0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Why does rugby persevere with Test tag?
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Andrew Stevenson, Rugby Heaven.
The Wallabies' victory over England last Sunday answered several questions - no, the Wallabies are not a complete rabble and yes, the rules of rugby desperately need tinkering with to get forwards back in the rucks and free the game from stifling flat-line defences and yes, rugby referees are desperate attention seekers - but, for me, the big question remains unresolved.
When is a Test a Test and not just another challenge on the whirligig of never-ending sporting competition? The Wallabies and England have not played a fair dinkum scrap since the compelling final of the Rugby World Cup in 2003, instead flying patched-up outfits to the other side of the world and then tinkering with the players they've got - all in the name of experience.
Once, that was what the fixture against Queensland Country served for; now, it's what you do against Australia at Telstra Stadium in front of 60,000 fans.
Already under-manned with up to a dozen of their best players recuperating at home after a long club and Six Nations season, the English outfit has made seven changes to its side for tonight's Test; Australia have rotated their captain George Gregan onto the bench and found space for a hooker, Adam Freier, who couldn't even make the reserve contingent for the first Test.
The days when the players singing the national anthem represented the best possible XV that could be marched out to play are gone. In their place are "depth" and "rotation".
FIFA has a name for matches like these. They're no-tackle, no-challenge affairs called friendlies, a term which made the ever-prickly English coach, Andy Robinson, bristle when asked about it last week.
"These are full-on Test matches, make no bones about this. We have not brought a development side here. We've brought a side to come and win two Test matches against Australia and that is our whole mindset," Robinson said.
Considering the players who were left at home to enjoy the European summer - and perhaps sneak a look at the other World Cup - it's questionable whether Robinson's bristle is just there to cover the baby-faced backs he was forced to tour with.
But the problem is not confined to Australia. Just listen to Graham Henry, the All Blacks coach who last year directed a side to a 41-3 thrashing of Wales one week only to "drop" the entire starting XV for a 45-7 towelling of Ireland the next.
Once, you had to spill blood for an All Blacks jumper; now, you just need to be there or thereabouts and the All Blacks coach is coming on all warm and fuzzy like a pre-school teacher or the coach of the Eketahuna under-8s; "We're trying to give everyone an opportunity," Henry said this week.
Yet the punters are supposed to believe this is a Test match against Ireland, a matter of some import and not Possibles versus Probables; a Test, not a trial.
No, in fact, they're not. Thankfully, at least in New Zealand, plain-talking appears to come before marketing syrup. All the Ireland affair amounts to is "a bit of an international trial before we select the 30 players for the Tri-Nations", explained Henry.
A friendly, by any other name.
The NRL goes on almost forever - from early March, when the ocean's still a balmy 23 degrees, right through winter and back out again into the October sunshine.
Weekends come and go, teams find form and lose it and still have time to find where they've left it. No sprint, the season is even more marathon than middle distance.
But at least it goes somewhere and just about every single match - yes, even the Storm v Panthers in Adelaide - gives meaning to the season: every game is worth winning in the challenge to steadily accumulate enough points to make the finals and charge at the main prize, the premiership. Likewise, AFL.
Players don't get paid to rest, or to play tackle-free football. To tank is the game's greatest sin, a breach of faith with the supporting public. Friendliness is defeat, and would be booed from the pitch as an act of treachery on the fans. You play your best every week, and the best play wounded.
Not so rugby union. Leave aside the World Cup - at least from the quarter-finals on - and only the Six Nations and Tri-Nations generate anything like wholehearted commitment. Only then can fans be assured of the best XV, playing with a single mind in the pursuit of victory.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
I think 1 and 4 should be combined. I wanted to choose both.
The two can't be combined, you can't have a Test cap every time you pull on the Wallaby jersey yet also have "Non-Cap" Wallaby fixtures.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
"Definately need "Non-Cap" fixtures for development"
Where does it say Wallaby in that??
"Anytime you pull on the Wallaby jersey."
Should be a test.
(I forgot this last bit.)
So you should be able to chose both.
I don't like the idea of friendlies - apparently no-one cares about the result, so what's the point in us watching the game!
if you want to develop your team then I say make a game of it, like the Kiwi's do with probables vs possibles.
You still can't vote for both so stiff blue flame. (You chicken out on that avatar?)
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
You will note that there was no Possibles V Probables this year. Instead they left "most" of the Super 14 finalists (Crusaders and Hurricanes) out of the Ireland tests and have sent them early to Argentina for this weekends "test". The best will be picked from those performances. I think the P v P matches were a good way to see you best two teams against each other but also frought with the danger of injury.Originally Posted by Moses
For me, a test is a test when you don the gold jumper. Australia A is an essential part of development of younger or those returning form injury etc and Super 14 is just that. I think it's 1 and 4 as weel for me![]()
So what are you going to call this new team that is between Wallaby and Australia "A" then fellas?
As the poll was about the Wallabies, option four was assumed to be Wallabies playing non-cap fixtures, that is why you can't have option one and option four as they are mutially exclusive.
Personally I think that the likes of the Bundaberg Series should be Australia "A" (or whatever name, non-cap anyway) and then full caps as Wallabies for the 3N etc.That gives three matches for trying out combinations with less pressure on the result (and without devaluing the honour of a Test Cap) before getting serious.
Also feel there should be more double headers with Australia "A" as the "undercard" to the Wallaby Tests, playing the likes of Namibia, Romania, Tonga etc. I don't understand why they need to be a stand alone fixture if you have a full 44 man squad available, as is possible if you tour with development players.
This has the double benefit of developing our depth and assisting developing nations.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
OK number 1 it is thenOriginally Posted by Burgs
![]()
If it's The Wallabies, whether it be an under strength side or not, it's a test.
Just happy to be here
Interesting note on that TEF, from the ARU site:
Until the 1980s, only members of touring teams were called Wallabies and the teams who played tests at home were known as Internationals. The touring teams were named according to their chronological order from the 'First Wallabies' to the 'Eighth Wallabies' and the greatest reward for a representative player was to be selected to tour.
Today all Australian internationals playing at home or abroad are called Wallabies.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
iv always thought a test was wen u put on the wallaby jeresey. and some people say that friendlys shouldn't count as a test?!?!? it's not like the teams are going to be nice to each other. any international when you represent your country of choice is a test match!
yup...you are right
Just happy to be here
I think what most us are kind of agreeing on though is there needs to be more matches for Australia where it isn't the Wallaby jersey they are pulling on. Whether this team is Australia "A" or something else doesn't matter, it just offers a way for more Australian players to be exposed to quality oppossition without devaluing the Test status.
Consider that the poms have the "Saxons", the Kiwis have the Maori All Blacks and Junior All Blacks etc. This would be the arena for trialling Gits at #9, Baxter at #1 or Larkham at #12.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.