'Fiddling at the edges': RA needs real change for overseas selection rules

That is spot on, but I come back to my point about talent spotting.NRL and AFL are so sophisticated in that area, and we have to get better at it.

I think getting it in State Schools doesn't need to be as hard as we are making it. We could easily get 7s or 10s in State Schools as a starting point.

No argument there, TJ but there is a lot more to it. There has to be a happy medium to encourage blokes to have a crack at a professional career, or even a semi-pro career. The Aussie setup doesn't allow for it, so we have to give those guys chances. Yes, it's a pity if they end up playing for another country, but that is just a numbers game. Agree we need to get it into State Schools, and that is a no brainer, but at the same time we need to have a more diligent talent spotting program.

Yes, but those windows are only for the countries that want to have them. Japan Super League doesn't seem to care about them. Even its predecessor didn't really care that much about the Sunwolves. If you have windows where there is only Test Football and all countries can play, then the playing field becomes level.

I think we actually need to invest more money in growing the game of rugby at grass roots to create more potential players. Get it in state schools. Get the clubs access to elite coaching. More players creates better competition. Rugby is too pro heavy in Oz!

Very few players play at the top of the game for 10 years. Virtually all should be preparing for life after rugby during their professional years. It’s a players choice whether to simply chase the bigger money than play in Australia on a bit less dosh and represent the Wallabies. Life doesn’t always mean, you can have it both ways.

In their early 20s, young players have maybe ten or a maximum of fifteen years of income generation ahead of them. They may well have young kids and a mortgage. RA is offering the carrot of a possible place in the Wallabies (if some league player isn’t parachuted into that position) at some point in the future. They can play a limited number of Super-league games which may or may not include SA and /or Japanese teams. Mr Rich Brit or Mr very rich Frenchie turns up with a cheque book and offers them more money, more games per season and a chance to play against some of the best players in the world. In addition, RA has shown itself, IMO, to be incapable of planning anything beyond their petty squabbles and internal politics. What would you do? It’s easy to sit in the armchair, wrap yourself in the green and gold and pontificate. You probably have a salary coming in. These kids need to look after their lives. When they reach forty what do they hear “good on you for giving up the money overseas, sorry you didn’t make it the wallabies. Sorry you can't afford a house” The basic problem is not these kids going overseas - you can’t blame them. IMO RA sat on their arses after the success of previous years, patting themselves on the back for a job well done, playing internal politics with the states whilst coming up with meaningless slogans and calling it a strategy for the future. These kids shouldn’t be expected to sacrifice earning potential to fix the problems created by the administration over many years.

Don’t agree with this – that’s comparing a. Apple to a Carrot. The fact is, kids growing up playing basketball look up to NBA players because they are the best in the game and that is the premier completion in the world for that sport. For rugby it’s a totally different landscape. As an Aussie rugby player growing up you (generally) aspire to be a Wallaby, emulating the Australian players of the past, not the other countries. NZ players to ABs, South Africans to Boks etc etc. because these teams and players are the pinnacle of the sport and for your country. Your logic doesn’t add up.

If you believe in free market economics then it’s hard to see how tariffs or trade restriction interventions can be productive . Essentially this is a rugby intervention prohibiting the free flow of Labour and intellectual capital between trading partners . Sure govts do impose tariffs , taxes etc to protect local industries . But in free trading blocks globally ie ..The European Union or NAFTA where almost all interventions are removed and that we have a free flow of commerce that’s usually where we get the most benefit all parties . Airbus is a great example . In a South Africa where all restrictions on overseas based players have been removed our experience has been largely positive . Those leaving have created an opportunity for another young talent to get early exposure to top flight rugby . Yes a decline initially in standards but that’s in our own hands making sure they are maintained nobody else to blame . Same time we can draw at any time on the skills and added experience of those overseas players and coaches . A side benefit is the broadening of the player pool and talent domestically . That is why The Boks are World Champions and Nr 1 ranked team in the World . That would never have happened if we had not scrapped that ruling . Don’t know how it works in Aus but in SA a real case could have been brought to The Competition Tribunal forcing SA Rugby to abolish restrictions . Aus has to jump in the deep end and abolish all barriers . NZ too actually..They need a Rassie Erasmus to make it happen because he was the prime mover in convincing SA Rugby to go free trade . It’s a bit like The Omicron virus … You can delay it and try and control it but eventually it’s gonna happen anyway . :rugby:

So by your argument, you remove all incentive to stay in Australia and have all the good players stripped from all the local clubs because they head overseas? That makes total sense developmentally and commercially for the game back home - not. Your own logic is contradictory, because on one hand you’re saying that the European comps are strong because they import quality players from elsewhere and that improves the local players, yet you have no hesitation in stripping the local Australian rugby landscape of quality players, which in your own logic, are supposed to help improve the other local players - doesn’t make sense mate.

I think it's a bit of both and my comment reflects this. Japan has the highest salaries followed by France then England. A lot of their players would take the extra money overseas were it not for test rugby. BTW I wasn't trying to say that the lure of green and gold was any less, I was replying to MZ who didn't mention Australia. For Wallabies there is a bigger gap so the financial gain is bigger, and more Wallabies play overseas, but the same principle applies and most of the Wallabies still play at home.

JD, Does a French, English or Irish man want to play for their country more than an Australian man. Probly not. But when the money at home is similar to the money abroad, then that lure to play for country trumps the lure of dollars, they can have both. An Australian doesn’t have that luxury. So I believe your “main reason” is a tad off. Whilst I believe that Kerevi should be one of those three picked. His patriotic lure is a bit on the nose to start with. He and Koroibete only made it to Australia in search of money, no surprise they would follow that trail. Take the money out of Irish rugby and I imagine a lot of their team would end up in other domestic leagues, following the buck. So by the end of your comment you were on the right track, “not so easy for Australia because they don’t have the money”

Put it this way, without the foreign legion players, the Wallabies are ZERO when facing England, France, Ireland, SA and of course NZ. Scholar rugby playing MEN

But three is what we have

I also think by restricting the numbers puts accountability on the coaches and development pipelines. Not sure what the exact best number is but there must be a limitation to force the Wallabies coachs to work with the tiers below which will inevitably lead to improved performance at all levels.

The main reason that there are few top English, Irish or French players at foreign clubs is that the lure of the jersey is so strong. I remember when England didn't have a proper openside and Armitage was European player of the year, they still didn't select him for the World Cup. When people like that, and Zebo in Ireland, don't get selected it sends a powerful message. At the moment Kruis is the one overseas Englishman that Eddie really misses, he went to Japan when Sarries went down and I think now has business interests there. The floodgates opened up for Australia with the Giteau law in 2015. Of course it's not so easy for Australia because they don't have the money for five Super Rugby teams.

I seesaw back and forward on this one and can see the points from both sides of the argument. The local product and talent need to be protected and developed...but when you are losing your experienced players overseas all the time the young talent has none to learn from and help them develop plus you need results as it is professional sports. Playing with older experienced players is invaluable. So I guess to improve the local product and development of players we might need to look at a happy middle ground and I think this is what they are trying to work out. I think "loaning" players for a period is a viable option, particularly with Japan. At the end of the day, I personally think we need to look more at the coaching setup. Good coaches make great sportspeople and teams.

That is untrue Ace. I think you’ll find those who spread such rumours have a sinister agenda. We should just be happy such a wonderful player will be back to support Australian Rugby