Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5
-
-
@nta You seem to churn out decent locks on a regular basis.
Where do you see the strengths and weaknesses in the forwards? From outside, I don't know the front row form, and the backrow with Pocock and Hooper can be unbalanced (white dwarves can't jump or carry)
-
this could be an absolute blood bath. That is a very fucking ordinary looking Australian squad.
-
These mid-season tests are hard to predict.
On the one hand you could argue it's a Wallaby team thrown together with a week to prepare against a settled Irish side that is at the end of a successful season. In that case, you'd say 3-0 Ireland should be the outcome.
But then again you could suggest Ireland have played a lot of rugby this year, and will be playing on tired legs. With a World Cup around the corner they may look to blood new players. They are facing a Wallabies side at home who have plenty to prove after last year, and may just want it more.
I don't think our team is that bad, and our tight 5 and 9-10-12 look like they will trouble the Paddies. But we've got big holes at 6 and 13, and will be fielding a few new faces.
I'd tip 2-1 Ireland but all results are in play IMO.
-
@barbarian said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
These mid-season tests are hard to predict.
On the one hand you could argue it's a Wallaby team thrown together with a week to prepare against a settled Irish side that is at the end of a successful season. In that case, you'd say 3-0 Ireland should be the outcome.
But then again you could suggest Ireland have played a lot of rugby this year, and will be playing on tired legs. With a World Cup around the corner they may look to blood new players. They are facing a Wallabies side at home who have plenty to prove after last year, and may just want it more.
I don't think our team is that bad, and our tight 5 and 9-10-12 look like they will trouble the Paddies. But we've got big holes at 6 and 13, and will be fielding a few new faces.
I'd tip 2-1 Ireland but all results are in play IMO.
Ireland/IRFU do manage their workloads though. They'll be good.
-
Re: Pete Samu.
Its the sort of topic that would be interesting for Sumo to get one of his NZRU rugby lawyer connections on his podcast.
Because I don't get what the issue is, if there even is one beyond paperwork ... ?
I don't really understand anymore who does the contracting at the three levels in NZ rugby, and who actually pays the wages from which pot.
From a Crusaders perspective. No different from losing their All Blacks for June. SR goes into hiatus. But, maybe their is a financial ramification from an NZRU POV if he is no longer NZ eligible, and had signed a higher value contract on the basis that he was? I have no idea if this is even a thing?
From a Ta$man perspective. They potentially/probably lose him for the entire NPC to play international rugby in a competition outside of the international window. Average NPC contract is only $25k, so we're not talking big bikkies. Legally, does he just severe it and not turn up? Or have monies already been paid etc etc?
I'm trying to think of impediments, from an NZRU perspective, to someone who wants to leave in this circumstance, other than the legal 9.38 clause.
Because I don't see why the NZRU wouldn't want Australia to
-
Pete Samu update:
I don' really get where NZRU are going with this. The only negatively impacted part will be Ta$man, why isn't this an issue to be sorted out between Ta$man and Samu. Why are the NZRU getting involved beyond the paperwork?
-
I thought they only issue to be sorted is the compensation the provincial teams are paid when their contracted players are picked for the All Blacks. The issue here is Samu is going to the Wallabies so I am assuming the proposal is to have RA pay that compensation?
-
@unite said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
I thought they only issue to be sorted is the compensation the provincial teams are paid when their contracted players are picked for the All Blacks. The issue here is Samu is going to the Wallabies so I am assuming the proposal is to have RA pay that compensation?
Yes, but why not just grant him a release (assuming he hasn't been paid yet).
Does Ta$man want to be petty?
E.g. Ta$man also have Levi Aumua, a kauri-thighed promising midfielder. NZ born but Aussie raised. I'm assuming that Ta$man have started to build up some connections in Aussie club rugby through their dealings with Samu that flows into a player like Aumua arriving. There's probably an ex-clubmate of Aumua or Samu back in Aus that would jump at the opportunity of a short term opportunity to come over to Ta$man for 8 weeks as a Samu replacement.
Do they want this to continue?
Will Aumua be prepared to sign e.g. a 2 year deal with Ta$man if he thinks, if things go really well, will these guys scupper or delay my potential international future. How many other young polynesian-Australians are on the verge of following the Samu/Aumua path through this network they now have? That might re-consider.
if their partners are going to be inflexible arseholes.Why don't Ta$man say well done, we're proud of you and hope we helped you in your development, but understand this is an awesome opportunity for you. Send Waimea Old Boys a wallabies jersey to hang up on their wall. Kia Kaha.
-
-
@barbarian said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
It's a bit strange. I could understand if Samu was a Kiwi with an Aussie grandmother we were trying to poach or something. But the bloke is an Aussie.
And it's not even like he's that good, either.
I agree. He's a bit undersized. But he'll add depth in a role Scott McMahon jumped ship from.
I could see the merit in NZRU being an asshole about Brad Shields (an asshole to the RFU, no real merit in being an asshole to Brad ....). I don't see it here.
I don't see any merit in it for Ta$man. Rugby is a people business, treat them well. Players could get called up to the wallabies or they could break a leg. Either way the operations side of the union should be adept at handling the uncertainty.
The Ta$man union should embrace their role as a player pathway. They're a 2 month a year semi-pro rugby team, reality check required.
-
Why should NZR foot the bill if the ARU are the ones that want him? The NZR haven't stopped him from going - they've put a proposal to the ARU to allow Samu a release. NZR just want some compensation. It works both ways - NZR had to cough up $ to get Naholo out of his overseas contract a few years back.
-
@barbarian said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
It's a bit strange. I could understand if Samu was a Kiwi with an Aussie grandmother we were trying to poach or something. But the bloke is an Aussie.
And it's not even like he's that good, either.
well, yes, quite.
And he is an "Aussie" who has played as much senior rugby in England as in Australia, and has never played pro rugby anywhere except in NZ. But he was born in that rugby heartland of Melbourne.
I guess the NZRU are most worried about precedent. This is the 2nd dude in a month who has asked for a similar release. They were signed to NZ contracts on the understanding that they were NZ players who wished to play for the ABs. Now they want to play for someone else (someone else just happening to be countries where they have never played a professional game), i would imagine, with our limited player resources, that this is not a practice we want to encourage.
So while i think that old Aussie Pete (Pweter) will get to fulfill his life-long dream of pulling on a canary yellow jersey, i don't have any issue with the NZRU making sure these poaching unions have to jump through a few hoops to make use of the players we are developing for them.
-
@kiwimurph said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
Why should NZR foot the bill if the ARU are the ones that want him? The NZR haven't stopped him from going - they've put a proposal to the ARU to allow Samu a release. NZR just want some compensation. It works both ways - NZR had to cough up $ to get Naholo out of his overseas contract a few years back.
Foot what bill? The bill is surely un-issued? The Ta$man season is still 2 months away from even starting.
The money Ta$man have set aside to pay Samu in from August to October is retained, they pay that to someone else.
They're trying to make a profit out of him moving? They will retain the budgeted 25-50k they would have paid him plus they're now trying to obtain 50k from the ARU (if rumours are to be believed). Are they going to replace him with two players?
-
@mariner4life said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
I guess the NZRU are most worried about precedent. This is the 2nd dude in a month who has asked for a similar release. They were signed to NZ contracts on the understanding that they were NZ players who wished to play for the ABs. Now they want to play for someone else (someone else just happening to be countries where they have never played a professional game), i would imagine, with our limited player resources, that this is not a practice we want to encourage.
So while i think that old Aussie Pete (Pweter) will get to fulfill his life-long dream of pulling on a canary yellow jersey, i don't have any issue with the NZRU making sure these poaching unions have to jump through a few hoops to make use of the players we are developing for them.
I think Shields and Samu are chalk and cheese.
Samu didn't arrive in Nelson aged 22 still in nappies and unable to catch a ball and Ta$man and the NZRU haven't nurtured him from an eat through a straw blob to awesome rugby player.
Ta$man is a step on his journey.
He's been in NZ for 3 and a half years. If he's signed one of these clause 9.38 dual eligibilty contracts, then this year is the first he's been able to do it. he's not been spending the last 3 years on NZRU dual-eligibilty extra moo-la, because he hasn't been eligible for it until 6 months ago.
-
@rapido said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
@mariner4life said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
I guess the NZRU are most worried about precedent. This is the 2nd dude in a month who has asked for a similar release. They were signed to NZ contracts on the understanding that they were NZ players who wished to play for the ABs. Now they want to play for someone else (someone else just happening to be countries where they have never played a professional game), i would imagine, with our limited player resources, that this is not a practice we want to encourage.
So while i think that old Aussie Pete (Pweter) will get to fulfill his life-long dream of pulling on a canary yellow jersey, i don't have any issue with the NZRU making sure these poaching unions have to jump through a few hoops to make use of the players we are developing for them.
I think Shields and Samu are chalk and cheese.
Samu didn't arrive in Nelson aged 22 still in nappies and unable to catch a ball and Ta$man and the NZRU haven't nurtured him from an eat through a straw blob to awesome rugby player.
Ta$man is a step on his journey.
He's been in NZ for 3 and a half years. If he's signed one of these clause 9.38 dual eligibilty contracts, then this year is the first he's been able to do it. he's not been spending the last 3 years on NZRU dual-eligibilty extra moo-la, because he hasn't been eligible for it until 6 months ago.
I don't disagree with anything you have written here at all. When he signed that contract though, he didn't know where that journey was heading.
I have zero problems with him being a Wallaby, and i expect him to be available, but i also have zero issues with the NZRU not just opening the door and escorting him to the plane.
-
I see your point, M4L, and I don't expect the NZRU to roll out the red carpet. But 50k? Come on.
Especially after the Rebels allowed Tyrel Lomax to leave his contract a year early to go to NZ to follow his dream of being an All Black. He hadn't played any pro rugby in NZ, and had actually been developed in the famous heartland you speak of - Melbourne.
But fundamentally this is all just a game and people should be allowed to represent their chosen country if at all possible.
Getting bogged down and demanding payments makes me feel a little dirty about the whole thing. I'm sure they can find another way to compensate the Crusaders/ Ta$man.
-
@barbarian said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
I see your point, M4L, and I don't expect the NZRU to roll out the red carpet. But 50k? Come on.
Especially after the Rebels allowed Tyrel Lomax to leave his contract a year early to go to NZ to follow his dream of being an All Black. He hadn't played any pro rugby in NZ, and had actually been developed in the famous heartland you speak of - Melbourne.
But fundamentally this is all just a game and people should be allowed to represent their chosen country if at all possible.
Getting bogged down and demanding payments makes me feel a little dirty about the whole thing. I'm sure they can find another way to compensate the Crusaders/ Ta$man.
yep, the compensation angle doesn't sit right with me either, that seems a step too far. And petty. I know the NZRU aren't above petty.
Who is Tyrel Lomax? Johnie's kid?
I'm not sure i am quite as free thinking as your "just a game" line, international rugby already has too many blurry edges. But yea, i know it's a business, but sometimes can we remember it's a sport?
-
@mariner4life said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
yep, the compensation angle doesn't sit right with me either, that seems a step too far. And petty. I know the NZRU aren't above petty.
Who is Tyrel Lomax? Johnie's kid?
I'm not sure i am quite as free thinking as your "just a game" line, international rugby already has too many blurry edges. But yea, i know it's a business, but sometimes can we remember it's a sport?
Yeah John's kid - a prop. He's was a gun last year and though I haven't seen any of him this year I think he's a great prospect.
And I agree, and I'll use that 'just a game' line when it suits my argument. I don't think any union is in position to call the other cold, money-grabbing misers... but I certainly can!
-
@barbarian said in Paddy on Tour Down Under - Number 5:
And I agree, and I'll use that 'just a game' line when it suits my argument. I don't think any union is in position to call the other cold, money-grabbing misers... but I certainly can!
Love the honesty!
Wish SANZAARSE would take rugby based decisions to support credibility in Super Rugby ... and that 'best for rugby' had been considered in the 2003 clean stadium debacle.
But yep, the moral high ground with feet of clay is the place to be on the internet
Pete Samu - Wikipedia
