Do Australia need to select player's Based Overseas

[RedruthRFC]

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 New Zealand are much better off than any other country thanks to the structure that's in place which allows talented players to be identified and step up to higher levels quickly, meaning that talent is quickly identified and everyone knows where they are in the pecking order. This in turn means that players going overseas are rarely a loss to the national team. Look at the story of Mike Stanley. Having been chewed up and spat out by the academy system in England (having played age group rugby), he was playing level 4 rugby for Southend and not really pulling up any trees. Within 12 months in NZ full time, he was playing in the ITM Premier and received an international call up for Samoa. I don't think this would have happened if he was playing his rugby in any other country, it certainly didn't happen in England.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Shaggy, you're on to it.

The NZRU bites the bullet when it comes to the ITM Cup. It costs a ton of money to run, but the NZRU understands very well that it is a cost of doing business, and a vital cog in NZ's talent mill.

The ARU must do the same with their NRC. It will cost them to run it, so they need to subsidise it with test revenues. In a short-sighted move, John O'Neill killed the ARC back in 2007. They would now have been reaping the rewards had they stayed the course.

 

[goodNumber10]

Shaggy, you're on to it.

The NZRU bites the bullet when it comes to the ITM Cup. It costs a ton of money to run, but the NZRU understands very well that it is a cost of doing business, and a vital cog in NZ's talent mill.

The ARU must do the same with their NRC. It will cost them to run it, so they need to subsidise it with test revenues. In a short-sighted move, John O'Neill killed the ARC back in 2007. They would now have been reaping the rewards had they stayed the course.

Fox TV already fund the NRC (I think 100%) they own it, so is reasonably ring fenced for the moment.

It's been renewed/extended I think (I want to say for 3 years but can't be sure).

Provincial teams like Reds and Force are already bringing in players who played in NRC. It's working really well as far as I can tell.

 

[Shaggy]

Fox TV already fund the NRC (I think 100%) they own it, so is reasonably ring fenced for the moment.

It's been renewed/extended I think (I want to say for 3 years but can't be sure).

Provincial teams like Reds and Force are already bringing in players who played in NRC. It's working really well as far as I can tell.

Well, that's encouraging to hear, although neither of these sides are doing very well in Super Rugby at the moment, so it could be an indication that the full benefits are yet to be seen.

Once, the Brumbies and the Rebels start to have a few more local players filter through from the NRC (my apologies for calling it the ARC earlier), and the reliance on Sydney, Queensland, Overseas recruited, and Rugby League based players lessens, I'm sure Australian Rugby will be the stronger for it.

I still see the Western Sydney market as largely untapped though. There are a lot of Polynesian players at school boy level, that play both League and Union, and the League clubs send their stars out to visit the schools, and to offer players positions/contracts in their development squads. This may of changed since I lived there, but I didn't see a lot of activity from the Rugby Union, who seemed a little pre-occupied with the traditional clubs, based in the richer eastern suburbs.

 

[Shaggy]

Here's a pretty good article on the possibilities and realities of releasing players into the Japanese market

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...rugby-union-player-drain-20150410-1mifco.html

 

[Gloombress]

Do Australia need to select players Based Overseas

The authoritative answer, funny...

 

[TobesHodges]

I get the reasons for having the policies of only selecting home league based players, this is also happening in England and Ireland.. But if the best players are going to be drafted abroad to France for double even triple the salary, there comes a choice, where what is more important?
Putting food on the table for your family and children, securing a future beyond rugby for your family or playing for your Country?

Because of the economy we live in now days more and more players are going to go oversees, country's are going to have to change these policies.
I don't blame players for wanting good quality of lives for the family's for longer by going oversees.

 

[RoosTah]

It's interesting reading the arguments here from the Kiwis - I get where you're all coming from, but I also don't think many Kiwis really grasp the dynamics of rugby in Australia.

To put my cards on the table, I wholeheartedly agree with the decision to allow SOME players who've served their time for Australian rugby to pursue careers overseas and still get selected for national honours. It can't be open slather, but you need a mechanism in there to prevent top class players from being completely lost to Australian rugby.

When you think about it, Australian rugby has in many ways had the worst of both worlds in so far as ruling out overseas player makes our players more attractive because the foreign clubs know they won't ever have to release them for foreign duties. You might say this is also the case for New Zealand, but the talent pool is much deeper in NZ, and the place rugby holds in the national psyche is much higher, so players are more bound to NZ rugby from a social perspective than they are here, where Rugby League and the AFL are worth literally 10 times what rugby is in terms of their dollar value and dominate all the media coverage.

 

[Kiwi_]

Australia is becoming very similar to USA in terms of valuing their domestically played sports than Internationally recognized ones. I guess it's always been that way a bit. But it's becoming evident in the quality produced in football and union that most of their best athletes are turning to AFL and NRL instead.

 

[RoosTah]

Kiwi, that's not really accurate... Australia isn't becoming more like the US by valuing less international sports at all; the "international appeal" of a sport is generally neither here nor there in my view considering we've always been mad about cricket and that's more internationally competitive than Rugby.

Moreover, the sport Rugby has lost most ground to lately - the one it competes with more directly for TV dollars - is soccer, which is vastly more international than rugby. A sport we happen to be doing alright in (I can't stand soccer personally, but we are Champions of Asia at the moment).

The problem for rugby is, and always has been, is its narrow base - it's forever been too wedded to posh schools here and less focussed on the working class public schools. We played it at my school (which was public) but most schools just played league when I was growing up. That limits the game's reach, and that lack of reach has become more pronounced as the AFL and NRL have become better organized.

It doesn't help of course that Super Rugby gives Rugby a much weaker hand in terms of product either. Having a competition over 4 time zones necessarily reduces the amount of prime time product you can sell to broadcasters in any one zone, weakening the revenue stream. Such problems simply don't exist for the NRL, AFL or even A-League.

It's complex mate, but it's gone nothing to do with less focus on stuff that's international

 

[William18]

Australia is becoming very similar to USA in terms of valuing their domestically played sports than Internationally recognized ones. I guess it's always been that way a bit. But it's becoming evident in the quality produced in football and union that most of their best athletes are turning to AFL and NRL instead.

They won the Asian Cup for the first time this year. Cricket is still huge as well. I don't think that trend is true necessarily. It just so happens that rugby isn't doing so well in Australia at the moment.

 

[Tony Manx]

In reply to the heading....yes! It is stupid to go on the pitch without your best team whatever the circumstances and that goes for England, Aus or anyone else!!

 

[Shaggy]

In reply to the heading....yes! It is stupid to go on the pitch without your best team whatever the circumstances and that goes for England, Aus or anyone else!!

Is it your best team though? I would argue that a squad of locally based players, that has more time to train together, will have better morale and play as a more cohesive unit, than one that has limited opportunities to train together, and has to cater to external influences (requirements of overseas clubs).

Not that anyone of any influence will care what my opinions are, but this move opens the door to having to select your squad from overseas, lessening the quality of your domestic game (which the ARU relies on for it's revenue).

 

[William18]

In reply to the heading....yes! It is stupid to go on the pitch without your best team whatever the circumstances and that goes for England, Aus or anyone else!!

New Zealand would be stronger today if we selected overseas based players. The real question is will we be stronger in the future if the majority of our squad is playing overseas and is not given proper rest? The answer for me is no. You need to think about the long term costs and not just the short term benefits of any decision.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

New Zealand would be stronger today if we selected overseas based players. The real question is will we be stronger in the future if the majority of our squad is playing overseas and is not given proper rest? The answer for me is no. You need to think about the long term costs and not just the short term benefits of any decision.

I don't even think NZ would be stronger if you selected overseas-based players. You'd have better depth in a few positions but I think your 1st choice XV all play in NZ currently. That's the beauty of the NZRU effectively controlling the player pool.

It's the reason I wish SARU would either take full control of the unions and thus players or totally bugger off with the unions so that we have private ownership of the franchizes and with good management access to more money in order to possibly being able to compete with foreign clubs.

 

[Car]

How does it currently work in South Africa?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

How does it currently work in South Africa?

It is a bit of an ad-hoc system and I admit I am not 100% up to speed with the exact clauses but the provincial unions are seperate entities from the Super rugby franchises but in effect it's the 5 'big' unions that run them. There are 14 provincial unions in SA with massive political baggage from the past setups and these 'fat cats' are so entrnched I can't see a way to get clear of them and their internal politics.

SARU have only recently (last year) started with central contracts to players directly but still have little to no say in those players' careers actually as it's the unions that determine almost everything still from a players' game time, position and if they let someone go SARU can only try to advise and influence from teh outside. If anything the way SARU has handled central contracts has had a negative effect on Bok rugby because now they give preference to contracted players or have to carry (ITO salaries) players who they aren't using but had high hopes for (JJ Engelbrecht etc).

There are clubs in SA but the unions control the game and the club game is a bit of a dead end for anyon wantin to move up. The route to becoming a Springbok is very much Schoolsprovincial representative sides --> Varsity cup / Union academy / 'small union' --> Currie Cup / SR --> Springbok.

 

[Car]

Thank you. I still am not 100% clear how all those things work, sadly, it seems that it's usually taken for granted and not that easy to find out.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

What's the take here on Kane Douglas? Apparently he wants to return to Australia from his contract with Leinster in Ireland for family reasons. Purely speculation on my part but I wonder if "family reasons" is "I want to play in the World Cup but the ARU won't break their policy on overseas players" in reality. By cooking up an excuse, Douglas gets himself out of his contract without compensation, signs for a Super Rugby team and meets the eligibility criteria for the World Cup.

Douglas, Leinster and the ARU are in a stare down. The national body won't pay compensation to buy out his contract with Leinster and rightfully so since it sets a dangerous precident for them. The club don't want to be taken for a ride and be seen as a soft touch but equally don't want to hold onto an unhappy player. I feel the onus is on Douglas to resolve this. If he wants out, he needs to pay up a release fee. He signed a contract of his own free will and can't expect others to come to the rescue for him.

Would he make the World Cup squad if eligible? His stay with Leinster has been disappointing. Michael Cheika seems to have a man crush on him though.