National success vs size of player base

After the Grand Slam success of 2005, I posted that as ecstatic as we were about our first success in 27 years, we should enjoy it for what it was - a one off. I think it was Dick Best who said that Wales' success was built on sand and deep down most of us agreed. My argument was based on the fact that in the professional age, a country with less than 50,000 registered players could not possibly compete on an annual basis with the likes of England who had 20 times that number. Isolated success was the result of a rare combination of factors - a once in a generation group of talented players who were all fit and all on top of their game and sprinkle on top an element of luck.

Lo and behold it all came crashing down soon afterwards and it seemed the status quo was restored. But then following the disastrous 2007 world cup came another slam. However it wasn't all of the same bunch of talented individuals. The likes of Sidoli, Cockbain, Dafydd Jones, Hal Luscombe, Kevin Morgan, Michael Owen and Gareth Thomas had been replaced. So there went one element of my theory. Fast forward to 2012 and Wales are favoured to complete a third Grand Slam and this time the team is almost totally different to 2008.
So the issue is this. How significant is the size of a country's player base with respect to its long term success and what is the biggest factor that enables a country with limited resources to be successful?

There was an article on this on the BBC. The journalist had actually used calculations to support the player base VS success arguement.

Player base doesn't mean much if it isn't quality.

Our Boland region has 175 clubs and they are mostly cheese and wine teams.

Agreed biltong, too much is placed on player base but it really has no bearing if the standard is low.

The difference is that in 2005 the Slam was built on Sand - Gatland just imported some good cement from the Valleys and now we have concrete - Still a few cracks to pave over but Gatts is building a solid structure for the future. If the Slams come then that's fine but what's more important is staedy progress and secure footings. The team no longer crumbles when a mini tremor is on the horizon and that's good news. What we now need of course is to beat a relatively poor Italian side and beat them well and then live up to our billing and beat a very good french side. Only then can we really cement our place at the top of the Northern Hemisphere. Rock on


Dick Best came up with the Sand analogy as most know - In my opinion he certainly lives up to his name, and lets face it, he's not the Best

Problem with a cement slab, it can still be susceptable to landslide and subsidence

Its not the 50,000 players thats the problem, its the elite 100 of those that makes a difference,...and really your top 30 within that.

Once a Union is big enough and financialy strong enough to support a proper professional structure it shouldnt really make that much of a difference if theres not a million middle aged men playing on a sunday afternoon before the pub.
Having a strong presence in schools ( which wales has, and Id assume more so than in england) a desire and prestige to be a rugby player, and a strong rugby culture ( which arguably Wales has more of in many areas than England does) counts for much more.
England does have a larger professional set up and more funding than Wales. For most of the professional era they ahve been ranked above Wales, and despite the lack of recent 6 nations success they have had overall better results, even post 2003 ( I havent checked the exact win losses) Id be surprissed if Wales have won more games against quality opposition, and overall their results would be at leats on a par.

England shoudl be doing better than that though. Theres still a failing translating the talent they have at age grade level year after year, through the sacxons and club system into a playing squad of 32 and within that finding true world class stars and keeping them at that level.

Theres a counter argument that says Englands volume of players at times has caused them problems, with players finding the opportunities limited and being frozen out too easily. The small top level professional set up ( 4 regions) has caused Wales some problems in certain positions with depth, but it also means theres constant tight comeptition to even get a club starting place driveing player quality.

has this analogy been stretched to breaking point ?

biltongbek wrote:Problem with a cement slab, it can still be susceptable to landslide and subsidence

We are only too aware of that and have now started to import Granite, we have a few pillars of it at 11 and 14 respectively and are developing some at 15, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 - Its expensive but it might pay dividends in the long run. We've heard England have started to unearth diamonds at 10 but in all honesty they also can be brittle if they are not the real deal.

Mate even if you plant 15 pillars of concrete on 7000 sqm the load bearing isn't sufficient to prevent landslide.

Get an engineer, not a rugby coach, he will be able to take soil samples of the millenium stadium and tell you how many North's you need to prevent disaster.

1 North is all that is needed - In time there will be no South, East or West - Just North

Then onward with you my friend, go north, until you reach the south pole, then carry on on the same vector until eventually you reach the same spot and then do it again.
I will leave you with this passage from the song Mad world by Gary Jules.


I find it hard to tell you, I find it hard to take

When people run in circles it’s a very very

Maaaaaad world

Would you be running in circles though? Surley when you reached the pole you would turn and retrace your steps, North would Switch wouldn't it?

I find it hard to tell you, that North has scored a try

He has 'em running circles and they often wonder why

Grrrrrreat world

All around him are familiar faces, familiar places

thebluesmancometh wrote:Would you be running in circles though? Surley when you reached the pole you would turn and retrace your steps, North would Switch wouldn't it?

well it depends which option he selcts when he reaches the north pole.

If he decides to stay on the same vecotr he will reach the south pole eventually.

If on the other hand he gets confused(which I am leaning toward) he will just stay put.

I find it hard to tell you, he's missed another tackle.
The crowd is stting back and having another kackle

Saaaaaaad world

All around him are familiar heckling, familiar heckling

When you're at the North Pole, surely every vector is south?

nobbled wrote:When you're at the North Pole, surely every vector is south?

Yes, that is why I am thinking he will be as confused as I am right about now.

I did vectors many, many, many years ago and can for the life of me not figure out this conundrum, all thanks to thebluesmancometh.

thanks for confusing me as well. I can just imagine what old Georgie is going to do when he gets to the north pole.

Ah, the essential conundrum:
If one starts running north (or North) and continues in a straight line, one will cross the pole then be running south (or South).
Then, one will cross the other pole and be running north (or North) once again.
Continuing in this straight line, one will arrive back where this started.
So running in a straight line is exactly the same as running in circles.
Explain that to someone, eh? Especially to a lummox who does not understand Rugby.

Gee, thanks doc, that is where my reasoning started but then these guys tried to get smart with me.

doctor_grey wrote:Ah, the essential conundrum:
If one starts running north (or North) and continues in a straight line, one will cross the pole then be running south (or South).
Then, one will cross the other pole and be running north (or North) once again.
Continuing in this straight line, one will arrive back where this started.
So running in a straight line is exactly the same as running in circles.
Explain that to someone, eh? Especially to a lummox who does not understand Rugby.

Ahh but would that be seen as running in circles or seen running (tracing) a circumferance which is actually deemed straight?

eirebilly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Ah, the essential conundrum:
If one starts running north (or North) and continues in a straight line, one will cross the pole then be running south (or South).
Then, one will cross the other pole and be running north (or North) once again.
Continuing in this straight line, one will arrive back where this started.
So running in a straight line is exactly the same as running in circles.
Explain that to someone, eh? Especially to a lummox who does not understand Rugby.

Ahh but would that be seen as running in circles or seen running a circumferance which is actually deemed straight?

Not if its Garteh Thomas

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Ah, the essential conundrum:
If one starts running north (or North) and continues in a straight line, one will cross the pole then be running south (or South).
Then, one will cross the other pole and be running north (or North) once again.
Continuing in this straight line, one will arrive back where this started.
So running in a straight line is exactly the same as running in circles.
Explain that to someone, eh? Especially to a lummox who does not understand Rugby.

Ahh but would that be seen as running in circles or seen running a circumferance which is actually deemed straight?

Not if its Garteh Thomas

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2012/01/why_scotland_are_better_than_e.html

Hold on, I hear you saying. Are there really 2.5m rugby players in England? According to IRB figures, yes, but it's a technical anomaly. That figure includes teenage schoolboys and primary school kids who may have played a couple of games of tag rugby.

A much more pertinent figure is the number of senior males - over 18 years of age - registered in each nation. Calculated on that basis (England down to 166,762, France 110,270, Ireland 25,440, Wales 22,408, Italy 15,848, Scotland 11,687)

It seems to me that the Irish and Welsh with about 25,000 senior male players, have enough to be competitive. But Scotland with 11,687 and Italy with 15,848 seem to struggle to field a team without major weak areas.

biltongbek wrote:Player base doesn't mean much if it isn't quality.

Our Boland region has 175 clubs and they are mostly cheese and wine teams.

Have you got an application form? Do they accept props who can't scrum due to bad backs playing in the back three?

Feckless Rogue wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2012/01/why_scotland_are_better_than_e.html

Hold on, I hear you saying. Are there really 2.5m rugby players in England? According to IRB figures, yes, but it's a technical anomaly. That figure includes teenage schoolboys and primary school kids who may have played a couple of games of tag rugby.

A much more pertinent figure is the number of senior males - over 18 years of age - registered in each nation. Calculated on that basis (England down to 166,762, France 110,270, Ireland 25,440, Wales 22,408, Italy 15,848, Scotland 11,687)

It seems to me that the Irish and Welsh with about 25,000 senior male players, have enough to be competitive. But Scotland with 11,687 and Italy with 15,848 seem to struggle to field a team without major weak areas.

Id also look at the number of those players who are playing "top division" professional rugby.
Id estimate England France roughly the same, Wales Ireland about half that, Italy Scotland half again.

Again much more relevant than 90% who are playing low level non preofessional rugby and would never be in line for a national cap.

Glas a du wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Player base doesn't mean much if it isn't quality.

Our Boland region has 175 clubs and they are mostly cheese and wine teams.

Have you got an application form? Do they accept props who can't scrum due to bad backs playing in the back three?

No application form is necessary, mate.

There are thousands of those type of clubs around anywhere in SA, you just need to rock up, look like a rugby player and Bob's your uncle.