Overseas Players - Eligible for theWallabies

[Ruckyou]

Digby Ioane doesnt make the cut i take it? great idea i reckon, when you watch a test match you want the best players , playing for your country. Only bad thing might be that the team chemistry wont be there. Get rid of the rule NZRU we want Brad Thorn back.

 

[nickdnz]

Digby Ioane doesnt make the cut i take it? great idea i reckon, when you watch a test match you want the best players , playing for your country. Only bad thing might be that the team chemistry wont be there. Get rid of the rule NZRU we want Brad Thorn back.

Not sure if serious.

As much as I love Brad Thorn he's 40 and retiring, would you really want him blocking the way for one of our upcoming locks?

Realistically I can't think of any overseas based player that I would want in the All Blacks at the moment...

Maybe Joe Rokocoko, but I'd take him in the All Blacks if he lost both legs, an arm and a lung.

 

[Jaguares]

it's also debatable whether those players playing overseas, are still the "best available" after the heavy playing schedule that they have at overseas clubs.

I'm not sure about it. The NH Rugby has more games, ok. But countries like France or England are smaller so they have very short trips while Super Rugby is one of longest competitions, in terms of kilometers traveled by players.

Cape Town, Perth, Dunedin are far apart, that's tiring for players.

 

[Peat]

The Di Patson thing is important imo, because something weird is going on with the whole team ethos and culture inside the Wallabies camp, and this is just one example out of many over the past few years. From outside perspective it seems like there is a "players know best" mentality; think Giteau and his arguments + childish behavior when Deans was around, the whole Beale thing sending inappropriate texts to Patson, the senior players telling Beale who was originally stood down from training to "come along anyway" despite what management said. The late-night drinking on rugby tours to an unreasonable extent (usually the same culprits). It goes on.

It was a bit of a senior players club even in Larkham and Gregan's day from memory. Then you had the Warratahs butt heads with McKenzie in NSW towards 2008, despite making the final. To be fair Australia hasn't always had the best administrative or coaching management, but the players don't help themselves by having a lack of regard for authority and maintaining this ill discipline.

Splitting hairs here but every side is a bit of a senior players club and should be. The senior players are best placed to set standards of discipline and effort.

Of course, that's the problem with Australia - their senior players are doing it all wrong. Well, one of the problems anyway.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not sure about it. The NH Rugby has more games, ok. But countries like France or England are smaller so they have very short trips while Super Rugby is one of longest competitions, in terms of kilometers traveled by players.

Cape Town, Perth, Dunedin are far apart, that's tiring for players.

Travel is not really all that bad,. Certainly playing and training and peak levels for 10 months without a break is a bigger cause of fatigue. That is probably one of the key reasons why the injury rate is so high in the NH.

People make a big deal out of the travel, but really, for New Zealand and Australian Super Rugby teams, its one return trip to South Africa for two matches. For the South Africans, it one return trip to Australia & NZ for four matches. Travel isn't really much of a trip for Aussie and NZ teams playing each other. An Auckland <> Wellington train or bus journey will take a bigger fatigue toll than a Business Class trip top Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane for a NZ side.

 

[MotherRucker1]

Splitting hairs here but every side is a bit of a senior players club and should be. The senior players are best placed to set standards of discipline and effort.

Of course, that's the problem with Australia - their senior players are doing it all wrong. Well, one of the problems anyway.

Yup, and I thought this as I wrote that too. Even in the All Blacks, the coaches embrace leadership groups where senior players play a strong role in setting certain plans, and also settling in new players to the environment. I think that's constructive and helpful.

But as you alluded to, Australia aren't stopping there. For years they've disregarded coaching staff (even the useful ones they've had), done it their way at the last minute, stuck together and sulked if a certain player with a big reputation wasn't selected, and the same guys have blatantly broken team rules when on tour. And some of that is coming from the senior players. They didn't always get on with Deans cause he ruffled feathers and doesn't put up with that crap. But it's not new - this has been around for ages. Imagine if they did have that discipline and everyone was reading from the same page.

 

[nickdnz]

But as you alluded to, Australia aren't stopping there. For years they've disregarded coaching staff (even the useful ones they've had), done it their way at the last minute, stuck together and sulked if a certain player with a big reputation wasn't selected, and the same guys have blatantly broken team rules when on tour. And some of that is coming from the senior players. They didn't always get on with Deans cause he ruffled feathers and doesn't put up with that crap. But it's not new - this has been around for ages. Imagine if they did have that discipline and everyone was reading from the same page.

To be fair, Deans did put up with their crap. I don't remember him ever dropping a player for poor behaviour. He did get rid of a lot of experienced players, but none of them (maybe barring Giteau who has been a divisive figure in every Ozzy SR team) were disruptive. George Smith and Stirling Mortlock (who to be fair was getting past it) were probably two of the most professional figures in Australia. I would probably argue McKenzie was probably more of a disciplinarian - but just lost out because things were out of control. And now Cheika seems to not really give a toss about his players behaviour anyway, going as far to say that "he's not a social worker".

 

[Jaguares]

Travel is not really all that bad,. Certainly playing and training and peak levels for 10 months without a break is a bigger cause of fatigue. That is probably one of the key reasons why the injury rate is so high in the NH.

People make a big deal out of the travel, but really, for New Zealand and Australian Super Rugby teams, its one return trip to South Africa for two matches. For the South Africans, it one return trip to Australia & NZ for four matches. Travel isn't really much of a trip for Aussie and NZ teams playing each other. An Auckland <> Wellington train or bus journey will take a bigger fatigue toll than a Business Class trip top Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane for a NZ side.

Another reason, European clubs have bigger squads. The big clubs have more than 50 professional players in some cases.

 

[MotherRucker1]

To be fair, Deans did put up with their crap. I don't remember him ever dropping a player for poor behaviour. He did get rid of a lot of experienced players, but none of them (maybe barring Giteau who has been a divisive figure in every Ozzy SR team) were disruptive. George Smith and Stirling Mortlock (who to be fair was getting past it) were probably two of the most professional figures in Australia. I would probably argue McKenzie was probably more of a disciplinarian - but just lost out because things were out of control. And now Cheika seems to not really give a toss about his players behaviour anyway, going as far to say that "he's not a social worker".

I meant it terms of selecting players based on reputation and not form. He dropped Giteau to try something different, whereas prior to 'Deans entering there was almost an expectation that you'd get selected if you had enough caps under your belt. It was that kind of senior players club that I'm talking about.

But if we're taking that route then no, Deans doesn't put up with crap when it comes to inappropriate drinking and the like. My memory only stretches back so far, and I can't recall every person he neglected to select for what specific reason - but I do remember when he was at the Crusaders I believe he might have had issues with Zac Guildford and/or Kade Poki towards the end of 2008? He told those guys not to bother showing up to training the next week, let alone be selected. I realize that at the time Canterbury was a rugby dynasty and he could afford to take a harsh line - but I don't think just because he was in the Wallabies he'd willingly have his policies trampled over.

You get selected on your merits. Some Wallabies didn't agree with that ethos at the time. Deans might come across as a chilled guy in interviews, but this is the same guy that use to give shellackings to Canterbury boys and scream the roof off at them if they even had a poor performance, let alone "be disruptive." By his own admission in his book, he's toned down on those experiences, but it just gives you a sense that he's the kind of guy who has a set of expectations. You break those expectations, don't bother showing up next week.

Unfortunately just because Deans was in Australia for a few minutes it didn't change that culture. On one level the strong "mateship" that Aussie sports players have is admirable. But when it manifests and encroaches on who actually runs the show, then it becomes a problem. One guy at the top can't change that. That sort of education starts in schools. Primary/junior schools.

 

[Shaggy]

I'm not sure about it. The NH Rugby has more games, ok. But countries like France or England are smaller so they have very short trips while Super Rugby is one of longest competitions, in terms of kilometers traveled by players.

Cape Town, Perth, Dunedin are far apart, that's tiring for players.

I guess there is a trade off in terms of KM traveled, but the number of games played by the NH clubs, plus the player management issue, where the clubs want the players in peak condition for the clubs, and don't give a cr@p about what condition the players are in for international duty ... in fact, they'd rather not have them play test matches at all. They certainly won't report for international duty, in as good a condition than if they come from a super franchise that's run by their home union.

I'm not convinced this development will send the right message to those loyal players still playing domestically in Australia still ... This is just my opinion obviously, but it seems that the Giteau and Mitchell are now placed on a pedestal. Giteau was sent a clear message that he wasn't bigger than the team, when he was dropped from the Wallabies. There were fractions between himself and team management when he was at the Western Force. He chose to go overseas (and good on him), but know he gets the best of both worlds.

I'm not sure what this will do for team harmony in the Wallaby camp either - Matt Hodgson was on the NZ Rugby show "The Breakdown" this week, and he said the players are divided about 50/50, as to whether this policy change is a good thing or not.