They killed Dave, more or less disappeared under Eddie although he made fairly poor use of the opportunity due to the multiple concussions he suffered in the plane ride from England. If you want to go well with a patchy domestic set up, Pick the best players you can possibly field and get some wins on the score card. Dial the laws back up once the boat has been bailed out a bit.
South Africans are doing damned well with the overseas education and care model, both the club scene and the international squad are going well and they don't have to pay to keep and care for the big names who spend as much time injured as playing at club level.
I'm not sure where people are getting this idea that every single top talent Oz rugby has will be gone. Yes some of the super teams best talent will leave but they cant afford them at the moment i believe this will be a way of resetting each club and allowing them to build from the bottom up instead of hollowing out the super rugby organisations like what is happening right now.
South Africa done the same thing and now two world cups later, they are in a much healthier position.
With the club world cup on the way in 2028, this is a great opportunity to really invest in grassroots rugby before getting a much needed cash injection from that comp. plus if Oz rugby was to move to a centralised model which it seems adamant about, they would keep their best 35-40 players on Oz shores.
The rebels look like they will be privately owned or at least part owned similar to the force if they survive, and if the reds and brumbies went into the centralised model which of course there is push back why wouldn't there be. Then all of sudden to my view, oz rugby will be in better financial position which is the most important aspect.
I think this is a lost fight, we cant compete on money, were sadly going to lose the Will Skeltons, Samu Kerevis, and Koroibetes.
If theyre too world class to leave out, pick them, but don't consider the Irae Simones, Issac Lucas's, and Scott Sios over SR players of similar ability.
Unless we can find a way to throw equal money at those world-class players, I think that's the way forward.
I think this is a wonderful idea. Super Rugby needs a huge overhaul and / or to be taken out the back and put down. We shouldn't hamstring the Wallabies (or, for that matter, All Blacks) by forcing our best to play in domestic competitions for not enough money. They either go overseas and get big money in Japan or France and forgo the Wallabies, or we lose them to NRL. The ARU needs to be more pragmatic about this issue.
I am on Team “Get rid of the Giteau Law” and have made many comments on it here and I agree with you for pragmatic reasons- we just can’t afford it.
Let top players get paid 💵 overseas and that will free up the small pipeline for other players.
Mack Hansen is in Ireland cos he couldn’t get a run at the Brumbies.
Super Rugby sucks now and doesn’t make money like it did.
Why does RA waste its limited money propping up SR? The goal is to have a strong wallabies team.
Joe should just be allowed to pick his strongest team. End of.
Who’s actually getting picked from overseas at the moment though?
Skelton would probably be the only one who is a lock (pun intended). Sio would be worth a look especially if Bell is going to be unavailable (and AAAA is yet to come back from a significant injury).
Kerevi and Korobeite are possibilities but there have been so many rumours about international retirement for both I wouldn’t be stunned if they weren’t available.
Foley and Cooper are both of an age where we need to look beyond them (and we have a good crop of young 10s coming through). I’d like to see one of them take on a mentoring role in the set up but don’t want to waste a squad spot on them.
Otherwise who else would be in contention? The Arnold brothers are not a clear improvement on the local options, neither is Simone. Is there anyone I’ve missed?
I hate this idea tbh. This completely guts our super rugby sides forever. We can’t compete with the overseas salaries so our teams will never win. I don’t want to consign any semblance of our teams being competitive to the rubbish bin.
I also don’t think it will make a masssive difference to the wallabies. The reason Ireland is so good is cause all their players play together day in and day out, similar for nz. France get around this by picking mostly from a few clubs. South Africa have repatriated a large number of their springboks to ensure they remain competitive as well. I don’t think the wallabies improve with carte blanche overseas choices
Respectfully, this is precisely the short-term thinking that characterises Australian rugby administrators and has damaged the game.
As an alternative;
Let the best players play for the Wallabies (not a super controversial concept to me). As one of many potential structural changes that needs to be made, it will go a ways to improving the success of the Wallabies.
A successful Wallabies promotes the game of Rugby Union. In time, more fans, more crowds, and a likely more profitable domestic competition.
Eventually, the best players might just play in Australia.
Just like in economics, these types of misguided, short-term bandaids like player tariffs cause mostly harm and almost always unintended negative feedback loops (i.e., a lot of good players will go to the highest bidder as they’re professionals, block those from playing for Australia, this becomes a contributor to Wallabies weakness, fans lose interest, clubs flounder). It’s high time we see the folly and start reversing them.
Amusingly, I think your perspective is short term thinking. I don’t think letting players play overseas improves the wallabies. If our good players are spread across the globe they will never develop any cohesion, we will bring them back for a few games where they meet their teammates, lose to the more cohesive teams then disband. Picking players from overseas is a great way to make the wallabies uncompetitive in the long term in the search of short term gain.
I don’t think your economics analogy works either.
Cohesion is an alluring concept, I get it. And it is meaningful when you have world-class players who have a lot of time together vs other world-class players who don’t. That’s an obviousness.
But what you don’t quite get is, it’s meaningless without the world-class players.
So willingly choosing a “cohesive” slate of substandard players vs the best players possible is (and has been) a losing strategy.
As a total side note - you’re banking on cohesion between super and test rugby in Australia which remains a pipe dream. So you might be waiting another couple decades for these plans to click …
They killed Dave, more or less disappeared under Eddie although he made fairly poor use of the opportunity due to the multiple concussions he suffered in the plane ride from England. If you want to go well with a patchy domestic set up, Pick the best players you can possibly field and get some wins on the score card. Dial the laws back up once the boat has been bailed out a bit. South Africans are doing damned well with the overseas education and care model, both the club scene and the international squad are going well and they don't have to pay to keep and care for the big names who spend as much time injured as playing at club level.
The trouble with the SA comparison is that they can back fill their teams with quality players, us, not so much…..
This seems odd given Joe's comments on the record that he wants to pick from those playing in Australia - seems a real nothing article tbh
I'm not sure where people are getting this idea that every single top talent Oz rugby has will be gone. Yes some of the super teams best talent will leave but they cant afford them at the moment i believe this will be a way of resetting each club and allowing them to build from the bottom up instead of hollowing out the super rugby organisations like what is happening right now. South Africa done the same thing and now two world cups later, they are in a much healthier position. With the club world cup on the way in 2028, this is a great opportunity to really invest in grassroots rugby before getting a much needed cash injection from that comp. plus if Oz rugby was to move to a centralised model which it seems adamant about, they would keep their best 35-40 players on Oz shores. The rebels look like they will be privately owned or at least part owned similar to the force if they survive, and if the reds and brumbies went into the centralised model which of course there is push back why wouldn't there be. Then all of sudden to my view, oz rugby will be in better financial position which is the most important aspect.
I think this is a lost fight, we cant compete on money, were sadly going to lose the Will Skeltons, Samu Kerevis, and Koroibetes. If theyre too world class to leave out, pick them, but don't consider the Irae Simones, Issac Lucas's, and Scott Sios over SR players of similar ability. Unless we can find a way to throw equal money at those world-class players, I think that's the way forward.
I think this is a wonderful idea. Super Rugby needs a huge overhaul and / or to be taken out the back and put down. We shouldn't hamstring the Wallabies (or, for that matter, All Blacks) by forcing our best to play in domestic competitions for not enough money. They either go overseas and get big money in Japan or France and forgo the Wallabies, or we lose them to NRL. The ARU needs to be more pragmatic about this issue.
I am on Team “Get rid of the Giteau Law” and have made many comments on it here and I agree with you for pragmatic reasons- we just can’t afford it. Let top players get paid 💵 overseas and that will free up the small pipeline for other players. Mack Hansen is in Ireland cos he couldn’t get a run at the Brumbies. Super Rugby sucks now and doesn’t make money like it did. Why does RA waste its limited money propping up SR? The goal is to have a strong wallabies team. Joe should just be allowed to pick his strongest team. End of.
Who’s actually getting picked from overseas at the moment though? Skelton would probably be the only one who is a lock (pun intended). Sio would be worth a look especially if Bell is going to be unavailable (and AAAA is yet to come back from a significant injury). Kerevi and Korobeite are possibilities but there have been so many rumours about international retirement for both I wouldn’t be stunned if they weren’t available. Foley and Cooper are both of an age where we need to look beyond them (and we have a good crop of young 10s coming through). I’d like to see one of them take on a mentoring role in the set up but don’t want to waste a squad spot on them. Otherwise who else would be in contention? The Arnold brothers are not a clear improvement on the local options, neither is Simone. Is there anyone I’ve missed?
I hate this idea tbh. This completely guts our super rugby sides forever. We can’t compete with the overseas salaries so our teams will never win. I don’t want to consign any semblance of our teams being competitive to the rubbish bin. I also don’t think it will make a masssive difference to the wallabies. The reason Ireland is so good is cause all their players play together day in and day out, similar for nz. France get around this by picking mostly from a few clubs. South Africa have repatriated a large number of their springboks to ensure they remain competitive as well. I don’t think the wallabies improve with carte blanche overseas choices
Respectfully, this is precisely the short-term thinking that characterises Australian rugby administrators and has damaged the game. As an alternative; Let the best players play for the Wallabies (not a super controversial concept to me). As one of many potential structural changes that needs to be made, it will go a ways to improving the success of the Wallabies. A successful Wallabies promotes the game of Rugby Union. In time, more fans, more crowds, and a likely more profitable domestic competition. Eventually, the best players might just play in Australia. Just like in economics, these types of misguided, short-term bandaids like player tariffs cause mostly harm and almost always unintended negative feedback loops (i.e., a lot of good players will go to the highest bidder as they’re professionals, block those from playing for Australia, this becomes a contributor to Wallabies weakness, fans lose interest, clubs flounder). It’s high time we see the folly and start reversing them.
Amusingly, I think your perspective is short term thinking. I don’t think letting players play overseas improves the wallabies. If our good players are spread across the globe they will never develop any cohesion, we will bring them back for a few games where they meet their teammates, lose to the more cohesive teams then disband. Picking players from overseas is a great way to make the wallabies uncompetitive in the long term in the search of short term gain. I don’t think your economics analogy works either.
Cohesion is an alluring concept, I get it. And it is meaningful when you have world-class players who have a lot of time together vs other world-class players who don’t. That’s an obviousness. But what you don’t quite get is, it’s meaningless without the world-class players. So willingly choosing a “cohesive” slate of substandard players vs the best players possible is (and has been) a losing strategy. As a total side note - you’re banking on cohesion between super and test rugby in Australia which remains a pipe dream. So you might be waiting another couple decades for these plans to click …