Pro D2 : le bilan de la phase aller

It goes without saying that 4 good-ish teams feeding into the Wallabies is a lot better than 5 poor-ish ones.

It should work, at least better than what we've had.

Guys like URU mean we actually have forward depth,...at least in the back 5.

I think that the serious gaps now are only in back-up props and 5/8. This next SRP season might find a few contenders for these gaps, especially.

Let's hope so, because even though there are about 100 guys playing worldwide with SR experience, there are no clear contenders any more at 1,3 and 10.

To think we had laumpe with the speed and power . But they got rid of him just to make room for Jordie . Can’t think of one season I’ve seen Jordie play centre and said wow … 🤦‍♂️

Fewer teams is the obvious, logical answer in the short-term. to build positive momentum. Alternatively Schmidt can focus on key combinations of players across the teams he can choose from. I’m sure he is more than capable doing this strategically and well.

The medium term would be to do what Rassie does, and communicate with and work with domestic teams to work towards a common good and shared outcomes (see Vermeulen’s role as part of the process). I believe the ABs were quite good at that too once upon a time. Get the 3,4,5 teams on the same page as to the Wallaby plan.

The alignment camps the boks have so regularly (including remote meets) are vital given that the tope 30-45 boks are spread across teams across the globe!

The long term is to get more of Australia’s gifted athletes towards rugby. And that means money. I have no idea how much Aussie rules players earn, for example, but I assume there’s an incentive driving the supply of athletes there compared to rugby. And I assume it’s fame and fortune not available in Wallaby Rugby.

And then of course Australia must ditch all its kiwi coaches. 🥷🏻

Discuss. 🙊

Yes it was, you suggested they didn't use him and used a different setup instead. That to me is not a Marcus but a Borthwick criticism. Unless that has been your angle all along?

Oh right, so the side is starting to play better with him? This is likely what I spoke of then. I'd like to see it continue now and see how good a Marcus side could get.

Isn't that what your asking for from Marcus? Or that the team wants/needs an older version of Dan Carter? Or are you just basing this of win ratio.

Of course some don't continue to develop past the age of 20. You're not really making any sort of argument unless you have new data. 26/27 is undoubtedly the peak of most positions/peole.

no, England have generally looked like a good side when Smith isn't in the team.

Hahaha, define "good"? I'd suggest to you theyre a "good" side now. Surely Ford or Farrell must have had a period of great success somewhere? What about 2015?

But my point was more the game in England. Having only recently adapted a more open game, the pioneers of that are going to find others take a while to catch up (your point about the rest of the team). So you want the rest of the team trying to halt this momentum and go back to a forward based game ala the success of the last two WCs?

You litterally brought up his name was one of the people who should be playing instead of Marcus.

You know, it's just I see people often making comments like "they likely can't afford to sack him".

He offered to quit. There would have been no cost to releasing him. Where you purposefully trying to make him out to be a 'bad man'?

In England and France (if I'm not mistaken), there is no chance for these clubs to host their national side.

Stick with your message. Theres nothing wrong with Ireland (or you) behaving like theyre better when you suggest it would have taken those three that long to break into the Ireland side based on how well they played with they came over.

I think you're being rather naive though. But I can't argue they would have had some exposure instead that 3 year period as I never saw them play. All I know is when they started playing for Ireland (and not surprised by what I saw btw too), they looked an immediate improvement. So I rather suspect you are wrong on both counts, and they either would indeed have played earlier if eligible (so debunking your "their needed development period" thinking), or that they would have taken just as long to become embedded in the AB framework.

PS: the timeframe were are talking about here is obviously pre Irelands dominance. So perhaps another error in judgement on your part when it comes to these sorts of statements.

Actually, I think it would be beneficial for rugby, as some coachs can't be stopped from basically selecting foreigners for the national side before they've even played a local club game. They're probably doing more harm than good.