Talk:Australia national rugby union team
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Australia national rugby union team is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports. | ||
|
WikiProject Australia To-do:
|
|||
 |
Australia national rugby union team is part of WikiProject Rugby union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Rugby union. If you would like to participate, you can edit Australia national rugby union team, or visit the project page, where you can join by adding your name to participants list. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Australia national rugby union team has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] David Campese's stats
How can David Campese have 64 tries but only 315 points to his name? Which of these figures is wrong, sports fans? --Stormie 04:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
You can find a rundown of David Campese's figures at [1]. I think the confusion comes from the fact that if he had scored 63 tries for 315 it would work out even at 5 points a try. However you then have to add in 7 penalties, 8 conversions and 2 drop goals. So how can this be? Well History of rugby union holds a clue. Up until 1992 a try was worth 4 points. So we have (7 x 3) 21 points in penalties, (8 x 2) 16 points in conversions and (2 x 3) 6 points in drop goals: 43 points in goals, 272 points in tries. So through simultaneous equations we have 48 tries @ 4 points and 16 tries @ 5 points. Zarboki 07:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Change the title back...
IMHO, the page title should be changed back to Australia national rugby union team for consistency's sake. The title of every other national rugby union team page has the country name, not its adjective form — except for All Blacks, which is universally recognized. — Dale Arnett 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- CJ, you do have a point. However, people who are searching for information on "Wallabies" may be just as likely to be interested in the animal as the team. There's far less ambiguity with "All Blacks". — Dale Arnett 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The Aussies might do but is this usage worldwide? I know that the Wallabies are Australia but would somebody living in the Northern Hemisphere that didn't follow rugby union know that? I don't think so.GordyB 12:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Silly point. Would someone living in the Northern Hemisphere that didn't follow rugby union know who the All Blacks are? No, they wouldn't. In the rugby union world, ask anyone and they'll know who the Wallabies are. The title should be changed back. Mitch119 03:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think there is a massive difference between worldwide recognition of All Blacks and Wallabies, not to say that the term Wallabies is not as well known as ABs in the respective domestic environment, but I would say your average non-rugby follower is more likely to identify the ABs term than the Wallabies. Cvene64 13:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think you'll find that 'All Black' is reasonably well known. Even my father-in-law who does not speak a word of English and doesn't like rugby has heard of the 'Toti negri'. Personally I'd still rather have the article at New Zealand national rugby union team but that's just my opinion. I don't see them problem, there is a redirect set up to catch anyone who types in 'The Wallabies'.GordyB 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Wallabies or Australian, either is good, but Australia sounds rather odd to me. Australian is used the article body which better reflects actual usage, IMO.
The name follows a standard naming format e.g. country name followed by 'national' followed by sport name followed by 'team'. Slightly odd but it means that you can easily remember or even guess the correct link e.g. Australia national rugby league team, Australia national football team etc.GordyB 22:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- 'cept if you are Australian, in which case you'd guess Australian, as that's how we'd phrase it
[edit] Not a vandal
Please I am not a vandal and my edits were good faith. I would be willing to discuss the changes, but I thought they were a more accurate history. These are my following points.
About the removed point, the ratings of the RL tri-nations between Australia and New Zealand had a higher t.v. audience in NSW and QLD than the Wallabies Bledisloe. Socceroos have also emerged this year as undeniably very popular too. But if you think it should be removed than whatever. The RL tri-nations at the end of this year should however be a far better indicator about RL's popularity compared to Rugby Union tri-nations this year. I am not trying to make definitve commenting on which is actually more popular at this point, just that the Wallabies and the cricket team do not stand alone at the head of the heap in terms of representing Australia internationally. So whilst that comment was true enough in say 2003, the national sporting landscape has since changed.
The Rugby Union did not exist until 1870, so the players could not have been playing Union in 1839, but Rugby football in its more ancient form.
Dally Messenger was not poached, but heavily influenced by the than Australian cricket captain, who was at that point well payed, who made a forceful argument to him about players recieving some of the proceeds of the wealth they created. So it would be truer to comment that Messenger immediately signed up than that he was poached by an organisation he was fundamental to creating.
Rugby League did not poach Union players with money in 1908-1910, as tour money on a Rugby Union tour was worth more. They chose to play for social reasons etc. It should be noted that catholic schools took to the new sport straight away. It was a nationalistic wind that blew through creating the new professional League.
To explain the crapness and lack of dominance of the ARU until the eighties, it really does need to be remarked that the RU was for the most part played exclusively at a non shamateur level in private schools by forced exclusion of RL. That is why the Wallabies were so weak despite the fact that Australia really is the top Rugby nation.
Union players were not enticed by the money as has often been suggested but by the challenge in a harder Rugby competition that applied professional principles to its training. Ricky Stuart recently noted that he was bagged by David Campese when if he had of stayed in Union at that time he would have earned more money. It should be noted for the case of the above point that both Ricky and Wally Lewis were RL juniors who were forced to play RU by an exclusionary policy by private schools.
So therefore, I have reverted the additions but will remove that first line.
Regards
- The thing I'd take issue with was the fact that soccer didn't become established as England's premier sport until after the 1950s. Firstly the North of England is not all of England - league had virtually no following outside Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria (soccer had its stronghold in Lancashire 6 out 12 founding clubs); secondly union had very little following other than internationals until very recently; thirdly even in the early part of 20th century league was fighting a losing battle against soccer - Manningham and Bradford became soccer clubs and the rugby tradition of Manchester and Liverpool largely died out.GordyB 13:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not dispute any of your points. However the article at that time was referring to mid to late 19th century at that point.
- Different matter then I think cricket was king back then with rugby in second place.GordyB 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 14 or 11
This article states that 11 players from the team that played in the 1908 Olympics left for league, but other internet sites I see say 14. Ayone know which is the correct figure? Cvene64 16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Past players
What type of criteria is being used to determine who goes in this list? Is there any at all? If not, I think we should discuss what should constitute a players notability for inclusion. I don't really have any huge problems with it at all, I just think we should come up with some sort of set of guidelines..yeah?Narrasawa 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- When I started editing Wikipedia, there were only a few national team pages which were little more than stubs. I tried to bring them up to a reasonable standard as quickly as possible and give them a common layout. Hence the 'famous / notable players' sections were created by cannablising an existing list of famous players (List of footballers (Rugby Union)), I then added players that were in the IRB hall of fame. Since then other players have been added. The lists are not complete and tend to be biased towards the modern era.
- There was a proposed criteria list on the Talk:All Blacks page which I am re-posting
- Some suggestions for criteria, in order of importance:
- Those with widespread international media coverage (ie Jonah)
- Those in the International Rugby Hall of Fame
- Those who have notable achievements outside of rugby (eg as an MP or in business)
- Those awarded honours (MNZM or MBE, or if that includes too many players then ONZM or OBE)
- Those who played in most tests over a long period (8 years?)
- Some suggestions for criteria, in order of importance:
- I would add involvement in a major incident or 50+ caps.GordyB 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- That sounds pretty good to me. Maybe we can write this up on the wikiproject or something for everyone else to view? Narrasawa 09:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] History
This page is pretty long now, and it could be a problem for people who have a slow connection. What do people think of splitting off a History article? Cvene64 21:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Inevitable at some point. Perhaps a very brief outline could be left and then put a link to the main history page.GordyB 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think having the main link, with maybe three good paragraphs or so that give an overview. I tried the same thing on the England page, but it was an unsuccessful trial, and I merged it all back, as no one was editing the other article. Cvene64 08:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notable tours
Anyone interested in starting some individual pages for all the notable Wallaby tours?Narrasawa 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
