Does the Size of the Player Pool count?

Jamie Peacock, ex England rugby league captain has said in the BBC today, of the rugby league World Cup:


"Australia have the biggest pool of players to pick from so it is no surprise that they are the favourites."


But is that really the case? Should having the largest pool of players to pick from make you World Cup favourites? Especially if you're playing at home? And does that apply to all sports? Or is it a particular difference between league and union that the number of qualified players yields an obvious favouritism in one code but not the other?

I guess the answer is NO. having the biggest pool of players does not make you favourites.

If you Take England for example, they have a bigger pool of players than what Wales do. BUT, Wales seem to win against England like they did last year.

Oh Yes! As the RFU are apparently flush with cash I'd be pretty confident in betting that our players pool is bigger, warmer and cleaner than any of the other unions pools.

Manu used it for training prior to his ferry dash down under.   

England have the biggest pool of players to choose from in union. Yet they have not been the best since 2003.

LuvSports! wrote:England have the biggest pool of players to choose from in union. Yet they have not been the best since 2003.

Here you are GE, took awhile but it's for you  

Depends surely on the players and the levels they are playing at Australia dominate Cricket
and Rugby League .Australia league and Rules are primary sports ,Union secondary they
have no infrastructure below Super level at a comparable level to ITM /Curry Cup.
BUT since the IRB rating system has been invoked have been number 2 for a lot of it.
NZ league is very much second to Union but were WC holders at league.
England/NH usually start teaching Union at a much later stage than Nz for example who
are comfortable from age 5.
When Heynke Meyer took over the Boks he stated you shouldn't have to teach Test level
players how to pass or run with the ball.

I'd say Australia are the best for a number of reasons. Playing numbers is a factor. But it's ingrained in their culture in Queensland and New South Wales. They are just so much more professional than anyone else.

By the way if you selection was just a union issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFi2mT9G65A

BC, Australia has more senior rugby players than NZ, it is just that they don't have a similar setup as NZ ie. IatM Cup.

Why in gods name do Oz not have a 2nd tier pro competition? Baffling as they clearly have the numbers.

ebop wrote:Why in gods name do Oz not have a 2nd tier pro competition? Baffling as they clearly have the numbers.

Travel issues I assume? Which leaves them with City Grade competitions instead.

Biltong wrote:BC, Australia has more senior rugby players than NZ, it is just that they don't have a similar setup as NZ ie. IatM Cup.

I got sidetracked with the Aussie league side. Agree with you completely. They lack a structure to develop players between school and super rugby. I also suspect they lose a load of top school players to rugby league.

blackcanelion wrote:

Biltong wrote:BC, Australia has more senior rugby players than NZ, it is just that they don't have a similar setup as NZ ie. IatM Cup.

I got sidetracked with the Aussie league side. Agree with you completely. They lack a structure to develop players between school and super rugby. I also suspect they lose a load of top school players to rugby league.

agree.

Rugby Union is fighting an ongoing losing battle against League.

Youngsters leaving school simply has more opportunity for a professional career in League, the comparative structures for opportunity and development don' even come close.

It's an interesting question in a general sense - Logic would suggest that simply having more players would mean you develop more outstanding ones, but if that was the case then you wouldn't have teams like the Dutch football side consistenly performing in the top half dozen or so international teams.

My suspicion is that you need a critical mass of competetive players coming through the system at any time for the cream to rise to the top - larger nations with well developed systems may have a slightly higher potential to identify and develop an exceptional individual, but it's not an overwhelming influence, and in the main as long as your player base is big enough, the difference in quality between say England and Wales is fairly trivial.

Yes and No.

It depends on many factors, overall numbers don't mean much unless its applied along with a whole load of questions.

When do these numbers take up the sport?
What is the coaching levels like from base level?
Does this sport have the first pick at the best sportsman? If not, how far down the ladder?
What is the average height-weight of the population?

According to the IRB the USA has 50,000 registered senior male players... compared to 12,000 in Wales. Are the USA better then Wales? No.

However when do these players start playing the game? In the USA rugby is played by only a handful of schools nationwide, in Wales its from primary school. That makes a huge difference.

But if applied then sure. Rugby is a physical game... maybe 2/3 -  3/4 of international test players in tier 1 nations are these days above 6'2. Its not a rule but below that players will have a significant disadvantage.

Look at the population of England, 50MM or whatever. Compared to say 6MM in Scotland. Say that they have similar height distributions.. that would mean they have 8 times the number of people of required size.... given their are only a set number of those who will have the right levels of skills, natural fitness, hand eye coordination, bravery and those who have been brought into the sport then naturally you would say tha the country with the large pool will have a greater chance of being able to replace quality with quality.

Its not the defining rule but its very important.

With a bigger pool and the correct structures in place it should be possible to be more reliably at the top of the tree. Having the correct structures in place to develop and nuture talent rather than dump developing players for the next flavor of the month is of course more important.

Once you are past a certain pool size I dont think it necessarily has a huge effect on how good your best team is, but it does have a big effect on how good the backups are. It is for instance easier for England to deal with a run of injuries than it is for Wales.

In other words its not the size of the pool its the way you use it...

I agree lostinWales

What it should mean is that your average player should be of a higher quality then one with a smaller pool... but that doesn't mean your best is necessarily better?

At the moment Wales 1st XV is better then Englands.

But I would imagine England's 2nd XV down to their 10th XV and beyond would beat their Welsh counterparts.

At the very very top, individual players make a huge difference to results. Would NZ have been as dominant throughout the last decade without Dan Carter and Richie McCaw at the helm or would we have been lauding Nick Evans and Marty Holah etc etc about the same thing?

"At the moment Wales 1st XV is better then Englands."

I beg to differ.
 
IRB World Rankings 

1 NEW ZEALAND  
2 SOUTH AFRICA
3 ENGLAND
4 AUSTRALIA
5 FRANCE  
6 WALES
7 SAMOA
8 IRELAND
9 SCOTLAND
10 ARGENTINA

Scrumpy wrote:"At the moment Wales 1st XV is better then Englands."

I beg to differ.
 
IRB World Rankings 

1 NEW ZEALAND  
2 SOUTH AFRICA
3 ENGLAND
4 AUSTRALIA
5 FRANCE  
6 WALES
7 SAMOA
8 IRELAND
9 SCOTLAND
10 ARGENTINA

They have beaten you for the last 3 years in a row, including both home and away fixtures. I beg to differ.

I think Dummyhalf and FA are on the right track.

I totally agree you need a critical mass or critical number of senior players.

I also agree with FA, experience and development from younger ages are important.

I believe sport should have a pyramid type structure.

Test team
Three to four fully professional teams
9 to 12 clubs professional or semi professional
80 to 100 amateur clubs (serious clubs, not your run of the mill iffy iffy clubs)
School structure similar to SA's which I believe is one of the best out there.

so if you consider you contract

30 test players
90 - 120 senior elite players
300 - 360 semi professional or professional players
10 000 senior amateur players

Then you have the makings of a structure that can be successful.

The problem is it doesn't stop there, facilities, coaches, management etc should be of the highest quality.

I think if you consider SA with something like 700+ clubs, you can ignore half of them as merely there as clubs for the love of the game, perhaps 20% of those clubs have quality coaching and facilities.

Scrumpy wrote:"At the moment Wales 1st XV is better then Englands."

I beg to differ.
 
IRB World Rankings 

1 NEW ZEALAND  
2 SOUTH AFRICA
3 ENGLAND
4 AUSTRALIA
5 FRANCE  
6 WALES
7 SAMOA
8 IRELAND
9 SCOTLAND
10 ARGENTINA

Well I am sad to say that actually proves what we have been talking about. You take the best possible current Welsh 15 ignoring injuries vs the best possible England 15 at the current time and its hard to argue that Wales dont have an edge (however small), having won home and away the last couple of years. But given the standard injury issues (amongst other stuff) England have been much more consistent, especially vs SH teams, which is why they are rated higher

There are two ways you can look at a team, England vs Wales, Wales has the head to head advantage, no doubt.

Overall, England however have been more successful in beating SH opponents.

Stats rarely lie!

Biltong wrote:There are two ways you can look at a team, England vs Wales, Wales has the head to head advantage, no doubt.

Overall, England however have been more successful in beating SH opponents.

Actually, that head to head has no advantage in overall history.... 56 games apiece? .. next one will decide who is on top of that battle.

I would personally say barring the 6N fiasco the games between Wales and England and have all been very close. I would imagaine they'll go back to being close the next few.

Is fiasco and euphemism for "loss" now?

is that how you would describe the ABs last twickenham adventure GE???

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:There are two ways you can look at a team, England vs Wales, Wales has the head to head advantage, no doubt.

Overall, England however have been more successful in beating SH opponents.

Actually, that head to head has no advantage in overall history.... 56 games apiece? .. next one will decide who is on top of that battle.

no mate, a test 50 years ago has no bearing on current form, in recent times Wales have had the wood over England.

whilst I agree BB, I guess it could have an impact if its part of a chain of losses... i.e. the task of ending a losing streak since 1953 (last time Wales beat the ABs) is more daunting then say last year.

Hmmm, if England concentrated on 'recent history' they wouldn't have a 1000 year Monarchy. Lancaster won't be fretting too much next time they meet.

I do think that a run can become a habit though.... remember England's psychological advantage over the French notably during the Carling years,  that French team would beat everyone, beat the ABs 2-0 in NZ and yet come England they would collapse.

fa0019 wrote:is that how you would describe the ABs last twickenham adventure GE???

Nah, in GE Lala land NZ are never beaten. Teams can only score more points, usually down to dodgy refs, food or guts.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Jamie Peacock, ex England rugby league captain has said in the BBC today, of the rugby league World Cup:


"Australia have the biggest pool of players to pick from so it is no surprise that they are the favourites."


But is that really the case? Should having the largest pool of players to pick from make you World Cup favourites? Especially if you're playing at home? And does that apply to all sports? Or is it a particular difference between league and union that the number of qualified players yields an obvious favouritism in one code but not the other?

An extremely dull question.

It is obvious that what also matters is whether a sport is able to attract its country's top athletes. We all know from our days at school that the same individuals are good at all sports.

In Australia, rugby league is a popular sport and therefore the country's top athletes will choose it ahead of football and rugby.

In England, rugby league is a minority sport and therefore the top sportsmen opt for football and then rugby.

To be fair I thought Peacock's own analysis was tragically limited and vapid. I only mentioned it in the hope it might stimulate some interesting debate or recognition that our sister code lacks any depth...being the reason for its limited appeal.

fa0019 wrote:is that how you would describe the ABs last twickenham adventure GE???

Ha!

GloriousEmpire wrote:To be fair I thought Peacock's own analysis was tragically limited and vapid. I only mentioned it in the hope it might stimulate some interesting debate or recognition that our sister code lacks any depth...being the reason for its limited appeal.

Riiight

Hood83 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:is that how you would describe the ABs last twickenham adventure GE???

Ha!

"Ingratiate with false hope" is the phrase I'm currently tending towards.

Head back in the sand fa...you've got a few weeks left to dine out on that solitary home win - of course we know anyone can win at home right?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Is fiasco and euphemism for "loss" now?

Erm no. It's defined as humiliating and complete failure. You really could look it up if you don't understand the meaning of words though! Would have thought you knew the meaning after being an England fan though GE!

I think the size of the player pool is critical. Scotland have far fewere players than othe rnations - maybe only 50 or so worth playing at pro level and only a dozen international level. this will always make it hard to competer nad injuries in crucial positions mean resoprting to backups tht cannot pass muster.

Laidlaw is our only international standard 10 for example. Jackson comes close. then who? heathcote -an inexperienced youth?

player pool is also a pretty good indicator of how popular a sport will be for fans, and since income from broadcasters and sponsors is dependent upon viewer numbers, as of course is ticket and merchandise sales, a country with a higher player pool should in theory have more to spend on coaching, facilities etc to develop their best (assuming developed countries with similar economies)

obviously it doesn't quite correlate in terms of results in test rugby, so there must be other factors which might include average height/weight of population, climate and its impact on style of play, and culture which again might impact on style of play, for example a culture which encourages risk taking or creativity might produce more successful sportspeople.

TJ wrote:I think the size of the player pool is critical.  Scotland have far fewere players than othe rnations - maybe only 50 or so worth playing at pro level and only a dozen international level.  this will always make it hard to competer nad injuries in crucial positions mean resoprting to backups tht cannot pass muster.  

Laidlaw is our only international standard 10 for example.  Jackson comes close.  then who?  heathcote -an inexperienced youth?

I agree it's very hard to compete with nad injuries.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

TJ wrote:I think the size of the player pool is critical.  Scotland have far fewere players than othe rnations - maybe only 50 or so worth playing at pro level and only a dozen international level.  this will always make it hard to competer nad injuries in crucial positions mean resoprting to backups tht cannot pass muster.  

Laidlaw is our only international standard 10 for example.  Jackson comes close.  then who?  heathcote -an inexperienced youth?

I agree it's very hard to compete with nad injuries.

How would you know GE?

I have a vivid imagination.

SecretFly wrote:Hmmm, if England concentrated on 'recent history' they wouldn't have a 1000 year Monarchy.  Lancaster won't be fretting too much next time they meet.

Recent history is all relative isn't it.
In NZ recent history is 20-30 years and ancient history is 150 years
In UK I would guess recent history is say 100 years and ancient history say 1000 years
In China recent history is 1000 years and ancient history is 5000 years.

Fortunately in all versions of recent history imaginable the All Blacks were better than the English and China (except of course 2002-3)

You undermine NZ history, nganboy.  I'll bet there was a rich oral history in existence long before the pilgims arrived with their written version.  No?

But you're right about the All Blacks bit...which is getting on for ancient history at this stage!

SecretFly wrote:You undermine NZ history, nganboy.  I'll bet there was a rich oral history in existence long before the pilgims arrived with their written version.  No?

But you're right about the All Blacks bit...which is getting on for ancient history at this stage!

I stand corrected sort of. The Maori arrived about 1000 years ago and indeed have a rich oral history (mind you everyone who doesn't invent / borrow writing has a rich oral history. But if we think of their arrival here as being just after the beginning of time then 200 years is still sort of ancient history for the Maori