- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
One of the lessons of warfare is that you don’t win battles with tactics, systems and personnel from past conflicts. This is a truth that Wallabies coach Michael Cheika needs to learn as he rebuilds after losing the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
For some days now Cheika has been talking about how he wants to involve the overseas Wallabies who are eligible to pull on the gold jersey because they qualify under the 60 Tests/seven years rule.
This approach will hold back what should be the development of a new Wallabies squad to contest the 2019 World Cup.
When the 60/7 rule was announced before the 2015 World Cup it was dubbed by an enthusiastic media as “The Giteau Rule”. The idea behind it was that Matt Giteau, then ineligible because he was playing overseas, would be a superb add-on member to Cheika’s Wallabies squad.
He could cover every position in the backline, as a reserve. Moreover, his experience and enthusiasm was seen to be inspirational for the younger members of the squad.
As it happened, Giteau played as a starter at inside centre and perform well enough to make the run-on team for the Rugby World Cup final. Unfortunately, he was injured before he could make a decisive impact on the game.
All in all, the Giteau rule worked well for the Wallabies – but only in the case of Matt Giteau.
I am less convinced about whether it worked in the case of Drew Mitchell. The Mitchell selection denied, say, Henry Speight the experience of playing in a Rugby World Cup final. Speight could be playing for the Wallabies in 2019.
Also, with an over-supply of wingers in the World Cup squad, Cheika was somehow forced out of experimenting with Kurtley Beale or even Quade Cooper on the wing, playing a sort of Nehe Milner-Skudder role that energised the All Blacks attack so dramatically.
Cheika has been reluctant to chance his arm with talented younger players. He even got the ARU to buyout Kane Douglas’ contract when he was playing in Ireland, rather than going with Will Skelton as his big second-rower.
Technically speaking, Douglas was not a 60/7 rule player. But he was brought back to Australia, in the World Cup year, with the specific intent of beefing up the Wallabies. Douglas took the place of other possibilities like the Brumbies’ Rory Arnold.
Some days ago Cheika told reporters that Giteau is still in his post-World Cup plans, along with Adam Ashley-Cooper and Will Genia: “I think transition is important, with the new players coming in and learning from those sort of experienced players.”
Then Cheika followed up with the concession that the 60/7 rule players wouldn’t be used in the June Test series against England, except for Genia.
My view on all of this is that the 60/7 rule should be kept for World Cup years only. For the other three years, the Wallabies should be selected exclusively from players playing for the Australian Super Rugby franchises.
The fact of the matter is that Giteau, Ashley-Cooper and Genia will not be good enough to play for the Wallabies in the 2019 World Cup in Japan, even if they are still playing.
Moreover, Ashley-Cooper suggested after last year’s World Cup that this was his Test swan song and that he was happy to end his Wallabies career in the way he did.
And he was right.
The new Fox Sports rugby program, 360 Rugby, discussed this topic this week. Rod Kafer, a shrewd, unemotional analyst, made some excellent points in disagreeing with the Cheika’s fixation on older players.
He pointed out that under this 60/7 rule there were unexpected consequences.
Younger players like Liam Gill are encouraged to chase the overseas money, even though he is coming into his prime as a loose forward. The reason for this is that as well as young players like Michael Hooper and Sean McMahon in front of him, he would probably have to contend with David Pocock, even if he plays overseas after his sabbatical.
Kafer could have mentioned Nic White in this context as well. Like Gill he is in his early 20s. This season he is playing for Jake White at Montpellier, instead of being a senior member of the Brumbies and a contender for a spot in the Wallabies as one of three halfbacks.
As Kafer pointed out, the leading three eligible halfbacks in Australia are Nick Phipps, Nic Stirzaker and Nick Frisby. The implication in his comment was that this, especially Frisby, was not a satisfactory list.
I would challenge this. Frisby has the pass, the pace and the rugby nous to develop into a Wallabies contender, along with the back-up Waratahs halfback, Matt Lucas.
Phipps is the current halfback incumbent. Stirzaker, the newly appointed Rebels captain, has all the elements in his game to be the Wallabies’ starting halfback for years to come.
The point is that if Genia is kept open as an option then potential Wallabies like Stirzaker (possibly), Frisby and Lucas (certainly) won’t be given the opportunity to see if they have the right stuff for Test rugby.
The case of Rob Simmons illustrates another problem with the 60/7 rule. Simmons has already played 60 Tests for the Wallabies. He first pulled on the gold jersey in 2010. If he plays for the Wallabies this year, which is a certainty unless he is injured, then he will qualify as a 60-Test, seven-year Wallaby.
Brett Harris had an interesting article in The Australian, pointing out that with Simmons calling and jumping splendidly for the Reds they had won more lineouts per game last year (14.1) than any other team.
Simmons needs to build on this lineout prowess to enhance his game with more running and tackling, in the mode of the New Zealand second rowers.
Now if Simmons goes overseas, he will be lost to the Reds and the Super Rugby tournament. More importantly, his game will not improve. He won’t play week after week against the most skilful but toughest forwards in world rugby, as he does in Super Rugby.
The fact is that the expectation in terms of fitness and all-round play of tight forwards in Europe is much lower than in Super Rugby.
How do we know this? Because Eddie Jones says so. His main finding from his first few weeks with the England squad is that they are not fit. You could see that during last year’s World Cup when England presented a pack of forwards that had muffin roll bellies.
There is also the evidence of the performance of European teams in World Cup tournaments, one win (England 2003) out of eight tournaments, with Australia winning two (1991, 1999), South Africa two (1995, 2007) and New Zealand three (1987, 2011, 2015).
The interesting aspect of those last two New Zealand wins is that players must play in Super Rugby or in the ITM provincial tournament to be eligible for selection. Once you go overseas to play and don’t come back (as in the case of the sabbaticals in Japan), you can’t be selected for the All Blacks.
Rather than penalise the All Blacks, this strict rule has allowed the team to win back-to-back World Cups. If the New Zealand Rugby Union had a 60/7 rule does anyone think that Dan Carter would have stayed in New Zealand? Do you think he would have had the chance to battle his way through injuries, under the guidance of the All Blacks medical staff, to become the match-winner in the 2015 World Cup final?
Compare, too, the case of New Zealand winning back-to-back World Cups by not selecting overseas players and South Africa, after winning the 2007 World Cup, not making the final of either 2011 or 2015, despite an open selection door policy for overseas players.
SARU has finally acknowledged that open door policy regarding overseas Springboks has to stop. They are looking at ways of retaining their best players in South Africa. Here is some advice: take the tough love approach of the New Zealand Rugby Union and select Springboks from players in South Africa, only.
The context for all this discussion is that on Friday night, Super Rugby 2016 begins with three blockbuster games: Blues-Highlanders, Brumbies-Hurricanes, and Cheetahs-Jaguares.
Working mainly from last year’s form, with only the slightest of nods to the pre-season form, I am picking the Highlanders, Brumbies and Jaguares.
The reason for selecting the Brumbies is that they are usually very good at home. Also, the Hurricanes, without their All Black second rowers from last year, could be susceptible to the Brumbies’ rolling maul game. However, and it is an immense proviso, if the Hurricanes get their running game going, they will destroy any team in the tournament (as the Crusaders found to their cost last week).
The Jaguares have selected a side that is virtually a Pumas XV. They have been in South Africa for some weeks and play (or should play) a confrontational type of game that works well in South Africa.
You would expect the Waratahs to beat the Reds at Allianz Stadium on Saturday night.
I believe that Daryl Gibson has been a trifle restricted with his selections. The unwillingness to promote Andrew Kellaway, for instance, is a matter that puzzles me. Kellaway was a record-breaking try-scorer for the Australian Under-20s side. Yet has struggled to get a place in the Waratahs match day squad!
I see no merit for the Waratahs or Australian rugby in Zac Guilford being brought into the Waratahs squad and then played ahead of locals, like Kellaway and Reece Robinson, both of whom have the talent to be good Waratahs players and possibly Wallabies in time.
And the quick promotion of Angus Ta’avao is a puzzle, in the other direction. With an Australian mother he is, at least, qualified to play for the Wallabies. But watching Ta’avao play for the Blues reminded me of Al Baxter. Whenever Ta’avao came on, the Blues scrum collapsed.
The Blues released him. And now he is being acclaimed as the next Wallabies prop!
The Force are playing the Rebels at Perth. They have promised to play a fast, smart brand of rugby and say they have been training at speed to put their systems into place. As David Campese once famously said about England: “You can’t learn to play running rugby in five minutes.”
I am picking the Rebels to win and expect this side, under the astute coaching of Tony McGahan, to be one of the stronger Australian sides in this year’s tournament.
My argument with Michael Cheika is that he needs to ensure that the Australian Super Rugby teams are as strong as possible if he wants to develop a powerful challenge in 2019.
This is achieved by keeping the best of the older players in the Super Rugby environment and promoting younger players to develop their potential in the best provincial rugby tournament in the world.
Here is a fascinating fact about the New Zealand Super Rugby teams: almost a quarter of the 195 players contracted by the New Zealand teams have received their first professional contract this year.
In other words, the New Zealand Super Rugby teams have adjusted to the loss of many senior players, after a World Cup four-year cycle, by promoting a new generation of players, some of whom will be mature professionals in time for the 2019 World Cup.