Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: This whole dilution argument.. What?

  1. #1
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000

    This whole dilution argument.. What?

    So we keep getting told 5 teams in Australia is diluting our player base. I've NEVER liked this theory. But last night when i was chatting to one of my Sud African mates and he raised it about his country, I thought I'd google.

    So dilution means you are over extending your pool of players right? Asking too much from too few.. So how big is our pool of players in regard to everybody else? I googled and found world rugby's 2016 census..

    England = over 2 million people avoiding soap
    Australia = more than 650k convicts and pick pockets
    Sud Africa = more than 450k hole diggers obsessed with shiny rocks
    New Zealand = about 150k blokes in gumboots checkin' sheep out..

    There you go. Based on the dilution principal England alone should beet the all Blacks 20 to 1.

    So I did a little maths and discovered about 1 in 30 Kiwis are rugby players. Surprisingly in Australia it's 1 in 35. Which I think derails the argument that
    AFL, League and football dilute our player pool..

    Let's talk of this no more..

    I'm guessing New Zealand just has better coaching ideals, easier development pathways, a more confident mentality, a greater celebration of the grass roots game and A CENTRAL MANAGEMENT THAT KNOWS HOW TO ORGANISE AND ENCOURAGE THIS EFFECTIVELY...

    Not something the ARU is prepared to put it's hand up and admit is lacking in Australia..

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    cheers auss...
    fabricarti diem punc

  2. #2
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000
    Oh and if you're interested? The link below shows the World Rugby census..
    http://www.worldrugby.org/development/player-numbers

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    cheers auss...
    fabricarti diem punc

  3. #3
    Champion zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    perth
    Posts
    1,266
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by antiussentiment View Post
    So we keep getting told 5 teams in Australia is diluting our player base. I've NEVER liked this theory. But last night when i was chatting to one of my Sud African mates and he raised it about his country, I thought I'd google.

    So dilution means you are over extending your pool of players right? Asking too much from too few.. So how big is our pool of players in regard to everybody else? I googled and found world rugby's 2016 census..

    England = over 2 million people avoiding soap
    Australia = more than 650k convicts and pick pockets
    Sud Africa = more than 450k hole diggers obsessed with shiny rocks
    New Zealand = about 150k blokes in gumboots checkin' sheep out..

    There you go. Based on the dilution principal England alone should beet the all Blacks 20 to 1.

    So I did a little maths and discovered about 1 in 30 Kiwis are rugby players. Surprisingly in Australia it's 1 in 35. Which I think derails the argument that
    AFL, League and football dilute our player pool..

    Let's talk of this no more..

    I'm guessing New Zealand just has better coaching ideals, easier development pathways, a more confident mentality, a greater celebration of the grass roots game and A CENTRAL MANAGEMENT THAT KNOWS HOW TO ORGANISE AND ENCOURAGE THIS EFFECTIVELY...

    Not something the ARU is prepared to put it's hand up and admit is lacking in Australia..
    You sure about those stats? I thought there were only around 70'000 registered rugby union players in Australia.

    And I do agree with the dilution argument. We've got guys running around playing Super rugby that were recruited from club rugby, country NSW vs Kiwi teams who have almost a whole squad of All Blacks. Almost everyone of them has some form of rep experience, ABs, Junior ABs, 7s, Moaris etc We don't have enough quality players to fill 5 sides, exemplified by the poor showing by Australia sides in the Super comp this year. Plus people are leaving the sport in their droves. 2001 the number of rugby players was over 154'000, now it's less than 50'000, a 63% drop. I don't even think we have enough for 4 sides. Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Italy and Japan all have more players. And I think in order for the Wallabies to succeed we need to have the Australian Super teams doing well. They perform poorly, the national side will get spanked, as we'll soon find out in the rugby championship.

    However I think the teams to go should be Rebels and Brumbies. Although the latter have performed well, they don't have any local player recruitment, virtually all their players are important, they have very poor crowd numbers and there is little in the way of finance. We need a team in WA.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #4
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    They're right according to World Rugby https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...-MAP-FINAL.pdf

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  5. #5
    Champion Contributor sandgroperrugby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wattle Grove
    Posts
    2,083
    vCash
    5308000
    I would agree with that but, excluding the Rebels the two worst performing sides come from the rugby heartland and have the most Wallabies. Coaching and rugby programs are killing us. Look at the Reds they are toilet and then look at the names on the roster Smith, Moore, Cooper, Simmons, Higginbotham, Hunt, Kerevi, Magnay, Nabuli, Slipper, Feauai-Sautia, Frisby, Douglas plus a couple of new faces . Look and the Warratahs and look at the roster Dempsey, Folau, Foley, Hanigan, Hooper, Horne, Kepu, Latu, Mumm, Naiyaravoro, Phipps, Robertson Skelton. THESE GUYS HAVE ALL BEEN IN AND AROUND THE WALLABIES.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Generally speaking you aren’t learning much if your lips are moving!!!

  6. #6
    Veteran sittingbison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    North Freo
    Posts
    2,800
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by sandgroperrugby View Post
    I would agree with that but, excluding the Rebels the two worst performing sides come from the rugby heartland and have the most Wallabies. Coaching and rugby programs are killing us. Look at the Reds they are toilet and then look at the names on the roster Smith, Moore, Cooper, Simmons, Higginbotham, Hunt, Kerevi, Magnay, Nabuli, Slipper, Feauai-Sautia, Frisby, Douglas plus a couple of new faces . Look and the Warratahs and look at the roster Dempsey, Folau, Foley, Hanigan, Hooper, Horne, Kepu, Latu, Mumm, Naiyaravoro, Phipps, Robertson Skelton. THESE GUYS HAVE ALL BEEN IN AND AROUND THE WALLABIES.
    you are making Patsy Clones and Willy Pullers case that not enough players are up to super quality

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor

  7. #7
    Champion zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    perth
    Posts
    1,266
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    They're right according to World Rugby https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...-MAP-FINAL.pdf
    Yeah dunno. If it was 150'000+ that would mean there's mean no drop in the number of players in Australia, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case. Numbers from IRB have got Australian on 80'000

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ying_countries

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #8
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000
    Quote Originally Posted by zed View Post
    You sure about those stats? I thought there were only around 70'000 registered rugby union players in Australia......
    You had me wondering about it my self as I am a bit dyslexic and often get number wrong..
    But no, that's what world rugby claims..

    but anyway.. I think it's the ratio from one nation to another that's the important fact..

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    cheers auss...
    fabricarti diem punc

  9. #9
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Quote Originally Posted by zed View Post
    Yeah dunno. If it was 150'000+ that would mean there's mean no drop in the number of players in Australia, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case. Numbers from IRB have got Australian on 80'000

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ying_countries
    Not trying to extend a pointless argument, but IRB IS World Rugby, my source was directly from them, yours is from Wikipedia.

    I assume the discrepancy is in the interpretation of what is an active player. If that is the case, surely it's comparisons drawn from the same data that are meaningful, rather than comparing apples and oranges.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  10. #10
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    21,468
    vCash
    460000
    Just looking at the numbers on World Rugby's site.

    Apparently Australia has 230,753 Registered players and 669,635 overall players.

    http://www.worldrugby.org/developmen...umbers?lang=en (Takes you to the same link posted by GIGS)

    I'd like to know why the large discrepancy between those numbers. Does World Rugby cook the books like the ARU?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #11
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Maybe, maybe not.
    It could be that "Registered Players" includes those who are registered, but never take the field, Maybe one number includes sevens, schools and other stuff while another is just active 15s players.

    It is highly likely that both figures could be accurate depending upon your interpretation of "registered players" and World Rugby trots out whichever one suits it at the time. (ie when negotiating a TV rights deal, Australia has 230,000 players, so give us more money, but when negotiating insurance premiums Australia only has 85,000 you can't slug us for that much)

    That's not dodgy at all, is it?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  12. #12
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    Burgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Country WA
    Posts
    22,644
    vCash
    334000
    This is what drove my previous post http://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=38811

    There would be several more to add now and only a couple to take off, however, the premise remains, there are many more players being developed to a standard considered worthy of a professional contract in overseas markets now than prior to the Force coming into being. As mentioned, when I did the same exercise pre-Force there were around 30 players overseas, now there is in excess of 120. If you add the 25-30 from the Force, there is approximately 140 players of Australian origin at a pro level. If that doesn't justify at least five teams there is something very wrong.
    ARU has to focus on retention, rather than developing for other competitions.

    7 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Bloody oath we did!"

    Nathan Sharpe, Legend.

  13. #13
    Champion zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    perth
    Posts
    1,266
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgs View Post
    This is what drove my previous post http://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=38811

    There would be several more to add now and only a couple to take off, however, the premise remains, there are many more players being developed to a standard considered worthy of a professional contract in overseas markets now than prior to the Force coming into being. As mentioned, when I did the same exercise pre-Force there were around 30 players overseas, now there is in excess of 120. If you add the 25-30 from the Force, there is approximately 140 players of Australian origin at a pro level. If that doesn't justify at least five teams there is something very wrong.
    ARU has to focus on retention, rather than developing for other competitions.
    yup good point.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  14. #14
    Legend Contributor brokendown gunfighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    wembley
    Posts
    8,036
    vCash
    5364000
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgs View Post
    This is what drove my previous post http://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=38811

    There would be several more to add now and only a couple to take off, however, the premise remains, there are many more players being developed to a standard considered worthy of a professional contract in overseas markets now than prior to the Force coming into being. As mentioned, when I did the same exercise pre-Force there were around 30 players overseas, now there is in excess of 120. If you add the 25-30 from the Force, there is approximately 140 players of Australian origin at a pro level. If that doesn't justify at least five teams there is something very wrong.
    ARU has to focus on retention, rather than developing for other competitions.


    Logic is not a consideration here,Burgs

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  15. #15
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    15,726
    vCash
    5470000
    It would be interesting to compare the number of NZ players in pro set ups as a ratio to registered player numbers. Seems their players place more value on a black jersey. To me anyway.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 31-10-14, 18:44
  2. RM V HaNSIE ÷ Circular argument thread
    By RumourMonger in forum Western Australian Metro Rugby
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 14-05-12, 12:46
  3. Private equity argument swaying on TV revenue
    By travelling_gerry in forum Rugby
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 18-08-09, 16:43
  4. The argument for having cheerleaders
    By chook in forum Public Bar
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 25-06-07, 19:21

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •