Do Australia need to select player's Based Overseas

[iINDOMINUSxx]

I'm sure this has been posted so many times and i'm not even sure if this is the right place for it but anyway. There has been a debate about it for a long time but do you think its time for Australia who pick players which plays abroad ?. I'm going to say my thought off this here.

In my opinion the reason behind Australia and New Zealand doing this is to keep they're best talent home to boost the club teams and make selections for the national team alot easier i believe ?, correct me if im wrong. But surely if the players know about the oversea's rule and still decide to move abroad surely says that they don't care about getting selected to the national team and went abroad for money. Because if they were passionate enough to play for they country then surely they wouldn't move away to play for money. But in my opinion the players that are available for selection for Australia they should not be a ranked 6th nation as i also feel that the Super 15 teams in Australia or the ARU should do better to keep they're players at home.

And speaking off that even though South Africa are still picking players from oversea's. I seriously think they shouldn't, Because Schalk Burger and Fourie du Preez are probably once the best players in South Africa but they are now playing in a tier 2 nation, Nothing against Japan though but if they are playing in Japan and still get Selected for South Africa then i don't really see how they can boost the national team or make a huge an impact as they would once use to be when playing in South Africa.

This is only my opinion though what is yours ?

 

[TheSaffycen]

It depends on whos playing abroad. Giteau would make a big difference to them at 12 and also have Ma'Afu who is going too Toulon to help sure up their scrum. Apart from that do they need to select anyone else ?

 

[MotherRucker1]

I don't think it's fair to say that just because they are young men in their early 20's, mid 20's or whatever, potentially with a family to think about and a short career means they don't care about playing internationally.

While I'm not in favor of it, and wouldn't really like to see our Kiwi guys doing it, the ARU have to adjust to what the reality is. Careers are very short, especially these days where the game demands such skill and physicality, and there's so many of them.

My understand is the ARU are looking at incorporating more sabbaticals into contract negotiations. So some players can have a season in Japan for example, and still play for the Wallabies. In some ways that might be fine, but in other ways it could be harmful. Player welfare needs to be carefully managed. And if you're picking someone for the Wallabies who is over in Japan, that player could potentially be playing from February to December. That could impact on their performance in the yellow jumper, because some will be wanting to play in Super rugby as well. I think you will see more of the Unions having to come to a compromise with players. "You can make some money in the northern hemisphere for a year or two and get selected, but after that we want you back here." I think you have to have some uniformity and expectation that players will stay in the Super rugby system.

If we're talking about selecting players who permanently base themselves in the northern hemisphere, then I think that should be a higher standard. At the very most it should be reserved for two or three guys maybe? I think Australia could improve it's rugby in other ways though. This whole notion of selecting a player in that part of the world, or sacking a coach or tinkering around the edges isn't going to solve anything for them. Yeah you could bring Jake White in and cause some upsets against the All Blacks. But that's only a band aid solution, just like this suggestion imo.

They need to continue to develop the national competition below Super rugby, get rugby more exposure, work on player attitudes and culture within the union because I think it's been poor for years, start developing some world class forwards, and the whole thing probably needs an injection of money. There is still a cancerous attitude within the whole industry after that Ewen McKenzie saga. The way senior players treated it and went about things was just not something you do. And they aren't going to just magically win a World Cup because Michael Cheika has jetted into town, who I think is a bit overrated anyway. Would selecting Giteau, or Folau if he went overseas help? Maybe, I don't know. But even if it did help, they'll still need more than that. There are more compelling issues to fix within Australian rugby, like the alignment between physical conditioning with the states and the national body, which work separately.

 

[Shaggy]

I'm sure this has been posted so many times and i'm not even sure if this is the right place for it but anyway. There has been a debate about it for a long time but do you think its time for Australia who pick players which plays abroad ?. I'm going to say my thought off this here.

In my opinion the reason behind Australia and New Zealand doing this is to keep they're best talent home to boost the club teams and make selections for the national team alot easier i believe ?, correct me if im wrong. But surely if the players know about the oversea's rule and still decide to move abroad surely says that they don't care about getting selected to the national team and went abroad for money. Because if they were passionate enough to play for they country then surely they wouldn't move away to play for money. But in my opinion the players that are available for selection for Australia they should not be a ranked 6th nation as i also feel that the Super 15 teams in Australia or the ARU should do better to keep they're players at home.

And speaking off that even though South Africa are still picking players from oversea's. I seriously think they shouldn't, Because Schalk Burger and Fourie du Preez are probably once the best players in South Africa but they are now playing in a tier 2 nation, Nothing against Japan though but if they are playing in Japan and still get Selected for South Africa then i don't really see how they can boost the national team or make a huge an impact as they would once use to be when playing in South Africa.

This is only my opinion though what is yours ?

From the player's perspective, it's more about when they want to play for their country, and when they want to make money. It use to be that players would play for their countries young, and then play for the overseas clubs (make their money) when they got older (retire from international rugby). Now we are seeing players leave for overseas clubs younger and come back in time for selection for the RWC.

Some players are opting for Japan, rather than Europe, as the season is shorter, and it can allow players to still play for a Super Rugby team, all be it, a late start to the season for some.

Japanese Rugby is also considered not as hard on the body as European Rugby, so players take less time to recover, but do require a bit of time (in some cases) to bring their fitness up to the required level.

The reasoning behind not selecting overseas players is undoubtedly, to keep the talent at home. In NZ case, if they changed the policy to allow overseas selection, it would be catastrophic for the NZRU who can't compete with the overseas clubs financially, and bad for the players too, as the number of available players in the market would increase, thus driving down their asking price.

Australia also face market pressure from within, with Rugby League being more popular, and having many clubs, often competing for the same players. The answer for them might be to allow selection of overseas based players, or giving them the chance to play there on short term contracts. They might be better to make a stance on recruiting players from Rugby League, or come to a gentleman's agreement with the NRL, not to poach each others players, and spend that money developing players at the grass roots level.

 

[nickdnz]

If Australia select from overseas it'll be for their death rattle.

Do they need Giteau? He may be a fantastic talent, but they have plenty of other very good 10 and 12s. All that would happen if they select overseas player is Beale, Cooper, Foley, Toomoa and Lealiafano would go overseas seas to earn more money as well.

So no. They should not select overseas based players. It would be really, really dumb. Especially with the ARC now up and running. It certainly hasn't helped South Africa perform better, and it's very hard to reverse.

 

[nzlizard]

My ARU perspective

Rugby is like the 3rd or 4th most popular sport in Aussie, on the whole league and Aussies rules pay better(only what I have heard), so internally they fight for the local talent pool with other sports and I imagine just not contact sports but they have fairly strong Swimming, Cricket teams etc.

So rugby is a very small pool of talent, if they allowed this talent to play overseas and still be selected then they could potentially decimate the game locally, imagine Super teams full of 2nd tier players, my understanding is Aus rugby does not have the depth and 2nd tier comps like a lot of other 1st tier nations do.

I think letting them play overseas and still selecting them would do more damage then good, no matter what state the current game is in.

This is my NZ rugby perspective

Im not really a fan of it, it weakens our domestic(ITM cup) comp and will weaken super rugby. Super teams are already struggling to draw people to games and taking away the top talent will not help that at all, I imagine the same could happen with TV viewers but to a lesser extent.

I know the old it opens up opportunities for the younger guys line, but they get ITM cup to shine and use that to put there hand up for a super contract. We will always lose players to overseas teams, it just depends what end of the spectrum you want that to happen for, my preference is the fringe Super players and the older players looking for a big payday.

We will see more Super players(Piatau, Saili) heading overseas these days as I think the lure of big money will be too much for some people to turn down, esp the fringe AB's who may feel the selection policy does not work in their favor. You can't stop this as the the money is too good, however you will always have a group of players who think playing for their country is the pinnacle and want to do this for as long as they can, and the AB's pay is not too bad when stacked ontop of Super contracts and perks.

What you may find is the AB's business team looking at ways of topping up players income to prevent the likes of Piatau moving in the future, you can't stop everyone of them but you may be able to retain the top tier of fringe AB's by looking for 3rd party deals for them, eg sponsors promo work, product promo etc.

 

[William18]

The ARU is mostly losing backs overseas but it is their forward pack which is their big problem.

 

[Raggs]

Do Aus have the cash to pay the necessary wages? In keeping a Folau, they lose a Longbottom etc, etc.

Let players play overseas. Let someone else pick up their salary tab, and spend all that saved cash on player development and focusing on producing more talent.

How much cash do the S15 teams make compared to the ARU from the internationals? How much would actually be lost if expensive stars left?

 

[smartcooky]

Here are my thoughts on these issues, from an article I wrote for a local magazine a few years ago...

WHY THE NZRU DO NOT AND WILL NOT SELECT PLAYERS WHO DON'T COMMIT TO PLAYING THEIR DOMESTIC RUGBY IN NEW ZEALAND

Preamble
New Zealand rugby has had the central contract model since the beginning of professionalism in 1995/96. The story of how that came about is both fascinating and intriguing. The late Jock Hobbs, often considered to be the saviour of New Zealand rugby, brokered many back-room deals to get the signatures of key All Blacks at a time when the Kerry Packer backed World Rugby Corporation was trying to buy up players all over the world for his proposed international rugby circus. Hobbs' keen forward thinking and business acumen made the key difference between the way professionalism started in the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere. The Home Rugby Unions, powered by self-interest and controlled a bunch of slow-acting, gin-swilling old farts, resisted the change, and by the time they realised what was happening it was too late - the clubs swept up the player contracts and so we ended up with two very different rugby landscapes north and south of the equator.

Anyone who is truly interested in the fascinating story behind professional rugby should read a book called "The Rugby War" by former Wallaby Peter Fitzsimons.

Stemming the player drain
While this is part of the story, its not the only reason why we keep our players centrally contracted and do not select All Blacks from the ranks of players playing outside of New Zealand. For sure, were we to do this, then many top players would want to have their cake and eat it; by leaving for big dollar/euro contracts overseas while knowing that they would be in the frame for All Black selection. However, it is a lot more complicated than that, and besides, there are other ways that this could be achieved if that is all we wanted to do e.g. "Return of Service" contracts, minimum five year initial (ITM Cup) contracts with minimum extension times for Super Rugby and All Black contracts for those that make the grade.

Keeping All Black prospects playing the type and style of rugby that we want them to play.
In the past, the way club teams in the Aviva Premiership, Pro12 and Top 14 played didn't suit our style or game plan. While tight forwards were expected to excel in their key roles, we also expected every player to be a ball player e.g. hookers weren't just expected to throw the ball into line-out and hook the ball in the front row, they were expected to bring additional skill sets to the table. These might include being just as comfortable jackling at the tackle, or acting as scrumhalf at the ruck, or defending at the side of the ruck or playing wide out in the back-line. Although they styles of play appear to be slowly changing now in the northern hemisphere, where some teams appear to be embracing a more open style of play, the fact is that in the past, European Club rugby was very much about tight, forward oriented play.

Access to players and Image rights
The NZRU requires that players on All Black contracts be available at all times, both for rugby related duties such as training camps or promotional duties with sponsors, and non-rugby related things such as school and hospital visits. This would be nigh on impossible if players were not living in New Zealand. Additionally, I cannot see any European clubs agreeing to release players for squad sessions for two weeks prior to a June International campaign, an End of Year Tour campaign or the Rugby Championship. I know that the regulations are supposed to allow for that, but you only have to look at how Argentina has to fight tooth and nail with the French Clubs to get access to their players to see that the regulations and the reality are often at odds. Essentially, by keeping their players in New Zealand, the NZRU makes themselves beholden to no-one for access to their players.

The NZRU also retains the image rights of their players, for use in advertising and promotions. The image rights for most players in Europe are held by their clubs. As a consequence, the NZRU would have to negotiate for the right to use images in promotions and advertising.

Assessing players for selection
Currently the All Black selectors have to watch no more than five (and sometimes as few as two) matches each weekend to see all of their top level prospects for the All Blacks in action. They are also easily able to attend matches live (and do so regularly). If we were to select players playing in the four main European competitions, this would potentially increase the number of matches they would need to watch by as many as 19 additional matches (Top14 x 7, AP x 6, Pro12 x 6) each weekend. Not an impossible task for the selectors, but why would the NZRU want to make things more difficult for their national coaches and selectors than they need to be?

Too much rugby
It is the view of most southern hemisphere rugby experts that the northern hemisphere season is too long and that their players
play too many matches. The New Zealand season consists of 16 Super Rugby matches (plus play-offs), and 10 ITM Cup matches (plus play-offs). However, All Blacks (who play about 14 tests per calendar year) don't play in the ITM Cup (unless there are special circumstances). A typical, regular starting, uninjured New Zealand rugby player will play around 25 matches in a season (Brad Thorn holds the record for most minutes played in a New Zealand season, 2107min, which equates to 26.3 matches; he started in 27 of them). The northern hemisphere season consists of 22 domestic matches - 26 in France - (plus play-offs) and six Champions/Challenge Cup matches plus play-offs. Players typically play the maximum allowed of 34 matches, including tests.

However, the issue isn't just about about the number of matches played, it is also about the length of the calendar season, which has all of Europe's players playing and training continuously for over ten months. The NZRU works very closely with the five New Zealand Super
Rugby franchises to manage the All Blacks playing for them. This includes consultation with team medical staff, training co-ordinators, coaches and managers, and will include resting or shortened game time for certain players as required. I cannot imagine there would be any co-operation between the NZRU and a European Club over player management.

Summary
On the few occasions we have made exceptions and used players who ply their trade in Europe without having them play at least part of a domestic season in New Zealand, it hasn't worked out very well for us, for example Chris Jack and Luke McAllister. I cannot see the NZRU ever abandoning its current policy of ruling players who play outside of New Zealand ineligible to play for the All Blacks. They only thing I think they might do is allow players to play for other Super Rugby franchises. I could also see the NZRU developing a closer relationship with Japan as their season does not significantly overlap ours.

 

[Peat]

How much would actually be lost if expensive stars left?

The interest of the public and the dreams of future stars.

 

[Raggs]

The interest of the public and the dreams of future stars.

Really? Because right now it doesn't look like that's too hot at the moment, and the extra charges the ARU recently put on the amateurs, is likely to help kill off that dream quickly too.

SA picks overseas and has far better attendances that I can see.

I think extra money could be very useful for the ARU to boost the game, money that's currently locked up in perhaps just 2-3 players.

 

[Peat]

Really? Because right now it doesn't look like that's too hot at the moment, and the extra charges the ARU recently put on the amateurs, is likely to help kill off that dream quickly too.

SA picks overseas and has far better attendances that I can see.

I think extra money could be very useful for the ARU to boost the game, money that's currently locked up in perhaps just 2-3 players.

Ya really. As you note, with stocks of said as low as they are, they need to increase that, not squander it.

And they ain't SA, so why compare?

 

[Raggs]

So with no cash, they should continue spending a fortune on a few players, make the game more expensive to play at grass root levels, and follow the same path that's seen them drop down the rankings and performance? OK.

What they're doing isn't working, and things are getting worse. Money saved on letting their best go overseas can be reinvested at grassroots and development level. It may take a while to turn around, but the lions tour money isn't going to last forever.

 

[Peat]

I don't really know what they should do tbh - but its pretty clear what they lose from letting players represent the Wallabies while based overseas and that's it no small thing to be blithely waved aside.

 

[Car]

It's already a problem that so many players are going overseas, you certainly don't want to encourage that. Sure, for the national team, it would be best to be able to select everyone, but if even more players left, that might lead to an even lower attendance.

 

[MotherRucker1]

Really? Because right now it doesn't look like that's too hot at the moment, and the extra charges the ARU recently put on the amateurs, is likely to help kill off that dream quickly too.

SA picks overseas and has far better attendances that I can see.

I think extra money could be very useful for the ARU to boost the game, money that's currently locked up in perhaps just 2-3 players.

See I kinda agree with what you're saying, because a large part of it is the same thing I'm getting at. Australian rugby definitely needs money. The physical conditioning is simply not up to par with New Zealand because the states work separately for the national rugby body. I'm sure each club would love specialized coaches with a high degree of skills and a long term plan for developing some half decent forwards. But it's all money related.

However, I'm not sure if allowing your top players to leave in order to save pennies is the best strategy. Soccer is starting to garner some great results for Australia now, but I read something the other day that said it took involvement from the federal government and 1 billion dollars to get there. Finances is something even rugby-mad New Zealand struggles with. Otago (which is the region the Highlanders come from) almost pulled out of the ITM Cup at one stage because they were about to go bust. Same with North Harbour. Yeah you might save $500,000 here and there, but that's miniscule compared to what they truly need, and essentially you're just holding the door open for those top guys to go. Money isn't the only factor for them, but it's a big one. I think keeping guys in Super Rugby is important. Guys who were young bucks once like Read or Whitelock, sure they are naturally gifted, but I also think they learned a lot from playing with top names. McCaw, Thorn, even Ali Williams when he was down here. I don't think having a Super rugby team pummeled each and every week is healthy because you've held the door open for that club's top stars to bugger off offshore.

What I do think you could argue is maybe be wary of who the Union chases. I don't know what SBW is earning, but it must be a lot considering they chased him so much initially. Is he really worth all those resources? Doubt it.

 

[Shaggy]

Yep, you can't compare the situation in Australia with that in South Africa, or New Zealand for that matter, because, in addition to the lure of high paying contracts offshore, the market pressures for players from rival codes domestically is also greater.

They seem to get hit a lot harder than NZ or SA when they lose players overseas, because the depth of international standard players, just doesn't seem to be as great. When you factor in the lack of revenue in recent years, it compounds the problem, as the players themselves are getting more financially savvy/more future conscious, more of them are opting for the overseas contracts.

Probably the only things the ARU can do is maintain their stance on not picking oversea based players, allow short term stints overseas when renegotiating contracts, and try to entice players back from the overseas clubs when they come off contract.

They seriously need to look at how they spend their money too. Spending money on high profile Rugby League players, or recruiting union players from NZ, is not the best use of their funds, and they are probably better served in the long term by spending it on player development at some of the none traditional clubs, such as the ones in western Sydney.

With the ARC now up and running, players now have a genuine domestic competition of their own, and the ARU should be able to start reaping the benefits, (like NZ does with the ITM cup, and SA does with the Currie cup) in years to come.

In summary - don't go for the short term fix. Suffer the pain now, and reap the benefits later.

 

[Jaguares]

No, they should not. The Australian sport market is very very different than NZ and SA. Further than Europe and Japanese rugby, they have to compete against NRL and AFL, who are more popular than Rugby Union in Australia. Aussie Rules is the most popular sport in the country and Rugby League is the most popular sport in NSW, the biggest state, so the ARU has to compete against these 2 monsters

Especially with the ARC now up and running. It certainly hasn't helped South Africa perform better, and it's very hard to reverse.

ARC?? Are u talking about the NRC?

 

[Raggs]

The way I see it, is that Aus could have a stronger national side by selecting overseas players, which drives interest. They could still play 1001 tests each season, using those outside the window to give youngsters caps. Aussies will become a LOT less attractive if they are still getting picked, and therefore the offered salaries will drop, making it easier to keep them at home anyway, and those few superstars can go off and the wages left can be spent on marketing, and driving youth standards.

The Aussie game simply isn't rich enough to deal with the outside pressures as it is, but their internationals will be worth less to club sides, if they're still playing the EOYTs and TRC taking them out of the club for huge chunks.

 

[Larksea]

Can't fault the NZ system too much. Heck the AB's are the most successful top level international sports team in history.

And the history is a big part of the equation, players will sacrifice huge amounts of money to stay in NZ and be part of All Black history and success.

The player talent we create is also a big part of it.

IMO without knowing the whole story I think Aussie needs to work on the grass roots level up to school level. Work on getting more kids playing rugby and staying in rugby instead of playing league. It is actually a problem in NZ and Auckland in particular. The high school rugby talent that gets poached by NRL clubs.