest
Here you get an insight into Chieka's thoughts about Douglas "Waratahs coach Michael Cheika confirmed he is in discussions with the 198cm, 118kg powerhouse as part of his replacement strategy for departed lock Kane Douglas. “We’re in talks with Sam, we feel he has got some quality that will go towards replacing Kane,” Cheika said. “You’re not going to replace Kane like for like, but maybe we can replace him with a combination of players who can perform different roles. “Kane was a big worker, so we’re looking at big workers and they’re not easy to find. “There is no one around in rugby who has the international profile and experience of Kane, who is available. “So we are being creative in the way we replace that workrate.” http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby/nsw-waratahs-set-to-sign-warriors-forward-sam-lousi-as-a-replacement-for-kane-douglas/story-fni2fylx-1227056938316
Demak
Guest
Man of the match in his first test if memory serves me correctly on the Gold Coast missing in action for the rest of his test appearances, great 2014 at super level but that's it. Forget him he is injured and has no recent good form with Lenister to go on I struggle to believe this is actually being discussed
Cynical Play
Guest
Wrong and rude.
Tiwngasm
Guest
I don't think you know how Leinster will react to being black mailed into releasing a player under contract. There have been MANY players who have tried the same thing and basically end up spending a year or two as solely training field fodder. They'll want his contract bought out.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
It will be interesting to see how the Census Johnson / Toulouse thing plays out after he played today. Of course clubs have to release players under Reg 9 but Toulouse talking of consesquences for him playing after previously announcing his retirement from international play speaks volumes!
Freighter
Guest
2 from each franchise plus Fardy makes 9... Doesn't mean they are any good. It is our worse position in quality bar none.... And halfback
Freighter
Guest
Really?- I would say weakest. I would go as far to say that if the wallabies and ABs swapped locks last year, we may have won the bledisloe... Obviously can't prove it... But that is what I think
Freighter
Guest
How does Douglas make Cheika's gameplan work?
Val
Guest
If the ARU wishes to gain another lock for the RWC why not try and get the best Australian lock playing in Europe - Hugh Pyle. While Douglas has just been average over there Pyle has been great for Stade Francais. He normally is not substituted to late and often plays the full 80 minutes. For the Top 14 final he kept the French lock Pape on the bench - impressive. If the ARU are thinking of spending the big bucks at least get the best for the money and improve our chances in the WC.
AndyS
Guest
Doubt it, all they are likely to do is put our players in the same basket as the PI players and include the 'incentive' clauses to either refuse international duties or take a pay cut. As many are going because they don't think they are getting the chance here, I doubt many would blink at the clause.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
How about if it makes those contracts that are still taken up a bit smaller to cover risks of lost time? It might diminish the pay packets of those that leave anyway which is a harsh consequence. It might save those on the fringes to the game here but the French and other clubs will still pay what they need to get the top echelon. The ARU will come out of it looking sneaky and difficult to deal with. In that case no one win except the clubs which might pay a little less. None of this is making sense to me right now.
Bakkies
Guest
The fact that Douglas was slated by Chief Ruck Inspector Neil Francis says a lot
OB
Guest
The problem we have in the stock of Wallaby locks is that they all have major flaws. We have no high achieving all round locks who do everything well. Considering that Kane is still young and most locks get better with age, it's not unusual that is Wallabys caps haven't lived up to expectation. He had an outstanding Super series last season and the ARU were crazy to let him go. Certainly the Warratahs missed him this season. The ARU should bend the rules in this world cup year and make him eligble, he adds more to team most of the locks we have available to us.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Yeah I'll take the credit Brett. Cheers!