Stacey Waaka recognised as one of NRLW’s best before rugby sevens return

BTW, heres a cool article from the opta analyst that brings up (a concept I haven't seen before) the expected points or each RC team (or specifical if reviews a game and tells you if it thinks a team got 'lucky' or played better than it expected)

https://theanalyst.com/eu/2024/10/data-behind-south-africa-rugby-championship-success

Also analyses the SA'n 10s really well, they all have stats that I would say are deficient to what Dmacs would have been

An older article suggests that the score should have been SA 35 v Arg 28, based on how general play went I gather. Thought that was surprising though in line with what I was saying about them being close to turning it around again.

It does bother South Africa, so I don't see why it wouldn't Argentina? Why did they rest a bunch of players for this last game?

Who would be in an overseas 'pack' of locks that you would have selected over the years (from the ineligible people, when it was much stricter) Nick? Say pick four locks, including those could-have-should-have missed opportunities, to play for Australia full time. You've already got Skelton for sure, would you have kept Rory in, selected Meafou early from just a couple of years in France (before French interest basically) etc?

For eg; LSL would likely be the only local player (lock) in the side. There would be no Frost, or Williams, so no 'development'. If aussie had different selection policies the locks would all be overseas players, Skelton, the Arnolds, players I've seen from youth leveling up in Japan and qualifying for them instead, and no doubt there is a plethora of others that hit some good form in England or France, and who if included in a Wallaby environment at the time, might continue have played to their peak instead of turning into 'just' journeymen. I don't follow aus rugby enough for examples of this context but I reckon it would crowd out a position like lock (but is a good positive for the idea of selecting from offshore in general). Essentially there would be a lot of good players that left aussie shores upon making a name for themselves that would continue to remain in the national side, all but removing the need to blood young and unready local talent.

It of course would not be the same for every position, perhaps blindside would be the only other position where the amount of quality that is offshore compared to home would lead to the exclusion of local talent, and it wouldn't exclude rotating in the types of young player like Frost and Williams, but would Bell have become an international success so young? Other positions would be more where the gain of say including an experienced 10 or outside back would be dividends. But then you've also got to factor in whether the players those veterans would be trying to impart there global experience on would still be playing in Australia? Would Jorgensen be enough of a talent for a big French club to snap up? Or hungry for props like Bell and Tupou? Would they see how Ireland made use of Hansen and gun for Wright or one of the other very good Brumbie outsides? What's the point of having an experienced pro like Hodge in the squad when Wrights already overseas now in this new 'world' learning what there is of the French style himself?

The thing is your 'small' talent pool, suddenly becomes very 'large' selecting from offshore. The disconnect is it taking upto 3 times as long for people to flying back home, than say from Japan (or from EU to SA), along with the typical style mismatch's, not so much an ego thing. But with a lack of a DNA like SA, it might mean a lot more 'battles' between the respective styles and practices players are bringing back to camp. Can be only a positive in the right environment.

I think what they have now is the best of both worlds. There might be like 4 or 5 players they bring back, no disruption, no battle of the best way to play. You may have an important front rower like BPA, a world class player like Skelton, any number of veteran 10's, and a backline rock like Kerevi (not saying all these players would have been fit and ready to play international rugby, just imagine them at their peak for arguments sake). And that's what they have. It's what they'll likely go back to doing (if they get lucky with those generational players) for the next WC, even from now for the Lions. So I just don't think the 'picture' yuo outlined would be like reality, that's not to say I don't think there wouldn't be enough positives elsewhere to outweigh the negatives. Certainly going to another franchise for just 2 or 3 years before coming back would be a good development, but that idea is based on money that is not in the game at the moment.

Ioane wasn't: racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist etc; there is no evidence of anyone else being so either. He and they were just rude, some would say they were acting like d***h***s which as stated is contrary to their policy.

I would've preferred they acted with more decorum, but it's not something I lose sleep over. If it wasn't for S*xton trying to sell books this would be water under the bridge.

One head knock (whether accidental or deliberate) would cause more real damage; I understand that this article is about the specific incident, not harm in rugby in general. I'm just trying to add some perspective.

I look forward to the All Blacks vs Ireland match in November

Agree to disagree.