Wallabies fans have their say on James O'Connor's potential return
After the news emerged recently that exiled Australian utility back James O’Connor could make a return before the World Cup this year, fans on social media are keen to see the 28-year-old make his comeback.
O’Connor was once the golden boy of Australian rugby, having made his debut at the age of 18. However, his international career ground to a halt in 2013 due to off-field controversies, and since then he has moved to Europe to recover and save his career.
He has had stints with London Irish, European giants Toulon and is currently with Sale Sharks, but could make a return to Super Rugby to facilitate his selection for the World Cup.
Under the Giteau Law, O’Connor would not be able to play for Australia whilst playing abroad as he has under 60 caps, 44, meaning he would need to make a move back to his native land.
The back is part of a contingent of exiled Australians, such as Will Skelton and Scott Fardy, that people are campaigning for to make a return to the national set-up. However, O’Connor looks to be the only player in which that is close to being a reality after these latest rumours.
Many Australian fans seem to want this move to happen now that he has got his career and life back on track. New South Wales Waratahs fans are particularly keen to see O’Connor in Sydney.
This is what has been said:
The firing of Israel Folau threw the Waratah’s season into turmoil in 2019, and could well affect the national team in the Rugby Championship and World Cup. This will force Michael Cheika to rejig his team, meaning Kurtley Beale may play as a fullback now for the Wallabies.
This would open a space at 12 for O’Connor under Cheika, or he can play 15 himself. Either way, Australian rugby is crying out for a player to fill the void left by Folau and O’Connor could be that man.
In other news - Taniela Tupou
Latest Comments
This team should be called the "2023 Form and Reputation with a French Bias XV"
Go to commentsI think the argument behind the future of Rugby and defence vs attack is a pertinent one but also misses a big point. Rugby is a game about momentum and big swings of momentum makes games entertaining. You get and lose momentum in a few ways. You kick a 50-22 after defending for multiple phases (huge momentum swing), you get two penalties in a row thanks to bad opposition discipline allowing you to peel of large meters, you maintain large amounts of territory and possession tiring opponents out, you get a penalty from the set piece, a yellow or red card etc. The laws in the past years that have made the biggest impact has addressed stale games where no team can seize the momentum. The 50-22 has been a raging success as it allows huge momentum swings. The interpretations around ruck time and changes there to favour the team in possession has allowed sides like Ireland to wear teams down with possession-based play and maintain and build momentum. The Dupont law (which killed momentum) and now the reversing of it has had a huge impact and now the access interpretation of the laws around kick chases which forces teams and players to allow access to the catcher is set to make a big impact and everyone loves it because it allows a contest on the catch and more importantly could lead to huge swings in momentum. The worst laws have failed to allow teams to seize momentum. When rugby allowed teams to pass the ball back into the 22 and clear it was clearly a bad law as it allowed nobody to build momentum. Clearly the laws that changed several penalty offences around ruck and set piece to free kicks was aimed at speeding up the game but was a poor law because it killed momentum as teams would infringe regularly without major consequences from penalties and also it did not reward the team that made a big play to win possession from a penalizable offence. In the modern game you can win matches in many ways. You can dominate possession and territory like Ireland or play off counterattack and turnovers like France. You can dominate with the set piece and seize momentum that way like SA, or stifle teams with momentum killing defence. You can run strike moves off first and second phase and score in the blink of an eye like NZ. Every team with every style has a chance. World cup finals are all about ensuring that your opponent cannot seize momentum. Every team is so afraid to make mistakes that give away momentum that they play conservatively until they no longer can afford to. The game favours no style and no type of play and thats why the big 4 teams are so closely matched. In the end it all comes down to execution and the team that executes better wins. For my mind that is a well balanced game and it is on the right track.
Go to comments