Another sly swipe by the Western Mail

Well they like to put a sly dig into Gatland and the WRU don't they, does anybody agree with this article ?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/gatlands-law-creates-plenty-confusion-8433204

Well Gatland's Law was a media creation. He said playing away from Wales could stop you playing for Wales, especially if you can't get full release. As it turned out, even those without full release contracts got picked. The new agreement supposedly meant those away from Wales were less likely to play for Wales, and on some reports it said once 6 1st choice players had signed DC it would come into effect. But will there still be caveats? What about for players that signed contracts before the recent agreement?

Current there is no evidence of any single player that wasn't picked due to playing outside of Wales (that I can think of), certainly none that were established. Peel was the closest and that was more of a form thing IMO. So there is some confusion, or at least it's not clear if it would effect your chances that much.

I was leaning more towards the way that they have had a swipe at the Pro12 compared to the English league to be honest.

Then why did you only refer to a dig at the WRU and Gatland in the first post?

As for the dig at the Pro12 compared to the Premiership, well that's just normal 2 second memories of the media isn't it? The last few rounds of the Premiership have been really good. I've only watched the Welsh derbies just after christmas recently from the Pro12. I thought the Blues v Dragons game was enjoyable, but then I like the Dragons and they won. I thought the Ospreys v Scarlets game wasn't great. But that's two games out of 60(?). But there already is a thread on comparing the two leagues and it seems there's been a dip in the Pro12 teams overall according to some on there. Whereas most AP fans think it's been really good

I suppose there comes a point where a player decides if they want to earn more money and play for a better team or not.

I hate to echo some of the things in that article but lets face it, the Welsh regions are rubbish, and have been for a long time, the Ospreys, Scarlets and even the Blues might pull off the odd upset every now and then, but they all massively fall short at the top level in Europe. The Ospreys Pro 12 wins tends to gloss over their poor record in Europe.

I've more often than not been more entertained by the Aviva Prem matches than I have with Pro12 matches recently, even the most recent Welsh derbies are forgettable messes.

Is it the players? The officials? The coaches? The lack of relegation?

I fail to see how a league with Munster, Ulster, Glasgow, Leinster etc can produce such tedious matches, I mean, just compare the number of tries in either league so far

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/matchcentre/tables/index.php

http://www.pro12rugby.com/matchcentre/table.php

"it’s only Hook who seems to be castigated by the Welsh management for playing across the border"

Ah HOOK the Western Fail and Cowboy Hat Brigades darling He's not being castigated, he's just not good enough to displace Biggar, The Doc, Foxy or Halfpenny. The Fail can't say that Andy Howell's love-child (allegedly, just for the lawyers !!) is not good enough though, can they

The article has many good points.

What about Dwayne Peel? Never gets a mention in these things, yet Gatland destroyed his test career.

Chunky Norwich wrote:What about Dwayne Peel? Never gets a mention in these things, yet Gatland destroyed his test career.

Wasn't it a move to a new club and injuries (and the resulting drop off in form) that did for Peel? Peel had been dropped by Gatland for Phillips during the first 6 nations with Gatland in charge. Given how Phillips has been selected time and time again, what makes you think he would have picked Peel if he had stayed in Wales? Peel was quite often outshone by Will Cliff.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:What about Dwayne Peel? Never gets a mention in these things, yet Gatland destroyed his test career.

Wasn't it a move to a new club and injuries (and the resulting drop off in form) that did for Peel?  Peel had been dropped by Gatland for Phillips during the first 6 nations with Gatland in charge. Given how Phillips has been selected time and time again, what makes you think he would have picked Peel if he had stayed in Wales?  Peel was quite often outshone by Will Cliff.

Peel was in and out of the training squad a few years ago. Hew as treated very shabbily, and made an example of to try and deter wales players from moving abroad. As he was unavailable for the 4th international while at Sale, he wasn't selected at all. That would never happen with North, Roberts, J Davies etc

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/8710708/Wales-coach-Warren-Gatland-hits-out-at-Sale-criticism-over-Dwayne-Peel-handling.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/3386855/Wales-distracted-by-row-over-release-of-Gareth-Cooper-and-Dwayne-Peel-Rugby-Union.html

IronMike wrote:I suppose there comes a point where a player decides if they want to earn more money and play for a better team or not.

I hate to echo some of the things in that article but lets face it, the Welsh regions are rubbish, and have been for a long time, the Ospreys, Scarlets and even the Blues might pull off the odd upset every now and then, but they all massively fall short at the top level in Europe. The Ospreys Pro 12 wins tends to gloss over their poor record in Europe.

I've more often than not been more entertained by the Aviva Prem matches than I have with Pro12 matches recently, even the most recent Welsh derbies are forgettable messes.

Is it the players? The officials? The coaches? The lack of relegation?

I fail to see how a league with Munster, Ulster, Glasgow, Leinster etc can produce such tedious matches, I mean, just compare the number of tries in either league so far

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/matchcentre/tables/index.php

http://www.pro12rugby.com/matchcentre/table.php

To be fair London Welsh have skewed things on the try count this season. 82 tries conceded. Even if the promoted team had conceded say 35 tries, the AP is still about a try a game ahead.

I usually record a couple of Pro 12 games at the weekend and I have been disappointed with the lack of attacking creativity by most teams. Glasgow have been an exception, and it is difficult to comment on the Irish teams as most of their games seem to be on Sky and/or TG4*.

*Funny how some of the Irish posters slagged off PRL for selling the ERCC TV rights to two broadcasters, but that's been done to death.

HammerofThunor wrote:Well Gatland's Law was a media creation. He said playing away from Wales could stop you playing for Wales, especially if you can't get full release.  As it turned out, even those without full release contracts got picked.  The new agreement supposedly meant those away from Wales were less likely to play for Wales, and on some reports it said once 6 1st choice players had signed DC it would come into effect.  But will there still be caveats? What about for players that signed contracts before the recent agreement?

Current there is no evidence of any single player that wasn't picked due to playing outside of Wales (that I can think of), certainly none that were established.  Peel was the closest and that was more of a form thing IMO. So there is some confusion, or at least it's not clear if it would effect your chances that much.

Now known as...

"A new Senior Player Selection Policy has also been confirmed which declares that players based outside Wales in future will not be eligible for selection subject to a number of exceptions which the National Head Coach has the right to make. This policy will become active once a minimum of six senior players prioritised by the Wales Head Coach have been signed to National Dual Contracts."

Means naff all in other words as Gatland can still pick whomever he wants.

http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/31045.php#.VLarh3snRL8

the poll currently shows 90% of voters would not blame Priestland for moving to Bath.
I guess there are quite a few Welsh 'fans' that would be glad to see him not play for Wales again judging by the stick he has been getting. Taking all factors into account I can't think of any reasons for him to stay unless of course Gats intervened personally which of course he may well have, who knows?
In any event it appears there is no clear policy whatsoever and it is purely down to what Gats wants and when.
If all I have just stated is true then the article is pretty much spot on.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:the poll currently shows 90% of voters would not blame Priestland for moving to Bath.
I guess there are quite a few Welsh 'fans' that would be glad to see him not play for Wales again judging by the stick he has been getting. Taking all factors into account I can't think of any reasons for him to stay unless of course Gats intervened personally which of course he may well have, who knows?
In any event it appears there is no clear policy whatsoever and it is purely down to what Gats wants and when.
If all I have just stated is true then the article is pretty much spot on.

As in, Gatland's Law is still a croc and the Pro12 is still pants. Hardly revelatory.

The Gatland policy was first introduced shortly after his arrival. The gist behind it back then was that leaving Wales may reduce your chances of getting picked for the national side relative to your form and that of others playing in Wales.
In other words, say a Welsh winger moved to France. The policy would mean that that player would have to consistently outperform any winger playing in Wales in order to be assured a place in the squad. If there were wingers based in Wales who were playing equally well or better than the foreign-based winger, the latter would probably not be picked.

The full-release thing came later, shortly after the last WC. At the onset of the exodus, Gatland warned that individual players should negotiate full release into their club contract if they wanted to carry on being involved with Wales. In fairness, most of the big names heading abroad seem to have done this.

The announcement of the participation agreement is only the most recent development in this debacle. In it, the rules seem to have been tightened slightly or else further elaborated in print.

How has this worked in practice? If you consider individual cases, you'll find many players whose involvement has suffered as a result of leaving Wales. The only exceptions are players who generally offer something crucial, something no current Welsh-based players can match (North, Roberts, Davies and Halfpenny are four I can think of). But people so often forget those names whose participation dropped sharply, if not ended abruptly, shortly following their departure (Peel, Hook, Charteris, Davies, Byrne, Ryan Jones and soon, I suspect, Priestland).

Knowsit,

Pretty spot on IMO, he NEVER said he wouldn't pick players who left Wales but he did say you would have to be regular first choice and in better shape than players based in Wales and in general he did that.

Knowsit17 wrote:The Gatland policy was first introduced shortly after his arrival. The gist behind it back then was that leaving Wales may reduce your chances of getting picked for the national side relative to your form and that of others playing in Wales.
In other words, say a Welsh winger moved to France. The policy would mean that that player would have to consistently outperform any winger playing in Wales in order to be assured a place in the squad. If there were wingers based in Wales who were playing equally well or better than the foreign-based winger, the latter would probably not be picked.

The full-release thing came later, shortly after the last WC. At the onset of the exodus, Gatland warned that individual players should negotiate full release into their club contract if they wanted to carry on being involved with Wales. In fairness, most of the big names heading abroad seem to have done this.

The announcement of the participation agreement is only the most recent development in this debacle. In it, the rules seem to have been tightened slightly or else further elaborated in print.

How has this worked in practice? If you consider individual cases, you'll find many players whose involvement has suffered as a result of leaving Wales. The only exceptions are players who generally offer something crucial, something no current Welsh-based players can match (North, Roberts, Davies and Halfpenny are four I can think of). But people so often forget those names whose participation dropped sharply, if not ended abruptly, shortly following their departure (Peel, Hook, Charteris, Davies, Byrne, Ryan Jones and soon, I suspect, Priestland).

So what you're saying is that Gatland can still pick who he wants in his squad. Agreed.
As for "full release" - i've heard the phrase many times, but what does it mean in reality in particular for France based Welshies come the 6Ns? I know they usually return to their clubs twice; once after the initial get together then again during the 2 week break.

I think North is the only one with the so called 'full release' in his contract and by all accounts it means he is available for extra training camps and the 4th AI games.

Out of curiosity does all the WC warm up games get full IRB backing?

bedfordwelsh wrote:I think North is the only one with the so called 'full release' in his contract and by all accounts it means he is available for extra training camps and the 4th AI games.

Out of curiosity does all the WC warm up games get full IRB backing?

Not sure and as for the RWC and player release, hope this has now been sorted.......

http://www.therugbyblog.com/player-release-still-hampering-pacific-islands

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:the poll currently shows 90% of voters would not blame Priestland for moving to Bath.
I guess there are quite a few Welsh 'fans' that would be glad to see him not play for Wales again judging by the stick he has been getting. Taking all factors into account I can't think of any reasons for him to stay unless of course Gats intervened personally which of course he may well have, who knows?
In any event it appears there is no clear policy whatsoever and it is purely down to what Gats wants and when.
If all I have just stated is true then the article is pretty much spot on.

In a nutshell.
Dodger dodges the question 2-50min...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30771043

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:The Gatland policy was first introduced shortly after his arrival. The gist behind it back then was that leaving Wales may reduce your chances of getting picked for the national side relative to your form and that of others playing in Wales.
In other words, say a Welsh winger moved to France. The policy would mean that that player would have to consistently outperform any winger playing in Wales in order to be assured a place in the squad. If there were wingers based in Wales who were playing equally well or better than the foreign-based winger, the latter would probably not be picked.

The full-release thing came later, shortly after the last WC. At the onset of the exodus, Gatland warned that individual players should negotiate full release into their club contract if they wanted to carry on being involved with Wales. In fairness, most of the big names heading abroad seem to have done this.

The announcement of the participation agreement is only the most recent development in this debacle. In it, the rules seem to have been tightened slightly or else further elaborated in print.

How has this worked in practice? If you consider individual cases, you'll find many players whose involvement has suffered as a result of leaving Wales. The only exceptions are players who generally offer something crucial, something no current Welsh-based players can match (North, Roberts, Davies and Halfpenny are four I can think of). But people so often forget those names whose participation dropped sharply, if not ended abruptly, shortly following their departure (Peel, Hook, Charteris, Davies, Byrne, Ryan Jones and soon, I suspect, Priestland).

So what you're saying is that Gatland can still pick who he wants in his squad. Agreed.
As for "full release" - i've heard the phrase many times, but what does it mean in reality in particular for France based Welshies come the 6Ns? I know they usually return to their clubs twice; once after the initial get together then again during the 2 week break.

Yes, though that wasn't the overall point of the post. Naturally, like most head coaches in the sport, Gatland is able to pick who he wants in his squad provided they're eligible and available.

I was talking more about the selection criteria that has emerged gradually since the start of his tenure. I see a lot of false or misled reporting on the matter, which is why I felt a more detailed account might be useful.

As bedford says, the idea of 'full release' clauses in foreign contracts generally covers squad activity outside of the IRB windows, such as additional training camps and, in North's case, the extra AI.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:The Gatland policy was first introduced shortly after his arrival. The gist behind it back then was that leaving Wales may reduce your chances of getting picked for the national side relative to your form and that of others playing in Wales.
In other words, say a Welsh winger moved to France. The policy would mean that that player would have to consistently outperform any winger playing in Wales in order to be assured a place in the squad. If there were wingers based in Wales who were playing equally well or better than the foreign-based winger, the latter would probably not be picked.

The full-release thing came later, shortly after the last WC. At the onset of the exodus, Gatland warned that individual players should negotiate full release into their club contract if they wanted to carry on being involved with Wales. In fairness, most of the big names heading abroad seem to have done this.

The announcement of the participation agreement is only the most recent development in this debacle. In it, the rules seem to have been tightened slightly or else further elaborated in print.

How has this worked in practice? If you consider individual cases, you'll find many players whose involvement has suffered as a result of leaving Wales. The only exceptions are players who generally offer something crucial, something no current Welsh-based players can match (North, Roberts, Davies and Halfpenny are four I can think of). But people so often forget those names whose participation dropped sharply, if not ended abruptly, shortly following their departure (Peel, Hook, Charteris, Davies, Byrne, Ryan Jones and soon, I suspect, Priestland).

So what you're saying is that Gatland can still pick who he wants in his squad. Agreed.
As for "full release" - i've heard the phrase many times, but what does it mean in reality in particular for France based Welshies come the 6Ns? I know they usually return to their clubs twice; once after the initial get together then again during the 2 week break.

Yes, though that wasn't the overall point of the post. Naturally, like most head coaches in the sport, Gatland is able to pick who he wants in his squad provided they're eligible and available.

I was talking more about the selection criteria that has emerged gradually since the start of his tenure. I see a lot of false or misled reporting on the matter, which is why I felt a more detailed account might be useful.

As bedford says, the idea of 'full release' clauses in foreign contracts generally covers squad activity outside of the IRB windows, such as additional training camps and, in North's case, the extra AI.

As you agree that Gatland can pick who he wants then it's all bluff and bluster. Not certain there is a policy either. As I understand it; Gats can make exceptions and Dodger said the selection process was "complex". Good old Dodger, wriggle, wriggle, it's the way I tell 'em, i'm here all week.
As for "full release" - the phrase gives the impression that Gats has the same access to foreign based players as he has to those employed by the 4 Welsh Pro sides when that is clearly not the case.

Welsh rugby again, as crystal clear as the river Taff!

It's not all bluff and bluster when I cited five names, possibly six from next season, in the original post who have left Wales in the past 4 years and whose participation has been ended or sharply reduced as a result.

I'll list them again: Charteris, Davies, Peel, Hook and Ryan Jones (possibly Priestland from when he joins Bath)

Gatland can still name any of these players in his squad, if he so chooses, but generally doesn't. Or if he does, it's usually for cover when there's injuries in a given position. They've all fallen back in consideration where some used to be distinctively first choice. That's because they moved abroad and none are playing well enough to displace their Welsh-based counterparts.

People slating the policy generally seem to ignore these cases and focus exclusively on the likes of North, Roberts, Davies etc. These guys still get picked because Welsh-based players vying for their positions can't generally match their contributions for club or country.

As for "full release" - the phrase gives the impression that Gats has the same access to foreign based players as he has to those employed by the 4 Welsh Pro sides when that is clearly not the case.

It only gives that impression if you generalise across all players. Some foreign-based players have full release clauses in their contracts and others don't. North is available for all Wales internationals, despite playing in England, BECAUSE he negotiated a full release clause into his contract. For players like Peel and Hook, this was never the case and so they slid down the pecking order.

Jebus!

Wept!

Knowsit17 wrote:Wept!

No need for tears Knowsit. Gatland can and will pick who he wants, regardless. End of and let's not pretend otherwise.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Wept!

No need for tears Knowsit. Gatland can and will pick who he wants, regardless. End of and let's not pretend otherwise.

Saw a great shout on Gwlad - for every non-Welsh based player Gatland selects over a Welsh-based player, the regions should get another NWQ spot.

Stone Motif wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Wept!

No need for tears Knowsit. Gatland can and will pick who he wants, regardless. End of and let's not pretend otherwise.

Saw a great shout on Gwlad - for every non-Welsh based player Gatland selects over a Welsh-based player, the regions should get another NWQ spot.

Like it. Not complex either. Yet it's far too simple and transparent therefore it'll never work. Not the now anyway. Maybe later.

To be fair if Priestland is going to Bath to play second fiddle to Ford he has removed himself from international selection due to his lack of game time.

Regards Hook isn't it a case of "Jack of all trades master of none" which usually means at best a bench spot at best.

In regards to the Pro 12 not being good enough lets compare like with like.
By their same logic ever rugby player who as any desire to play top rugby should go to france as they will get loads of money and play infront of more people. And we know how most people have liked France by the numbers coming back.