Australia reviewing the 'Giteau' Law

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50501041

Cant help feeling that this will benefit Australia. Perhaps not the domestic franchises though.

Also, its one way of getting Will Skelton back in the setup.

They should just let all of them play.

Plus when you have players abroad, it should mean theres space in your regional sides for bringing other players through...increases their player base...in theory

Aussie players would be less valuable to European clubs though as they would miss pre-season and into the first week in October, followed by November.

GeordieFalcon wrote:They should just let all of them play.

Plus when you have players abroad, it should mean theres space in your regional sides for bringing other players through...increases their player base...in theory

Yeah, yeah, Geordie.  The wink says it all.  .  You mean increasing their player production line to meet demand from Europe?

LondonTiger wrote:Aussie players would be less valuable to European clubs though as they would miss pre-season and into the first week in October, followed by November.

Squad strengths would take the strain...in the sides that could afford them anyway.

Agree that Australian players could have more difficulty getting new contracts should this come into place.
But that would probably mean more heading to Japan.


Other than Kerevi/Coleman and Skelton who do we think Dave Rennie will want to pull back in if given a free reign?

Will this open the floodgates for guys like O'Connor and Beale to ship out for a bigger contract elsewhere again?

Its a case of facing reality as well. As Aus decline as a force theres more players who wouldnt be so bothered about ditching the gold jersey to get payed more and potentially win silverware abroad, and thats the worst of both worlds for Aus rugby. Its not like the RC franchises have been any good with most top stars locked in at home. 
SA had the same pain, its paid dividends in the short term for the national side for sure.
 
Beale already has over 60 caps David so hes free to go where he wants regardless and has been for some time. JOC isnt far off either.

It would increase the relative value of New Zealanders, who are still excluded from selection if they play overseas.

Rugby Fan wrote:It would increase the relative value of New Zealanders, who are still excluded from selection if they play overseas.

Hmmmmm....... Aussie cute stuff.

Are Australia struggling for a lack of popularity as opposed to League (which is the main sport over there) , Aussie Rules and Football growing..?

I understand League is struggling in Australia. A combo of too many controversies and too much old boy macho stuff for the broadcasters and sponsors to keep peddling it to the kids, and not tough enough (gone soft) for the old boys. Viewership and attendance struggling. AFL and soccer on the rise. Also changing Australian demographics, as well as all the issues everyone else faces in modern sport. League still #1 but it's like the NFL in the US - too insular.

What year was it when the Aus franchises lost every single match to NZ ones? I remember the national team wasn’t good that year either. I’d keep the 60 cap policy, but try and also cough up the funds to bring home players like White, Skelton, Coleman, and Richie Arnold.

mikey_dragon wrote:What year was it when the Aus franchises lost every single match to NZ ones? I remember the national team wasn’t good that year either. I’d keep the 60 cap policy, but try and also cough up the funds to bring home players like White, Skelton, Coleman, and Richie Arnold.

But the likes of him...in my opinion have improved incredibly by being away and going to Sarries.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:What year was it when the Aus franchises lost every single match to NZ ones? I remember the national team wasn’t good that year either. I’d keep the 60 cap policy, but try and also cough up the funds to bring home players like White, Skelton, Coleman, and Richie Arnold.

But the likes of him...in my opinion have improved incredibly by being away and going to Sarries.

What was your point, that all the Wallabies should move to England and become vastly superior players? Somehow I doubt that. We often see some players move around and become better for it. Skelton is one of them, but overall I believe Super Rugby is better at preparing players for international rugby.

Yes be interesting how Marchant goes for the Blues. He has a good highlights reel and will certainly enjoy the style. It can be a bit of a death wish for backs the Blues but we don’t get to compare players from the 6N in our camps often. But one things for sure, he’ll get the ball a lot if he wants it.

mikey_dragon wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:What year was it when the Aus franchises lost every single match to NZ ones? I remember the national team wasn’t good that year either. I’d keep the 60 cap policy, but try and also cough up the funds to bring home players like White, Skelton, Coleman, and Richie Arnold.

But the likes of him...in my opinion have improved incredibly by being away and going to Sarries.

What was your point, that all the Wallabies should move to England and become vastly superior players? Somehow I doubt that. We often see some players move around and become better for it. Skelton is one of them, but overall I believe Super Rugby is better at preparing players for international rugby.

Did i say that???

So what was your point?

I think it's pretty obvious Mikey, some players improve by moving teams whether that be overseas or not.

Yeah that's basically what I said. Aus would improve by bringing certain players back now though, which is what else I was saying, plus I think losing more players at this moment in time won't benefit them. I can't think who in Aus could do with a stint overseas to improve. Foley maybe, but he has moved on to Japan.

Its a pretty obvious statement but Im saying they need to get the ballance right.

Im not sure the 60 cap rule works because different players develop better in dfferent environments.
Australia develops world class players...but others benefit from abroad...ie Skelton has grown hugely from his Saracens time as maybe he needs to be in a more....dare i say "regimented" squad.
By taking them back to Oz to one of the regions do they risk taking them out of that environment and the player declines again?

Taylorman wrote:Yes be interesting how Marchant goes for the Blues. He has a good highlights reel and will certainly enjoy the style. It can be a bit of a death wish for backs the Blues but we don’t get to compare players from the 6N in our camps often. But one things for sure, he’ll get the ball a lot if he wants it.

I agree, I think Marchant has all the ingredients required to be a top international. Exposure to super rugby (if he gets it) at this age will stand him in good stead and is something that all prem clubs should be looking to offer to their senior academy.
I think Quins are very brave to do this with a player that its key to they way they play....but they obviously see this as a way to secure his contract for the longer term future.

Back to Australia - I honestly feel that they need to stop the selection criteria. Talent is draining away to other leagues despite the 60 cap rule.
Looking at Monahan (Wing for Bristol) - Not sure how many caps he has but it wont be that high.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its a pretty obvious statement but Im saying they need to get the ballance right.

Im not sure the 60 cap rule works because different players develop better in dfferent environments.
Australia develops world class players...but others benefit from abroad...ie Skelton has grown hugely from his Saracens time as maybe he needs to be in a more....dare i say "regimented" squad.
By taking them back to Oz to one of the regions do they risk taking them out of that environment and the player declines again?

So Aus will benefit from brining Skelton back now then, but also keeping Rory Arnold and Rodda (thanks to the 60 cap rule). They could always make it a 30 cap rule if they're keen for some players to get some exposure. I doubt their best ones will be leaving though, they secured Folau's future in Aus rugby right before the balls'd it up.

Is the Oz centralised approach crumbling or will it get another reprieve ?
If the TV deal is not forthcoming will the ownership and decision making spread to the wider tiers and grassroots of the game ?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/26/new-broadcast-deal-shapes-as-pivotal-moment-for-rugby-union-in-australia

Yes saw that, hard case that a lot of Oz fans are rejoicing in that it probably means the removal of Kearnsey from their commentary's. I like him for his anti NZ comments, though good to see he's right in behind new coach Rennie on board, and that's really the key to changing rugby in Oz, get it back to its heydays of the 80's and 90's.

When its still 15 vs 15 (23 vs 23) its still a winnable game with the right focus, and Rennie will add some long needed structure and once that's done I think he'll be pleasantly surprised how good the attacking play of the Wallabies will get.

As South Africa showed playing standards in Europe are as good as Super Rugby.  Letting players overseas and turn out for your national team has made South Africa stronger.  It could also be argued that Argentina picking home based players only has made them weaker on the international stage.

What it would do for RA is get their best players playing their best.  Right now you only need to be the best in Australia.  Surely any current home based player would have to up their game knowing that suddenly there are twice as many players he must compete against.  I am sure an overseas based team would be nearly as strong as the home based one. Playing standards in Oz have dropped and this might improve them. Also players would know if they played well they could get massive contracts abroad.

It leaves NZ in a difficult position.  Do they carry on having training games in SR while their main competitors send out second string teams or do they join the party and put the financial death nail in Super Rugby as a lower level comp than the Euro leagues. You would think that SR is the big loser in all this

Brendan wrote:As South Africa showed playing standards in Europe are as good as Super Rugby.  Letting players overseas and turn out for your national team has made South Africa stronger.  It could also be argued that Argentina picking home based players only has made them weaker on the international stage.

What it would do for RA is get their best players playing their best.  Right now you only need to be the best in Australia.  Surely any current home based player would have to up their game knowing that suddenly there are twice as many players he must compete against.  I am sure an overseas based team would be nearly as strong as the home based one. Playing standards in Oz have dropped and this might improve them.  Also players would know if they played well they could get massive contracts abroad.

It leaves NZ in a difficult position.  Do they carry on having training games in SR while their main competitors send out second string teams or do they join the party and put the financial death nail in Super Rugby as a lower level comp than the Euro leagues.  You would think that SR is the big loser in all this

Whether playing in Europe makes a player better is debatable in the context of some get better and others don’t. If you have a couple of hundred players contracted overseas it stands to reason it will be your better players being bought for more money.

The European clubs are certainly not going to pay good money after poorer players.

Argentina is a different story, the Jaguares squad is also the Puma squad, with two different coaches.

The players were simply mismanaged, by the time they finished the RC their players were paste.

Na, the Jaguares - Argentina are like Glasgow - Scotland. Or even Leinster - Ireland. Too much reliance on transplanting what works really well in a club set up often comes undone at test level. It's so clearly a different kind of game.

As for Australia, making the national side competitive again will help more than having good clubs. Pick your best players, simple. New Zealand don't lose their best players overseas, their players go overseas when they're on the brink and/or have been dropped despite being brilliant still.

Too much imitation of NZ's setup - which appeared to hamper them this time around, but I think that was a mindset and coaching issue more than anything else - is unhealthy. Australia would clearly benefit from picking overseas players, and a bit of travel and adaptation can improve you as a man and as a player. I don't see how or why this isn't talked about more. It's not a case of Europe being better - not sure it is a better standard than South Africa, for instance - but it's adding more strings to the bow.

Re. Argentina. They’re just not actually very good. Their results since the 2015 World Cup are appalling, both home and away.

They seem caught between two stools. Their traditional set piece strengths (esp scrum) is faltering and their attacking play seems error-strewn.

They’re not much better than Italy at present. It’s not just the system but the players. I feel their ability has been over-exaggerated for some time.

Yet the Jaguares should have won Super Rugby last season. That's the point being made. Not like they're a shambles across the board, more that they've prioritised the club game with the logic being it will only help the international team, when it hasn't,they've gone backwards.

Jaguares were comfortably beaten in the SR final. They’re a Tier 1.5 team at international level at present and have been overrated for some time. England can send 2nd/3rd string players and whitewash them in Argentina.

Similarly to Italy in the 6 Nations they add like to the RC and are moving steadily backwards.

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

... I think it's wrong to say Reagan was a bad President. After all, he did begin the entente cordial with Gorby.

I wonder if like Rassie, Rennie has made the review (or outcome) a condition of him signing up.

Jaguares botched numerous scoring chances in the final. Weird to say they were comfortably beaten - I can only sympathise with those who are responsible for making feel 'comfortable', Cyril...must be a rough ride...

Balance of both a strong internal structure, and the best of what's on offer in Europe, is clearly the best way to run a national side. Argentina needed to quickly build a professional outlet and are now doing this with their national league. They've suffered at test level but maybe it will bear fruit in the medium term i.e. 4-8 years' time.

Australia just have to wait and see what happens to Super Rugby, really, but I'd say picking 30 cap internationals and up would be the next logical step.

Brendan wrote:I wonder if like Rassie, Rennie has made the review (or outcome) a condition of him signing up.

He'd be foolish not to.

Is there any analysis available on what ages players get their contracts at, how many caps they have at time of signing contract? Was going to look at the Oz rugby website, considering AAC has 17 caps on their site even though the text under says 114 caps I'm not going to trust any of it.

60 caps sounded like a 'lets get giteau back' move. 30 caps sounds like a 'lets keep picking kerevi'.

Surely it should be based on a general rule and not off the name, the name will always be the exception.

Ireland is a no, unless Sexton. Oz is a no, unless Giteau. etc.

The top end players get a professional contract at, what, 19 for usually 4 years club level. Puts them at 23 for their second contract. Again usually 4 years, 26/27 and you start looking for the payday. Once a player gets into the 30+ cycle then the name usually costs more than the production.

So really shouldn't a union look more towards signing players at 25 to 4 year deals. And that should work all for most seasons except where a RWC is on when they're 25. Which is the Kerevi window, which is the exception year of a player hitting 25 and it being a RWC year.

So they should stay put on their rule, or figure out what is the average cap for a very good 27 year old test player and that is the threshold to us as the exception (because if you reach that average but are more than 2 years younger in age before you left Oz then that puts you in the exceptional category).

Does that even make sense. I need to lay down.

Not many 4 year contracts being handed out to players that I'm aware of. Mostly a development contract and then their first seior contract which is usually 2 or maybe 3 years depending on how much they're rated. Not many 4 year contracts handed out to 25 and up.

I picked 30 as it's feasible to reach in 2 seasons and a bit if you're a good player. For fringe players, 3-4 years. There's plenty of time to move overseas after that, and it allows wiggle room for perenially injured players as well for the most part.

That there even is a Giteau rule and no northern equivalent shows there’s an imbalance.

With shorter contracts being handed out the residence laws need a huge overhaul at test level. If someone like Gatlands can go from coaching Ireland to beat Wales, then coach Wales to beat Ireland, then potentially coach NZ to beat Wales, something’s gotta be wrong where players like Nacewa can’t play for who they qualify on residential or ethnicity grounds, because of one minute of test rugby.

Players can play for any club worldwide, then switch to another in another country, no problem, yet at the worlds premier tournament, the World Cup many of the worlds best players are missing.

Charles Piutau, ripping it up in club rugby would be amongst the best 10-15 backs at the entire tournament, yet couldn’t play for Tonga, even though he’s Tongan. Yet Eddie Jones can influence Oz, South Africa, Japan and England in near successive tournaments in a way no player can, and that’s allowed, and I’m pretty sure he’s not from all of those countries.

Like players, they’re professionals and have a huge effect on the results of a national side. Limiting players only in that way is outdated and hypocritical. This year we missed tithe chance to see probably 30 to 40 better players at this tournament than the ones that played.

If Schmidt chose Ireland, and is dropped, that’s where his test coaching should end, just like a player. Yet no, that’s just silly we all say. In today’s game of so much moving around and options test rugby players need more options too. Instead they get locked away at some obscure club level where no one else outside that comp cares.

Wales literally has the exact same Giteau rule. So might want to try again on the 'imbalance' part.

Oh well. Exact? Didn’t know they had a giteau as well. Apologies. I mean one of hims enough. And in terms of exact, I’d wouldn’t mind seeing the average travelling distance from Wales for those players. Two clips on a bus ticket?

Yeah I'm going to need you to translate that in to something that makes sense, but yes, they have exactly the same 60 cap rule as Australia brought in to include Giteau in 2015.

Scotland don't have such a rule as they cannot afford to keep their players in the country, so in essence have the same rules as South Africa.

Ireland and England only pick players playing for their clubs, so just like New Zealand and Argentina.

Seems perfectly well balanced tbh.

Have another go?

Got the numbers on those they can’t pick from for each of those?

And Oz are needing to change it because the numbers are hurting them. Obviously England and Wales are happy with their Giteau, especially when they’re being replaced by better imports.

I mean one week in and Pivacs already called for his kiwis. Can’t see Rennie picking up any Welshmen in the near future.

So the rule might be the same, the impact certainly isn’t. Only one lots losing players and not getting others in. That’s the ozzies...oh and SA, and NZ, who have yet to create a Giteau rule. Won’t be far away though, especially if players like Piutau go as young as they do.

"Got the numbers on those they can’t pick from for each of those?"

What?

Do you mean how many players are playing overseas?

No. But I imagine a fairly good way of doing it would be going through the RWC squads, or even extended training camps, and totting up how many players from each team was playing their rugby outside their country.

Also, has the fact that there is no imbalance in qualification between north and south changed anything that informs your opinion, seeing as an imbalance was the starting point for your diatribe?

The imbalance is not that th3 rule exists, it’s the impact of it. Kerevi is now leaving and was one of the best players at the tournament. How many Welsh players have been tempted offshore ‘of that quality’ that it becomes concerning enough to reconsider the law.

None. Oz will have to put a lesser side out because of that rule than Wales, so Wales chances of beating Oz, and anyone else in that position, goes up, as it has in the past few years vs SA and NZ.

Combine that with the fact that you get to add at least two players you have had nothing to do with in getting them to a pro quality level in the two kiwis, to buffer your squad at some point. The imbalance is laughable, and we throw in yet another kiwi coach to help as well.

Same rule? Nah. Not under the surface it ain’t.

Plenty of players. Wales has constantly had to change their funding and qualification laws in the last decade as the money from France and England has attracted many of their star players. It was the sole reason for the creation of the National Dual Contract, with Warburton being the first to sign.

Gethin Jenkins, Jamie Roberts, Rhys Webb, Dan Biggar, Dan Lydiate, Taulupe Faletau, Liam Williams, Leigh Halfpenny, Jonathan Davies, Mike Phillips have all been picked for the Wales and, more tellingly, the Lions while playing outside Wales, or within a year of the Lions tour in question. Not at the tail end of their career. When they were Lions. At their peak.

As for Welsh players who weren't Lions and picked for Wales when overseas, there are many, many more - too many to list off the top of my head. Then of course there are those who leave prematurely who would bolster the regions, but earn a better wage in England or France.

So the number is sizeable, and the laws have changed accordingly to adapt to the monetary power 'overseas' and 'over border'.

Isn't learning fun!

It's great to find out new info. Every day's a teaching day etc...

That's two major strikes based on ignorance and assumption. Easy enough to do, ofc, when you're just swinging blindly and self righteously in to the wind, but third one and you're out...

I don't doubt there are also more Welsh players I could add to that list of Lions playing outside Wales - Hibbard signed for Gloucester in 2013 for the 14/15 season, a few months after being the starting Lions hooker, and Moriarty was playing in England and 'poached' by the school system in 2017. There might be even more top Welsh players I'm forgetting going back to 2009 as well, but in the last two tours, that's at least 12 Welsh players who were 'lost' overseas and the WRU had to adapt the qualification rules and funding model pretty comprehensively as a result.

miaow wrote:Plenty of players. Wales has constantly had to change their funding and qualification laws in the last decade as the money from France and England has attracted many of their star players. It was the sole reason for the creation of the National Dual Contract, with Warburton being the first to sign.

Gethin Jenkins, Jamie Roberts, Rhys Webb, Dan Biggar, Dan Lydiate, Taulupe Faletau, Liam Williams, Leigh Halfpenny, Jonathan Davies, Mike Phillips have all been picked for the Wales and, more tellingly, the Lions while playing outside Wales, or within a year of the Lions tour in question. Not at the tail end of their career. When they were Lions. At their peak.

As for Welsh players who weren't Lions and picked for Wales when overseas, there are many, many more - too many to list off the top of my head. Then of course there are those who leave prematurely who would bolster the regions, but earn a better wage in England or France.

So the number is sizeable, and the laws have changed accordingly to adapt to the monetary power 'overseas' and 'over border'.

Isn't learning fun!

It's great to find out new info. Every day's a teaching day etc...

You’re saying all those players left, permanently, and never played for Wales again?. That is the issue here. I saw half those players at the tournament so they don’t count. I’m not talking about those on weekend passes. When our players go, they’re gone. Very rarely, other than the odd temporary jaunt Kaino, Carter took, do they come back. Nonu is the only one I can recall who meant to end playing for NZ and ‘tried again’ in the last few years. Which Welsh player went, at his peak, and never returned.

Kerevi is that example. Name one.

And keep the childish remarks out Miaow. It’s why no one can stand you at all.

That wasn't your question. Your qyestion was about losing players 'of that level' to Wales, so I picked Welsh Lions who were lost to clubs outside Wales within a seasn (or two in the case of Hibbard) of them getting picked for the Lions. You also mentioned that the WRU hadn't changed its laws about qualification and, again, the above examples are the perfect example of having to adapt to select overseas players and, even more dramatically, create a temporary contract solution to bring Welsh players back, partly paid for out of the Union's pocket. Happy to help clear that one up as you seemed adamant neither occurred, yet you're in literally every single way...wrong.

Pretty sure Kerevi has literally said he wants to play for Australia again, so, again, completely irrelevant point there. It hints at either a return or the ARU changing the laws in order to select him, which Scotland and, most dramatically, Wales have been doing for the last decade to keep up with France and England. We're talking about the Giteau law which shows the ARU adapting to pick players that were otherwise unavailable to them. They might change for Kerevi,  who knows,  we'll see. But the idea that there is a discrepancy between north and south  is deeply, fundamentally ignorant, and maybe this will help change your mind on the matter as it seemed like a fundamental pillar of your opinion that there was a hemispherical imbalance when it comes to qualification  and maintaining players within you own country when,  clearly, there isn't.

We'll chalk this up as strike 3 on the basis of yet another deflection and failure to stay on topic.

Every day is learning day, but some people don't want to learn. It's just important to note two key pillars of your diatribes were literally, categorically wrong, yet your opinion hasn't changed. That's not really how most people operate unless they're ideologically driven.

Food for thought.

p.s. plenty of people like me. They're just not users of 606.

I'd also say that there are quite a few quiet readers of 606 who appreciate my less confrontational contributions to these boards. Indeed, I regularly have people come out and say this when someone tries to suggest that 'no one can stand you'. It tends to be that this site's most vocal users are also its most negative and those who are most comfortable saying things like you've just said. Wouldn't take it as reflective of reality in the slightest, but either way, doesn't phase me.

Seems like you don't being proven ridiculously wrong and haven't taken the mild teasing too well. Not for the first time. Perhaps you could start with not being so wrong and just fact check your rants beforehand. Life's great when you ask more questions - you tend to learn that way. You don't have to have answers on things you don't know anything about. No one will judge you for it. Everyday's a teaching day. Every day's an opportunity to learn.