Inauspicious start from Howley

[ALJ]

Not sure Howley's done himself any favours in is interview:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37456233

I guess you could argue that he's just being honest, but I can't see how critisicising the exiles rule and then calling the exile players 'selfish' is going to achieve anything positive.

 

[Bluemoon]

It is difficult to know what is being said behind the scenes. Without opening a can of worms about Gatland's law and how Wales can keep players in Wales versus player interests, he hints at the fact that some of the players knew this was coming yet still left Wales. Maybe it's been a case of agents or players calling Gatland's bluff, but who knows. It's also difficult to know the context of this comment in what appears to be an edited interview.

My biggest upset is the poaching of Matt Sherratt. I am hoping it really is just an appointment for the Nov series. Cardiff Blues' attack has probably been the best thing about them over the past few years. The last time Cardiff were strong in attack was when Howley was coach there!

 

[j'nuh]

It is difficult to know what is being said behind the scenes. Without opening a can of worms about Gatland's law and how Wales can keep players in Wales versus player interests, he hints at the fact that some of the players knew this was coming yet still left Wales. Maybe it's been a case of agents or players calling Gatland's bluff, but who knows. It's also difficult to know the context of this comment in what appears to be an edited interview.

My biggest upset is the poaching of Matt Sherratt. I am hoping it really is just an appointment for the Nov series. Cardiff Blues' attack has probably been the best thing about them over the past few years. The last time Cardiff were strong in attack was when Howley was coach there!

I don't think that's a fair defence of him at all. Howley has made assumptions the reasons that players have taken the money over playing for their country are selfish. There's nothing selfish about taking the money, especially when it's a short career and especially if you have a family to consider. It's a personal choice.

 

[welshglory]

To expect to play for Wales whilst playing in a foreign club, knowing this protocol would come into practice is selfish is what he means. We've heard a few of the players saying in the press that they think Gatland's law is unnecessary, undermining their coach and the national set up. Although it is unfair to make a blanket statement based on a few, i wouldn't be surprised if over half of the Welsh squad felt the same, and a lot of the players in the regions.
Financially they can earn just as much money now with the NDC unless they move to France, so the onus will be on the players. I can understand wanting to get away from the regions from a competitive stand point though...

 

[Bluemoon]

I don't think that's a fair defence of him at all. Howley has made assumptions the reasons that players have taken the money over playing for their country are selfish. There's nothing selfish about taking the money, especially when it's a short career and especially if you have a family to consider. It's a personal choice.

First off, it wasn't really a defence, more of an analysis as why he would come out in the media with the strong point this early / close to the internationals. I didn't really wan't to get into Gatland's Law again as there are arguments that the NDCs make it pretty lucrative to stay in Wales and the players are somewhat protected from overplaying, which may help with the longevity of their career. The personal choice thing I agree with, they can choose to play in or out of Wales and I'd understand both choices.

Howley knows all this, and the point is, why would he make these comments now? There clearly has been some challenging of Gatland's law (like it or not) and Gatland et al. have taken a pretty strong viewpoint on it in the media over the last few weeks. I see it as Howley bringing some of the background politics to the front. He's obviously with Gatland and irked that players are making their personal choice rather than helping Team Wales.

Based on what they are saying, it seems like they are threatening to not include some of the big players outside of Wales. I'm wondering whether it is all strong talk now, so that when the law progresses, they are hoping it'll force more players back to Wales and they won't have to make any difficult decisions - where their own law really will be tested. Alternatively, they are taking a strong stance now in readiness of actually leaving one or two big players out in the Nov series, to make a point.

 

[ALJ]

...and the point is, why would he make these comments now? There clearly has been some challenging of Gatland's law (like it or not) and Gatland et al. have taken a pretty strong viewpoint on it in the media over the last few weeks. I see it as Howley bringing some of the background politics to the front. He's obviously with Gatland and irked that players are making their personal choice rather than helping Team Wales.

This was kind of where I was coming from in starting the thread but I think the timing is poor - all it can really do short term is create some resentment within the squad and given Howley's results last time they did this, I'd say he probably needs to maximise togetherness.

Based on what they are saying, it seems like they are threatening to not include some of the big players outside of Wales. I'm wondering whether it is all strong talk now, so that when the law progresses, they are hoping it'll force more players back to Wales and they won't have to make any difficult decisions - where their own law really will be tested. Alternatively, they are taking a strong stance now in readiness of actually leaving one or two big players out in the Nov series, to make a point.

Interesting they don't mention Charteris.

I don't see that the management can ever really win this battle and they brought it on themselves - at a time when other countries are relaxing their attitudes toward their players being overseas.

As it stands, surely they're going to have to leave out a couple of big names?
If the results don't go their way, questions are bound to be asked and IMHO, I can't see the fans backing management.

 

[Peat]

This was kind of where I was coming from in starting the thread but I think the timing is poor - all it can really do short term is create some resentment within the squad and given Howley's results last time they did this, I'd say he probably needs to maximise togetherness.



Interesting they don't mention Charteris.

I don't see that the management can ever really win this battle and they brought it on themselves - at a time when other countries are relaxing their attitudes toward their players being overseas.

As it stands, surely they're going to have to leave out a couple of big names?
If the results don't go their way, questions are bound to be asked and IMHO, I can't see the fans backing management.

England aren't, New Zealand aren't, Ireland aren't. Argentina have hardened their stance. Arguably that's the four Tier 1 countries who are best pleased by the last few years of international rugby. There is no general relaxation towards overseas players nor is there much evidence for it being a good idea.

I wouldn't presume to know what the Welsh rugby public think of this but its not like results have been great with players going all over and there's plenty of benefits to keeping your best at home outside the international arena - as seen in Ireland's cheery domination of the Pro 12. This is clearly in Welsh rugby's interests as long as there's no disaster on the pitch.

 

[MojoPin]

I really don't understand the criticism of this 'selfish' remark. It IS selfish.

Definition:
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
"I joined them for selfish reasons"

Leaving Welsh rugby for more money overseas is pretty much the definition. If I left my job tomorrow for a higher paid one, it would be a selfish decision in some regards, because I wouldn't be considering the implications for the company I work for.

Howley in other interviews within the last couple weeks has openly admitted that for some players leaving Wales is the right thing to do - and used himself as an example. 'Selfish' has many negative connotations of course, but in this context I think it's used in a factual sense. It's a decision some players have taken on a purely self-serving level. Jamie Roberts knows it - he wants the lifestyle, he wants to be within easy reach of excellent universities, etc.

There is nothing to this but as usual the Welsh rugby public are up in arms about it. As they are with just about everything else, too.

 

[ALJ]

England aren't, New Zealand aren't, Ireland aren't. Argentina have hardened their stance. Arguably that's the four Tier 1 countries who are best pleased by the last few years of international rugby. There is no general relaxation towards overseas players nor is there much evidence for it being a good idea.

So 3 haven't changed, 1 has hardened and 2 have relaxed - one of whom made the WRC Final last year (arguably as a result of their shift in attitude).
Fair to say it balances between our respective posts

I don't see much evidence of it being a bad idea either.

I wouldn't presume to know what the Welsh rugby public think of this but its not like results have been great with players going all over and there's plenty of benefits to keeping your best at home outside the international arena - as seen in Ireland's cheery domination of the Pro 12. This is clearly in Welsh rugby's interests as long as there's no disaster on the pitch.

I'm not sure you can use Ireland as a comparable example here - the Irish structure relating to o/seas players makes a massive difference (again, imho) and they'll still make exceptions on the o/seas rule when it suits them (i.e. if the player is good enough).

Tbh, I don't really see how the national team is worse off having players in other leagues but that aside - clearly I don't know all of the Welsh rugby public but I know a few and the ones I know are not happy that Wales will not be fielding their strongest side as a result of this.

The results go ok and everyone will keep quiet but if not...

 

[ALJ]

I really don't understand the criticism of this 'selfish' remark. It IS selfish.

Definition:
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
"I joined them for selfish reasons"

Leaving Welsh rugby for more money overseas is pretty much the definition. If I left my job tomorrow for a higher paid one, it would be a selfish decision in some regards, because I wouldn't be considering the implications for the company I work for.

Howley in other interviews within the last couple weeks has openly admitted that for some players leaving Wales is the right thing to do - and used himself as an example. 'Selfish' has many negative connotations of course, but in this context I think it's used in a factual sense. It's a decision some players have taken on a purely self-serving level. Jamie Roberts knows it - he wants the lifestyle, he wants to be within easy reach of excellent universities, etc.

There is nothing to this but as usual the Welsh rugby public are up in arms about it. As they are with just about everything else, too.

Not sure that quite stands up tbh - The WRU are not their only consideration so it is selfish only in the context of that body and the rule they put in place.
The players might also argue that their choice is for the betterment of their own game and so, by implication, the national team (alright, its questionable but still valid).

Selfish does have negative connotations, particularly they way it's been quoted (journalistic bias may affect this but it's still a direct quote).

But that aside, my original point was that I'm not convinced that pointing a finger at certain squad members in public is the best way to start his tenure as head coach.

 

[Peat]

So 3 haven't changed, 1 has hardened and 2 have relaxed - one of whom made the WRC Final last year (arguably as a result of their shift in attitude).
Fair to say it balances between our respective posts

I don't see much evidence of it being a bad idea either.




I'm not sure you can use Ireland as a comparable example here - the Irish structure relating to o/seas players makes a massive difference (again, imho) and they'll still make exceptions on the o/seas rule when it suits them (i.e. if the player is good enough).

Tbh, I don't really see how the national team is worse off having players in other leagues but that aside - clearly I don't know all of the Welsh rugby public but I know a few and the ones I know are not happy that Wales will not be fielding their strongest side as a result of this.

The results go ok and everyone will keep quiet but if not...

1 made the WC final last year and won a shortened RC.

1 won the WC final last year and every other RC since... erm, can't be bothered to look it up. 2 have won the 6N between them three years in a row and have the best record against the SH in that period. The last is arguably the most improved side in World Rugby in recent times.

At best its a coincidence and very unlikely to be weakening national teams. It is quite likely there is a link between protectionism and strong test teams.


And are you saying the Irish teams can't be compared with the Welsh in the Pro 12 because of the Irish strictures on overseas players? If so - and apologies if I've misread - that is entirely my point. Protectionism has made the provinces far, far stronger. Protectionism is not just about the national team. Gatland's law is there to help the Welsh regions as much as anything.

 

[MojoPin]

Not sure that quite stands up tbh - The WRU are not their only consideration so it is selfish only in the context of that body and the rule they put in place.
The players might also argue that their choice is for the betterment of their own game and so, by implication, the national team (alright, its questionable but still valid).

Selfish does have negative connotations, particularly they way it's been quoted (journalistic bias may affect this but it's still a direct quote).

But that aside, my original point was that I'm not convinced that pointing a finger at certain squad members in public is the best way to start his tenure as head coach.

To be clear, I absolutely think the player should do whatever they want. No doubt. I do agree the word 'selfish' was chosen very, very badly - it has so many negative connotations and is bound to come across as snide and critical. But there are some players who have forsaken the lures of France/England/etc to stay in Wales - even if there hasn't been a dual contract on offer for them. That's an extra factor for consideration as it supports the game in Wales. AWJ, Warburton, Biggar and Webb could all be playing elsewhere in a heartbeat if they wanted, and all for more money.

No problem whatsoever with a player putting their own career first - it's absolutely right for some players - which Howley has also said. I think he is technically correct, but easily misunderstood, and I agree he definitely shouldn't have said it. Just opens up debates that don't need starting. But technically, based purely on the meaning of that word, he is correct.

 

[ALJ]

1 made the WC final last year and won a shortened RC.

1 won the WC final last year and every other RC since... erm, can't be bothered to look it up. 2 have won the 6N between them three years in a row and have the best record against the SH in that period. The last is arguably the most improved side in World Rugby in recent times.

At best its a coincidence and very unlikely to be weakening national teams. It is quite likely there is a link between protectionism and strong test teams.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to engage in a discussion, which actually had pretty much nothing to do with my original point.

NZ are the best team in the world, they have been forever, if you want to argue that's because of protectionism then fair enough.
Argentina are the most improved side in the world because; a) hardened protectionism? b) playing in the RC? c) combination?

My point in relation to Australia is that the overseas players had a positive impact on the RWC performance - is that fair comment?

And are you saying the Irish teams can't be compared with the Welsh in the Pro 12 because of the Irish strictures on overseas players? If so - and apologies if I've misread - that is entirely my point. Protectionism has made the provinces far, far stronger. Protectionism is not just about the national team. Gatland's law is there to help the Welsh regions as much as anything.

Yes that is what I was saying - it's an entirely different model to that employed by Wales or England so isn't directly comparable.

Are the provinces far stronger as a result?
I think the model in Ireland is great actually but there's an argument that says the results are not yet proven - results in Europe have actually got worse in terms of Q/F, S/F & F appearances since the change.
I'm certainly no expert in Pro12 rugby so there could very well be underlying progress I'm not aware of.

At international level we're probably only now really starting to see players coming through at international level that might have had exposure due to the model.

 

[Peat]

NZ are the best team in the world, they have been forever, if you want to argue that's because of protectionism then fair enough.

Go find one of the NZ posters and see what effect they think the no foreign-based All Black rule has had on them. Most are hugely in favour.

Argentina are the most improved side in the world because; a) hardened protectionism? b) playing in the RC? c) combination?

D) A huge number of various factors

My point in relation to Australia is that the overseas players had a positive impact on the RWC performance - is that fair comment?

Yes. But so is it fair comment that there's plenty of positive examples for protectionism.

Yes that is what I was saying - it's an entirely different model to that employed by Wales or England so isn't directly comparable.

No it isn't entirely different to that employed of Wales. There's enough similarities to make it comparable and considering they're squashing Wales comparatively, the differences probably have an effect.

Are the provinces far stronger as a result?

Yes.

I think the model in Ireland is great actually but there's an argument that says the results are not yet proven - results in Europe have actually got worse in terms of Q/F, S/F & F appearances since the change.

The Irish have been seeking to keep players at home since the start of professionalism. They have overachieved like mad and in terms of resources continue to do so - particularly if you use the Welsh as a benchmark.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Australia backed up their RWC final by having their worst string of results that I can remember.
If the foreign player policy is an excuse for their RWC success then it's also an excuse for their failure since.

 

[ALJ]

Go find one of the NZ posters and see what effect they think the no foreign-based All Black rule has had on them. Most are hugely in favour.



D) A huge number of various factors



Yes. But so is it fair comment that there's plenty of positive examples for protectionism.



No it isn't entirely different to that employed of Wales. There's enough similarities to make it comparable and considering they're squashing Wales comparatively, the differences probably have an effect.



Yes.



The Irish have been seeking to keep players at home since the start of professionalism. They have overachieved like mad and in terms of resources continue to do so - particularly if you use the Welsh as a benchmark.

I'm not going into the individual bits but overall I think you are probably right on most points.
Must admit, I didn't quite appreciate the restrictions in Wales (bit of research has fixed that) so my apologies for getting that wrong.

My point relating to the Irish restrictions was really limited to the one overseas player per position - from a wider perspective you're clearly correct.

All felt a bit tetchy tbh but I can kinda see why now.

I old started this 'cos I thought Howley was being a bit ill advised in his comments

Cheers.

 

[welshglory]

Australia backed up their RWC final by having their worst string of results that I can remember.
If the foreign player policy is an excuse for their RWC success then it's also an excuse for their failure since.

I think the time together they had together as a squad had a huge bearing. Australia always does well when their players are cohesion and gelled as a unit, particularly with their attacking style of play. Not to mention a relative lack of disruption to the squad in terms of injuries. I think the element of surprise was also a factor, in terms of playing style and inclusion of overseas players.

 

[Peat]

In fairness, the rules change was to get Giteau back and they were great while he was there... and then injuries meant he was, and Australia were a bit awful. Don't think you can blame the policy for that.

Nor should we forget that Australia's player policy is still broadly protectionist despite the wriggle allowed to get Giteau.


As for Howley's comments - tbh, I've no idea whether that's going to get under players' skins or not. You'd reckon having worked with them for so long he's got a fair clue on what he can and can't say but who knows.

 

[welshglory]

Either way i hope Howley isn't being lined up to take over post 2019. He would be completely out of his depth and needs to earn his stripes at regional/club level as a head coach.

 

[Bluemoon]

And are you saying the Irish teams can't be compared with the Welsh in the Pro 12 because of the Irish strictures on overseas players? If so - and apologies if I've misread - that is entirely my point. Protectionism has made the provinces far, far stronger. Protectionism is not just about the national team. Gatland's law is there to help the Welsh regions as much as anything.

This, totally this. I think the regions have been suffering for various reasons, and this is still early days for what seems to be a National Dual Contract approach that has been helping to keep more of the international players in Wales. It's probably one of the best things the WRU have done in a long time. There's still teething issues, such as how many contracts each region has, but it's getting there.

Whether Gatland's law was the perfect system I'm not sure, but they are going to have to have the strength to go through with it for the long term future of the regions and for Wales. I think that's why Howley has come out with what he is saying this early, setting out his stall because the chances are that he'll be the one making the difficult decisions this year, and quite possibly 2019 and beyond.