Composed Cottesloe Choke Palmyra out of Grand Final

[Hansie]

Some good rugby was played in the Grand Final, but I cannot help but ask " where did Perth Metro or community rugby win??? How many players in either Grand Final team were a product of Perth club or school rugby? Players who either began their careers at School and Brittania, or came in later from other countries and states but call Perth home?

How are we ever going to seriously create our own rugby professionals if we have premier grade teams dominated by imports? Why don't we follow S14 all the way and limit imports to 2 per team?

[rick boyd]

Careful Rick, you'll start blowing holes in your own argument if you follow that line too much further.

I await your illustration of same.

For mine, it doesn't matter a toss whether a competition has a final series or not. the winner at the end of the day is the team that fit the structure best. To compete in the competition and then complain about the structure of the competition is ludicrous, and I don't think many Paly players will be whingeing about HAVING a grand final (although some will be pissed about losing it)

I am not commenting about this grand final or the WA rugby competition in particular. It was a general theoretical comment about the nature of finals.

I think, If there is any outcry from Paly, it'll be about the Force players parachuted in from East to help Cott get over the line. Reading the write up it doesn't sound like they had much effect on the game, but in a limited amount of space, their contribution may have gone unnoticed.

Brown had his best game in blue-on-blue and Swanepoel was again a significant contributor. But not even Richie McCaw could dominate the entire Palmyra team by himself. Make no mistake, this was a game won by forward domination and a very composed, consistent team game from 15 players.

I don't particularly care whether there's a finals or not. Different structures will honour different things. A finals series is good at finding the team that's best in a 'clutch' game, when everything's on the line. I guess that's why Kiwis don't like them!

Contrary to public opinion skewed by the flukes of the world cup knockout tournament, New Zealand has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to win the big games that matter to clinch test series, where ability is more accurately measured. Repeat after me: knockout matches do not measure quality; they measure opportunity.

[James]

Enough quality, though, and you can minimise the effects of opportunity, and besides isn't the ability to make the most of an opportunity a type of quality?

What exactly is an opportunity anyway? A forward pass missed by a referee? A stomach virus that affects a whole team?

In a sport where home advantage is huge, World Cups are about the only time you ever play at a neutral venue. When England beat Australia who was the better team? They hadn't played each other on neutral soil since 1995. England won. Was their demolition of the Australian scrum an opportunity? Or was it quality? I'd have said quality. Though I loathe to admit it. Or does the quality have to be of the whole team? The whole squad? How can you explain in 2007 when the All Blacks beat France twice at home by 31 and then 51 points followed by a 2 point loss to France in Cardiff the same year? Where did all the quality go? Surely there can't be 33 points worth of opportunity in a knock-out match?

[GIGS20]

I await your illustration of same.

OK, if both teams win the same number of matches, there would be a significant case for them to share the minor premiership. In such a situation surely there's some way in which we could decide which is the better team..Possibly a series of post season games culminating in a final game (on a grand scale) which could be used to decide the premiership......simply one logical extension of the line you were beginning to argue!

I am not commenting about this grand final or the WA rugby competition in particular. It was a general theoretical comment about the nature of finals.

READ Rick, neither was I, I was merely commenting on the fact that a competition's structure is well publicised and any team which doesn't buy into that structure doesn't have to compete.

Contrary to public opinion skewed by the flukes of the world cup knockout tournament, New Zealand has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to win the big games that matter to clinch test series, where ability is more accurately measured. Repeat after me: knockout matches do not measure quality; they measure opportunity.

I find I don't agree with you at all on that last point. Knockout matches measure the ability of a team to perform under pressure, clearly a skill the All Blacks do not master. It's OK Rick I'm happy for you to have your opinion, but I don't, nor will I ever agree that Knockout matches don't measure quality.....they only fail to measure quality when a team which builds it's idenitity around being the best in the team cannot win them. I believe it comes from a certain amount of AllBlack arrogance, the logic of which goes, 'The All Blacks are the best rugby team in the World, the All Blacks regularly lose knockout matches, Knockout matches are obviously flawed in assessing the quality of rugby teams.'

Such logic is impeccable if the initial assumption that the AllBlacks are the best team in the World is accurate. If However, the only empirical evidence which takes into account all International teams (Of which there are two measures) clearly places the All Blacks lower than that point, surely the logic is flawed.

If anything is true, it would be that the Springboks are the best in the world, since both the IRB ranking and the most recent World Cup place them there.......SA are VERY good at knockout games, hows the logic look now?

[welshrugbyfan]

Was their demolition of the Australian scrum an opportunity? Or was it quality?

They destroyed it in 2007 as well. Got smashed by a good honest hard at the ball forward pack. The three aussie commentators looked like blow up dolls when they cut back to them after the game.

Fast forward two years and nothing has changed.

[James]

They destroyed it in 2007 as well. Got smashed by a good honest hard at the ball forward pack. The three aussie commentators looked like blow up dolls when they cut back to them after the game.

Fast forward two years and nothing has changed.

Do you mean 2005? I was already talking about 2007. Smashed they were and never was there a worse time to be in England since the Black Plague. The point is though that they were beaten. Outplayed and outskilled and outenthused but that wasn't opportunity. That was seeing a weakness in an opponent (in this case a big one) and tearing into it without fury. It's what good teams try to do and what great teams constantly do. The issue between finals or no finals is whether two or three finals games or a dozen or so games throughout the year should decide which team is better. But if you are the best team surely you will win the final anyway. Again looking at the World Cups the team that won each one could arguably be considered the best team in the world irrespective of the cup. Can anyone argue against England being the best team in 2003 (when they beat all three SH teams away in the months coming up to it) or Australia in 1999 (with legends like John Eales and Tim Horan)? 1995 is a toughie what with SA coming out of isolation but you look at the form SA has shown this year that shows the 2007 World Champions title is well and truly deserved by the Boks.

[Ecky]

So anyway, I was very pleased to see Dave Ball, the Paly coach, beaming with enthusiasm after the final whistle, congratulating his players and clearly delighted they had got themselves into The Big Game. He was not all bitter and twisted about having come second. Onya Dave

I wonder whether Chook would've reacted the same way..

[welshrugbyfan]

Do you mean 2005? I was already talking about 2007. Smashed they were and never was there a worse time to be in England since the Black Plague. The point is though that they were beaten. Outplayed and outskilled and outenthused but that wasn't opportunity. That was seeing a weakness in an opponent (in this case a big one) and tearing into it without fury. It's what good teams try to do and what great teams constantly do. The issue between finals or no finals is whether two or three finals games or a dozen or so games throughout the year should decide which team is better. But if you are the best team surely you will win the final anyway. Again looking at the World Cups the team that won each one could arguably be considered the best team in the world irrespective of the cup. Can anyone argue against England being the best team in 2003 (when they beat all three SH teams away in the months coming up to it) or Australia in 1999 (with legends like John Eales and Tim Horan)? 1995 is a toughie what with SA coming out of isolation but you look at the form SA has shown this year that shows the 2007 World Champions title is well and truly deserved by the Boks.

Sorry I was also talking about 2007 the reference to two years is now. There still getting beaten up like schoolboys in the forwards.

[rick boyd]

Enough quality, though, and you can minimise the effects of opportunity, and besides isn't the ability to make the most of an opportunity a type of quality?

What exactly is an opportunity anyway? A forward pass missed by a referee? A stomach virus that affects a whole team?

In a sport where home advantage is huge, World Cups are about the only time you ever play at a neutral venue. When England beat Australia who was the better team? They hadn't played each other on neutral soil since 1995. England won. Was their demolition of the Australian scrum an opportunity? Or was it quality? I'd have said quality. Though I loathe to admit it. Or does the quality have to be of the whole team? The whole squad? How can you explain in 2007 when the All Blacks beat France twice at home by 31 and then 51 points followed by a 2 point loss to France in Cardiff the same year? Where did all the quality go? Surely there can't be 33 points worth of opportunity in a knock-out match?

The point is a simple one. Two teams play a four test series, the one that wins 3-1 will have few arguments that they are the better team. Two teams play a one-off match, the winner could be the better team, or they might just be winning the one game before losing the other three had it been a four test series. Not all that convincing.

---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was at 00:07 ----------

OK, if both teams win the same number of matches, there would be a significant case for them to share the minor premiership. In such a situation surely there's some way in which we could decide which is the better team..Possibly a series of post season games culminating in a final game (on a grand scale) which could be used to decide the premiership......simply one logical extension of the line you were beginning to argue!

Except that we don't really need to. One team has already proven they are better by winnings games against other teams that the second team lost. It's not only about head-to-head.

READ Rick, neither was I,

There's really no need for rudeness. It doesn't make your point any clearer.

I was merely commenting on the fact that a competition's structure is well publicised and any team which doesn't buy into that structure doesn't have to compete.

It's not like there's a choice, though, is there? And it doesn't alter the fundamental point that finals don't find the best team. The round robin competition has already done that.

I find I don't agree with you at all on that last point. Knockout matches measure the ability of a team to perform under pressure, clearly a skill the All Blacks do not master. It's OK Rick I'm happy for you to have your opinion, but I don't, nor will I ever agree that Knockout matches don't measure quality.....they only fail to measure quality when a team which builds it's idenitity around being the best in the team cannot win them. I believe it comes from a certain amount of All Black arrogance, the logic of which goes, 'The All Blacks are the best rugby team in the World, the All Blacks regularly lose knockout matches, Knockout matches are obviously flawed in assessing the quality of rugby teams.'

That knockout matches measure the ability of teams to perform under pressure is right up there with the other old cliches, it's a level playing field, champion teams known how to win the matches that matter etc. And it's patently untrue. If teams KNEW how to perform under pressure they'd do it every time. Virtually all teams produce varying levels of performance from game to game and the unfairness of knockout tournaments to measure consistent quality means that the one poor game deprives you of further competition, whereas in the more accurate measure of a test series, the team can absorb the poor game and go on to win the series because its quality will be more accurately measured over the larger sample.

It's seductive to mistake the higher profile of finals for higher quality, but it has no basis in fact.

Such logic is impeccable if the initial assumption that the AllBlacks are the best team in the World is accurate. If However, the only empirical evidence which takes into account all International teams (Of which there are two measures) clearly places the All Blacks lower than that point, surely the logic is flawed.

If anything is true, it would be that the Springboks are the best in the world, since both the IRB ranking and the most recent World Cup place them there.......SA are VERY good at knockout games, hows the logic look now?

There is no logic in that statement. South Africa are not very good at knockout games because no teams are good at knockout games. They cannot be, because knockout games purely and simply on the mathematics of statistics cannot be a good measure of a team's ability. Taking an isolated team in an isolated time period and using it to justify a flawed premise is not logic.

Forget about the Springboks and the All Blacks, that just muddies the water with emotional baggage, to mix a couple of unlikely metaphors. This is simply about what knockout series and tournaments should be valued for (a high profile celebration of the game) and what they should not be valued for (finding the best team). One they do very well, the other they do very poorly.

[GIGS20]

Forget about the Springboks and the All Blacks, that just muddies the water with emotional baggage, to mix a couple of unlikely metaphors. This is simply about what knockout series and tournaments should be valued for (a high profile celebration of the game) and what they should not be valued for (finding the best team). One they do very well, the other they do very poorly.

I think I detect a circular argument forming. I don't understand how discussing two teams which regularly play rugby in both knockout and finals-based competitions muddies the waters, I would have thought it makes it clearer. The sample sizes for Tri-Nations teams in test and World Cups surely would answer your argument about sample size, but that's not really what you're arguing is it Rick. The statistics argument is satisfied by the round robin portion of the tournament selecting the Empirically best (by your argument) 4 teams to compete in the knockout rounds. It can be seen though that a very good team can have a bad start to round robin and still qualify for this series......If that team wins does that make it a better team? Some would say yes, others (I assume including yourself) would say no. I say, there are many valid measures of the quality of a team. Qualifying through a round robin into a knockout tournament is a perfectly valid one. I don't expect you to agree, You're welcome to respond, but I think we're likely to hash over the same arguments without making any impact on each other's viewpoint. I plan to step back from this discussion as it's taking time that I really need to spend on work.

Thanks for the exercise.

[shasta]

I think I detect a circular argument forming.

Rick's been running this argument to rationalise the AB's record in RWC for years on usenet. Plenty have thrown up the counters to it but he's still going strong. I doubt he'll change anytime soon. At least until they win another one.

[pruc]

Some good rugby was played in the Grand Final, but I cannot help but ask " where did Perth Metro or community rugby win??? How many players in either Grand Final team were a product of Perth club or school rugby? Players who either began their careers at School and Brittania, or came in later from other countries and states but call Perth home?

How are we ever going to seriously create our own rugby professionals if we have premier grade teams dominated by imports? Why don't we follow S14 all the way and limit imports to 2 per team?

in order for the level of rugby to improve in WA imports are vital so by limiting it isnt the answer. look at wests this year trying to build from local talent they got pumped and you find me a team/ club that is willing to get pumped week in week out for seasons on end until they mature.

Imports are what the force is made out of (bar longbottom, JT and DH-P) however the academy is filled with mostly local boys with a couple of imports. Local competition is strengthening with more and more local talent being on display take the 18s grand final this year. So in answering your arguement community rugby won with a higher level of club rugby being exposed to the up and coming players it allows their development on the pathway to profesional rugby.

[GIGS20]

in order for the level of rugby to improve in WA imports are vital so by limiting it isnt the answer. look at wests this year trying to build from local talent they got pumped and you find me a team/ club that is willing to get pumped week in week out for seasons on end until they mature.

The mighty Rocko Wallaroos!

OK, I'm not really privy to any understanding of whether Rocko actually import players or not, but we certainly hold with the first part of that statement.

It's interesting that the first (and AFAIK only) local club grown Forceman (K-Bomb) hails from said rogering candidate.

[Action Hardcore]

in order for the level of rugby to improve in WA imports are vital so by limiting it isnt the answer. look at wests this year trying to build from local talent they got pumped and you find me a team/ club that is willing to get pumped week in week out for seasons on end until they mature.

Imports are what the force is made out of (bar longbottom, JT and DH-P) however the academy is filled with mostly local boys with a couple of imports. Local competition is strengthening with more and more local talent being on display take the 18s grand final this year. So in answering your arguement community rugby won with a higher level of club rugby being exposed to the up and coming players it allows their development on the pathway to profesional rugby.

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[KalaFan]

CALM YOURSELF