Wallaby Polota-Nau signs with Leicester

By AAP,

Tagged:
 ,

93 Have your say

Popular article! 7,073 reads

    Wallabies hooker Tatafu Polota-Nau has snubbed interest from all four Australian Super Rugby sides to sign a deal with English giants Leicester.

    The 32-year-old joined the Western Force last year, ending a 10-year association with the NSW Waratahs.

    But following the Force’s Super Rugby axing was he was forced to look elsewhere to continue his career.

    Polota-Nau will still be eligible for international selection having won nearly 80 caps for Australia and remains Michael Cheika’s first-choice hooker ahead of the 2019 World Cup in Japan.

    However, Rugby Australia and the Australian franchises were taken aback by Polota-Nau’s claims last week that he was being forced out to look overseas because a lack of domestic interest.

    It is understood offers were tabled by the Waratahs, Brumbies, Queensland Reds and Melbourne Rebels who are angered at being accused of passing on him.

    The 78-capped rake played in the 2011 and 2015 World Cups and made his Wallabies debut as a 20-year-old in 2005 before appearing in Super Rugby. He will move to the UK next month.

    Polota-Nau will link up with former Wallabies teammate Matt Toomua at Welford Road where he will be coached by former interim Reds mentor Matt O’Connor.

    “I’m really looking forward to experiencing what northern hemisphere rugby is about,” he said in a statement released by Leicester.

    “To be privileged to do it with one of the most prestigious clubs of the English Premiership, Leicester Tigers – I believe that not only can I further my game individually, but they have the capacity to add plenty more trophies to their illustrious cabinet and history.”

    Polota-Nau will line up in the front row for the Wallabies on Saturday against Wales in Cardiff and O’Connor believes the signing is a huge coup for his club.

    “Taf is a fierce player with a huge amount of experience in Super Rugby and at Test level,” he said.

    “We think he will add a lot to a very competitive group of quality front-rowers here, working with other international players and we look forward to his arrival.”

    Polota-Nau’s former Force teammates Adam Coleman and Ben McCalmon are set to announce where they will be playing next season after the conclusion of the spring tour later this month.

    © AAP 2018

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (93)

    • November 10th 2017 @ 7:41am
      Fionn said | November 10th 2017 @ 7:41am | ! Report

      Sad to see him go, but he deserves a big payday after so many years of service to Australian rugby. I hope he is one of the few that Cheika uses the Giteau Law for.

      • Roar Rookie

        November 10th 2017 @ 1:14pm
        Dave_S said | November 10th 2017 @ 1:14pm | ! Report

        Yeah I’m happy for him to chase the dollars. I’d be curious to know what sort of offers he knocked back here, my guess is the Aus franchises (or most of them) would already have already committed most of their money on other top tier earners.

        • November 10th 2017 @ 1:21pm
          Fionn said | November 10th 2017 @ 1:21pm | ! Report

          Got to offer those big pay cheques to Moore, Frisby and Godwin, eh…? 😐 Grrrrr. Still, I wish him the best. Fantastic bloke by all accounts, and great rugby player.

          • Roar Guru

            November 10th 2017 @ 3:09pm
            Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 3:09pm | ! Report

            That’s how contracting works mate.

            Sign somebody based on who is available now, and in a years time when you still have them contracted for another year, somebody better comes up.

            That’s life.

            You either miss out now in the hope something better comes along, or you sort yourself the best you can now and maybe miss out in the future.

            As the old saying goods, a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.

            What nobody has also considered is that there was always going to be a squeeze in 2018 regardless of what happened.

            The Force and the Rebels both had 4 hookers signed, with it’s typical to sign 3.

            The Rebels had Hanson, Siliva and Leafa but at the last minute made an offer to Uelese to ensure he stayed.

            The Force had Tessman, Scoble and Rangi. At the last minute with Polata-Nau’s contract with Bristol fell through they picked him up for 12 months (likely at a reduced contract).

            Given the injuries they had at hooker it came in handy, but no team plans to use 4 hookers in a year.

            With how everything worked out, I doubt the Rebels would have signed TPN for 2018 anyway. With Uelese’s rise, they’ll use Leafa’s spot on a more useful type of player than a 4th hooker, and likely offer Siliva an low contract.

            There’s no way they would have Hanson, upgrade Uelese and spend a lot on TPN. Well you know what, maybe they would. They have a history of lopsided squads.

            As for the Force. Come this year had they still been around they needed to make the call on do they offer TPN another contract at the expense of:

            A) One of their other 3 hookers; or
            B) An extra back rower or lock.

            Or not make a big offer to TPN to retain him.

            It’s very likely that 2 of the following players would not be contracted in Australia in 2018 regardless:

            1. James Hanson
            2. Siliva Siliva
            3. Pat Leafa
            4. Jordan Uelese
            5. Anaru Rangi
            6. Heath Tessman
            7. Tatafu Polata-Nau
            8. Harry Scoble

            My biggest worry is that with the rise of Uelese, Hanson will request a release to remain in the UK and we will lose TPN, with a potential roster spot and adequate salary opening for him after he leaves.

    • November 10th 2017 @ 7:48am
      Bakkies said | November 10th 2017 @ 7:48am | ! Report

      Well done TPN and meanwhile the ARU’s ‘Chairman’ has had his head served on a platter https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Futureofrugbyunion/Additional_Documents

      • November 10th 2017 @ 8:02am
        Fionn said | November 10th 2017 @ 8:02am | ! Report

        What is the upshot?

        • November 10th 2017 @ 8:12am
          Bakkies said | November 10th 2017 @ 8:12am | ! Report

          Fair bit of reading involved but worth it.

          Some good bits
          – John Edwards has provided timelines, financial reports,financial commitments, letters to the ARU to rebuke de Clyne and Pulver who said that they hadn’t heard from the Force and/or didn’t have anything set in stone to support future participation in the Super Rugby competition-
          – David Vaux details phone conversations which tore apart de Clyne’s testimony. De Clyne also informed Vaux that he was told not to trust Andrew Forrest however the board informed him to give him an opportunity to state his case

          • Roar Guru

            November 10th 2017 @ 11:09am
            Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 11:09am | ! Report

            You really read what you want to read don’t you?

            He then indicates that there were  subsequent opportunities to present our “best possible business case” but claimed that we represented only “promises” and not “binding commitments”. This would indicate that the proposals put forward by the Rebels prior to that date were “Binding Commitments” when we know they were not.

            This is a direct quote. Edwards implies that any lack of binding commitments was merely the same for the Rebels. Which cannot be so, when it has been publicly announced the Vic Government agreement. It’s not a promise, it’s in place.

            As for their financial analysis, do you mean things like saying Own the Force has raised $2M, them basically saying they “reckon” it will raise another $3M? That’s literally just a promise or estimate. Not at all binding.

            Also their whole case seems to be based on surviving on around $6M per year in revenue, when prior to 2015, they had been surviving on around $10M.

            They also seem to project their cash position decreasing each year until 2020 unless they win 8 or more games…

            And they required the ARU to evenly distribute top ups, potentially impacting the Wallabies by reducing their ability to merely contract who they see fit for the purposes of the Wallabies, the primary revenue source.

            And, further down a letter outlines as follows:

            To put this into context Mr Forrest (AO) has advised us, you and the Rugby community in the most public way possible that he will “Do What it takes” to save the Western Force and ensure our long-term stability.

            Apparently “do what it takes” didn’t include meeting all of these requests which Rugby WA claim were articulated to them:

            1. AF to underwrite WF for 3 + 5 years (8 years) and confirm a no loss position;
            2. AF will provide funding for grassroots rugby to the tune of $6m a year for 3+5 years (8 years) = $48 million!
            3. AF will provide SANZAR compensation for the additional one –off costs of going from 15 to 16 teams = $20 million

            • November 10th 2017 @ 2:44pm
              Bakkies said | November 10th 2017 @ 2:44pm | ! Report

              ‘Which cannot be so, when it has been publicly announced the Vic Government agreement’

              The same Vic Government agreement which we still don’t know what it was for was announced after de Clyne testified and Edwards lodged his submission.

              • Roar Guru

                November 10th 2017 @ 2:53pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 2:53pm | ! Report

                You and I don’t know what the agreement was.

                But as an agreement has been made, it wasn’t merely a promise. It is a binding agreement.

              • November 10th 2017 @ 3:12pm
                Bakkies said | November 10th 2017 @ 3:12pm | ! Report

                It wasn’t even signed at the time of the ‘testimony’ and Edwards submission.

              • November 10th 2017 @ 3:55pm
                GIGS20 said | November 10th 2017 @ 3:55pm | ! Report

                But as an agreement has been made, it wasn’t merely a promise. It is a binding agreement.

                It’s nice that the Rebels were give so much latitude to convert their “promises” into “Biding Agreements” After the fat, when the Force’s “Promises” (which were fully costed and presented as verbal contracts in the media and various correspondence without being refuted by any party” Have not.

                THe Vic Government deal wasn’t signed off until just before DeClyne testified and then it didn’t realise the funds it was credited with, therefore the Rebels “promise” wasn’t actually a promise it was a “suggestion” which turned into a “binding contract” that was far less favourable

              • Roar Guru

                November 10th 2017 @ 4:03pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 4:03pm | ! Report

                Oh you’ve seen the date of the contract execution have you?

                What Force promises were made in verbal contracts?

                The information in John Edwards’ submission is based on assumptions…

                The only thing that appears to be actually guaranteed is the $1.5M sponsorship for up to 2018.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 1:12pm
                Gigs20 said | November 11th 2017 @ 1:12pm | ! Report

                Clyne said in his testimony that I’d had been, I was prepared to take that at face value, but you have now given me reason to suspect he was lying about that as well. It wouldn’t be out of character would it?

              • November 11th 2017 @ 12:23pm
                Chris said | November 11th 2017 @ 12:23pm | ! Report

                Verbal contracts in the media that weren’t refuted. Rock solid those are.

              • November 10th 2017 @ 11:04pm
                Bakkies said | November 10th 2017 @ 11:04pm | ! Report

                ‘Oh you’ve seen the date of the contract execution have you?

                What Force promises were made in verbal contracts?

                The information in John Edwards’ submission is based on assumptions…’

                Bullshít TWAS even your mate de Clyne can’t lie straight in front of the Senate

                Senator REYNOLDS: Given this assessment was done and that Victoria is more financially viable to keep the Rebels, as I understand, there was an offer on the table at some point from the Victorian government for $20 million in some advance of future activities. Has that $20 million appeared? Has that been finalised with the Victorian government?

                Mr Clyne : I’m not going to discuss the specifics of the Victorian government deal, but I can say the Victorian government deal is finalised.

                Senator REYNOLDS: Is it for less than the $20 million that was—

                Mr Clyne : I’m not going to discuss the nature of the deal.

                Senator REYNOLDS: If I said that we believe that it was for less than the $20 million that you used to factor into that spreadsheet—so it’s been finalised, but you won’t say for how much.

                Mr Clyne : No, but the reality is that, as I said right along, the financial bid from Victoria was superior.

                Senator REYNOLDS: It’s a bit hard for us to judge because, at this committee, we had the Western Australian minister testify that the Western Australian government had, at the same time, put in what they believed to be a similar bid to the Victorians and they believed their bid was superior. Was that Western Australian bid compared with the Victorian bid? Why was the Western Australian bid less superior to the Victorian bid?

                Mr Clyne : All those factors were taken into consideration. Both government deals were looked at and both government deals were a factor. At the end of the day, Victoria—

                Senator REYNOLDS: So you acknowledge there was an offer from the Western Australian government?

                Mr Clyne : Yes, obviously there was an offer from both on a range of things relating to payments and other things, but the overall package from Victoria was superior.

                Senator REYNOLDS: Mr Clyne, didn’t you actually say not so long ago—just now, in fact—that there was no guarantee from the Western Australian government? We understand there was the transport safety sponsorship, which was provided and guaranteed, and you’ve now just acknowledged the Western Australian government did put a bid in for extra financial support.

                Mr Clyne : No, I said the sponsorship deal was not forward-contracted beyond one year.

                Senator REYNOLDS: Sorry, forward contracted?

                Mr Clyne : We didn’t have a commitment beyond one year with regards to the sponsorship. However, we did say, ‘Let’s assume it will occur.’ We actually gave the credit for that, and we also gave the credit that the Own the Force would be fully subscribed. On both those factors, even though they weren’t actually contractible, we gave the credit to them in the WA bid and it was still inferior to Victoria.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 10:18pm
                Bakkies said | November 11th 2017 @ 10:18pm | ! Report

                ‘It wouldn’t be out of character would it?’

                That would be in character.

                Speaking of that parasite I see he showed his face at the NRC Final. The Vikings should have lost the semi so the Spirit players could tell him to bugger off at the Final.

            • November 10th 2017 @ 3:24pm
              Blue said | November 10th 2017 @ 3:24pm | ! Report

              Timing of the announcement was well after the Force were cut. At the Time the Force were cut there was no agreements signed between the Melb Rebels and the ARU only promises. That was the point that was been made in plain English.

              If you are going to comment please do so using facts not just doing a Clyne and twisting things to suit your agenda.

              People like you are doing more damage to Rugby because of your crap, do some research as you are only showing yourself to be foolish the more you comment.

              • November 10th 2017 @ 4:56pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 4:56pm | ! Report

                You’re not using facts.

                You’re deciding what the facts we don’t know are to suit your view.

                So what if it wasn’t signed.

                It doesn’t need to be signed to show that the Vic Government presenting a firm offer.

                The presence of the actual offer is all that was needed.

                Maybe it didn’t exist at the time. That’s entirely possible. But you don’t know that any more than you know that it did exist at the time.

              • November 12th 2017 @ 1:16am
                ScottD said | November 12th 2017 @ 1:16am | ! Report

                It’s not a firm offer unless it is signed. Only a goose would consider an unsigned contract firm and binding.

              • November 10th 2017 @ 11:13pm
                Bakkies said | November 10th 2017 @ 11:13pm | ! Report

                De Clyne when he embarrassed himself on Alan Jones’ show was told that a heads of agreement is not a contract.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 8:59am
                Bakkies said | November 11th 2017 @ 8:59am | ! Report

                What you determine Cameron is facts?

                While we are it didn’t your mates approach the WA Government for an advancement on the monies from the 2019 Bledisloe Cup match in Perth. A match that is actually scheduled not un-scheduled and un-tendered for.

                I suppose the ARU had more consultancy fees to be pay.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 9:04am
                Ex force fan said | November 11th 2017 @ 9:04am | ! Report

                Noticed how TWAS changed his stance from a “binding” agreement that has not be executed to a “firm” commitment to cover Clyne. In my view the Force offer was just as “firm” and Clyne dodge the question on why he believe that the Rebels offer was superior. In time we will find out how “superior” the ARU rescue bid really was when the ERU bails the Rebels out again and again.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 10:19pm
                Bakkies said | November 11th 2017 @ 10:19pm | ! Report

                Makes you wonder doesn’t it ex FF. If he was up in front of the beak TWAS will defend him to the tilt.

            • November 11th 2017 @ 12:43am
              andrewM said | November 11th 2017 @ 12:43am | ! Report

              Onya Don

        • November 10th 2017 @ 9:12am
          Moz said | November 10th 2017 @ 9:12am | ! Report

          If I am reading this correctly, this means that Clyne told the Inquiry that they had removed the Force in part because the Force did not provide any real financial justification for them staying in the comp. Clyne also claimed that they had requested details several times, but nothing was forthcoming from WA.

          So John Edward’s submission shows evidence that the Force and RWA did provide information that on how they could financially support themselves.

          Further, Clyne had asked the Force to delay issuing the “Own the Force” prospectus, as this would have shown further proof that the Force could be viable? The Force went ahead and issued the prospectus anyway, but the effects of this, and the funds it would bring in was excluded from “The Spreadsheet”. The ARU in effect chose to ignore the “Own the Force” in any discussions on the future of the Force.

          Clyne also told the Inquiry that he never conveyed to Andrew Forrest any actual, specific figures that Forrest would need to come up with to try to save the Force. David Vaux has then tabled the specifics of this conversation with Clyne, which shows specific figures that Clyne said would be needed.

          So the ARU may have misled the Inquiry:

          1. They never revised financial justification information from the Force and RWA, even though they obviously did. They also tried to sabotage the “Own the Force” fund raising as it would have given the Force more financial clout.

          2. Clyne told the Inquiry no financial requirements were conveyed to Forrest prior to them meeting in Adelaide, even though he spelt this out to David Vaux prior to the meeting.

          • November 10th 2017 @ 10:13am
            dennisthemenace said | November 10th 2017 @ 10:13am | ! Report

            I’ve got to say, there is a mountain of evidence now against Clyne, Pulver & co and nothing but their own testimonies to support their claims, im guessing some of the confidential submissions will be the ARU spreadsheet and their ‘answers’ to the questions on notice. Cant wait to see what the outcome of this enquiry will be… no doubt its going to get dragged into legal/criminal proceedings based on whats publically available…

            • Roar Rookie

              November 10th 2017 @ 11:34am
              piru said | November 10th 2017 @ 11:34am | ! Report

              And STILL

              NO REPORT ON THIS FROM THE ROAR

              No report on this, a senate inquiry into the very management of the game of rugby in this country, on a website specifically dedicated to rugby in this country.

              Something is rotten in the state of Australia

              • November 10th 2017 @ 12:56pm
                Cole said | November 10th 2017 @ 12:56pm | ! Report

                Thanks for the update. If the Roar won’t report it, just keep posting it in the comments so we can keep up to date.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 9:03am
                Bakkies said | November 11th 2017 @ 9:03am | ! Report

                I have a fair idea why it hasn’t been reported Cole.

                – David Kirk (one time CEO) and Patrick Allaway (was a Fairfax board member) are amongst the Friends of Sydney University Football Club that has the not so esteemed members on their list such as Cameron de Clyne and Roger Davis
                – They don’t want to lose their press passes from the ARU and ability to get exclusives
                – Spiro destroyed Rob Clarke and it was beautiful

              • November 11th 2017 @ 9:07am
                Ex force fan said | November 11th 2017 @ 9:07am | ! Report

                It is obvious that the roar has an agenda to move on. I do not expect any report on the Senate enquiry finding either.

          • November 10th 2017 @ 12:45pm
            GIGS20 said | November 10th 2017 @ 12:45pm | ! Report

            To provide some balance Bakkies (and you know I’m completely on your side in this, so you know it comes out of respect) CLyne said he didn’t quote a figure, Vaux said he did. This is a clear case of conflicting testimony and the job of the inquiry is to figure out who is lying. I assume that the character of the entirety of the witness testimony will be considered in this case,

            Who is more likely to be the liar? Clyne or Vaux?
            Who has lied repeatedly? Clyne
            Who has provided any had evidence to support their statement? Vaux, but the evidence is a reply email from John Welborn reacting to the laundry list that Clyne says he didn’t deliver. Not exactly compelling, but certainly better than Clyne’s “I’m pretty sure I didn’t”

            At the end of the day, I wouldn’t want to hang a person on that one single instance. Particularly when John Edwards has put 26 pages of hard evidence including responses from the ARU to refute other testimony of Clyne!

            • November 10th 2017 @ 1:17pm
              Bakkies said | November 10th 2017 @ 1:17pm | ! Report

              David Vaux’s testimony is the entrée to the main course which is John Edwards’ Chicken Cordon Bleu.

              ‘To provide some balance Bakkies (and you know I’m completely on your side in this, so you know it comes out of respect) CLyne said he didn’t quote a figure, Vaux said he did. This is a clear case of conflicting testimony and the job of the inquiry is to figure out who is lying.’

              You have to go back to the Hansard report of de Clyne’s testimony and his public statements to find out that he has a conflicting story

            • Roar Rookie

              November 10th 2017 @ 1:23pm
              Dave_S said | November 10th 2017 @ 1:23pm | ! Report

              Yeah, having worked in civil law enforcement for a while, I can say it is not at all uncommon for 2 credible witnesses to give different accounts of things. It may not even be a case of someone deliberately lying. Without knowing the full facts myself, I’d say it could easily have been nothing more sinister than a miscommunication.

              Maybe hold fire until the final report.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 9:05am
                Bakkies said | November 11th 2017 @ 9:05am | ! Report

                Dave you are assuming that de Clyne is credible. De Clyne was asked to take a question on notice when asked whether there was a conflict of interest between Gary Gray, Rob Clarke and Andrew Cox in regards to the deal of the century.

              • November 11th 2017 @ 10:01pm
                Dave_S said | November 11th 2017 @ 10:01pm | ! Report

                I’m not assuming (or presuming) anything, that’s the point. Others seem quite keen to, however. I’m not surprised it hasn’t been covered on Roar, it’s premature.

          • November 11th 2017 @ 10:44pm
            Bakkies said | November 11th 2017 @ 10:44pm | ! Report

            ‘1. They never revised financial justification information from the Force and RWA, even though they obviously did. They also tried to sabotage the “Own the Force” fund raising as it would have given the Force more financial clout.’

            Surely that needs to be look at as restraint of trade?

    • November 10th 2017 @ 8:42am
      Highlander said | November 10th 2017 @ 8:42am | ! Report

      So every now and then the UK Rugby Pod gets a rumour right, they called this over a month ago.

      • November 10th 2017 @ 7:04pm
        Cuw said | November 10th 2017 @ 7:04pm | ! Report

        dude the peeps in UK get most “rumors” right.

        or have u not seen the political carnage.

        many a time , it is the reporters that open a can of worms….

    • November 10th 2017 @ 8:49am
      Davo said | November 10th 2017 @ 8:49am | ! Report

      Seems like a good result all round really. Taf gets some valuable NH experience and a cash boost at the end of his career. He’s still eligible to play for the Wallabies due to having more than 60 caps. And there is more scope for younger Australian hookers to get game time in Super Rugby. At the end of the day it’s pretty much what he was going to do anyway a couple of years ago before injury scuppered his plans.

      I suspect the moron who wrote “snub” in the article link is the same one who keeps writing “with a cause” every time there’s news on a Rebels signing. Or are those things written by a clickbait bot now?

    • November 10th 2017 @ 10:17am
      dennisthemenace said | November 10th 2017 @ 10:17am | ! Report

      A good result for Taf and a boom signing for the Tigers… all the best TPN and thanks for your commitment to the Force and its Fans

    • Roar Guru

      November 10th 2017 @ 10:48am
      John R said | November 10th 2017 @ 10:48am | ! Report

      If I can read between the lines here.

      perhaps when Taf said no offers were tabled from the clubs, perhaps it was the ARU that wasn’t coming to the party?

      In other words, please come and play at our club, here is your salary, and the ARU will provide the top up, and the ARU decided against that, seeing as they can pick him from anywhere?

      Will be darn weird seeing him not suit up in blue though, regardless of what coast he’s on!

      • Roar Guru

        November 10th 2017 @ 11:10am
        Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 11:10am | ! Report

        Who knows.

        He can say that and leave with good will.

        The guy was leaving 12 months ago. It’s hardly shocking that he has now looked to do so again at 32.

        He’s also earned a good overseas pay day with the service he has given Australian Rugby.

        • Roar Guru

          November 10th 2017 @ 2:43pm
          John R said | November 10th 2017 @ 2:43pm | ! Report

          True mate all true.

          That lingering arm injury is probably the best thing that could have happened for his career.

          To go on the open market as the starting Wallabies hooker and in top form would surely command more $$ than he could have this time last year.

          • Roar Guru

            November 10th 2017 @ 2:55pm
            Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 2:55pm | ! Report

            I’d be intrigued to know what discussions Cheika has had with TPN regarding 2018 and 2019.

            He will be 34 by the World Cup.

            Certainly not over the hill for a front rower, but you don’t know what condition he will be in at that time.

            • November 10th 2017 @ 3:03pm
              Fionn said | November 10th 2017 @ 3:03pm | ! Report

              I imagine Cheika will have taken the pragmatic approach of ‘if you’re still in good shape and playing well you’ll still be selected’.

              Remember, Cheika has demonstrated a willingness to hold onto players far longer than most of us would: AAC and Mitchell last year, Dean Mumm at all, Moore still are all examples of this.

              I hope that TPN will still be an option in 2019, but I hope that Uelese and either Faingaa, Ready or Latu are given some opportunities before then in case TPN doesn’t make it.

              • Roar Guru

                November 10th 2017 @ 3:17pm
                Train Without A Station said | November 10th 2017 @ 3:17pm | ! Report

                Geez I think realistically Fainga’a is a long way off yet.

                He hasn’t played a single game of Super Rugby yet. And whilst you could say the same about Uelese he had been quite dominant as a first year U20 already.

            • Roar Guru

              November 10th 2017 @ 4:22pm
              John R said | November 10th 2017 @ 4:22pm | ! Report

              Based on Moore, you’d say he’d be slowing down a fair bit by 34, which is only natural.

              Now I think about it a bit more, it would probably have been best to keep him in the Australian system so he could continue to impart his IP to the up and comers.

              But I guess they’ll still be able to pick his brain when he’s in camp during the international windows.

    Explore:
    ,