Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: This whole dilution argument.. What?

  1. #16
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000
    So I decided to do a bit more googling as the more i think about it, that figure seems sketchy..
    I came up with this..

    A fortnight after the ARU was forced to issue a statement saying it “strongly rejects” Roy Morgan research, which claimed regular participation numbers fell more than 60% over 15 years, to just 55,000 active players, the organisation’s 2016 annual report claimed total participation was up 2.1% (5,632) to 273,095.

    So who knows how many there actually is?

    But anyway, who cares? If national performance was based on the number of local players, New Zealand would be about 5th in the world.. Which is clearly not the case.

    Ref; https://www.businessinsider.com.au/a...xed-bag-2017-4

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by antiussentiment; 19-08-17 at 05:13.
    cheers auss...
    fabricarti diem punc

  2. #17
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    As I said before it's not the actual numbers that are important it is the comparison. As long as the numbers you're comparing are from the same source there is value

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  3. #18
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    Burgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Country WA
    Posts
    22,644
    vCash
    336000
    Quote Originally Posted by shasta View Post
    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.
    Couldn't give you exact numbers Shasta, but would suspect could be up to double the Australian number, was usually 2:1 on the team sheets I looked at.

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

    Nathan Sharpe, Legend.

  4. #19
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    15,726
    vCash
    5472000
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgs View Post
    Couldn't give you exact numbers Shasta, but would suspect could be up to double the Australian number, was usually 2:1 on the team sheets I looked at.
    OK. I sort of thought there would be more of them staying in NZ in the hope of getting a black jersey. Thanks for clearing up that misconception

    0 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


  5. #20
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000
    I dun did more googling..

    This graph is from Green and Gold Rugby (is that not the South Africans, Gold is out main colour surely?). But anyway, this data came from Rugby Magazine in 2011. Numbers may have changed since then. But if the Aussie ratio as dropped? Well that's an ARU mismanagement thing?

    http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/com...c-nation.9403/

    But yeah, back then we had 40% more senior players than NZ...
    My feeling that our poor performance is about systems, ideals and management is only getting stronger..

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

  6. #21
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Don't panic man, they've appointed rod kafer to fix the flaws in our systems.

    His first job was to try and convince 1/3 of the country that rolling over and taking it up the ass was a good idea

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  7. #22
    Senior Player Macattack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    647
    vCash
    5000000
    What an absolute load of bullshit the dilution argument is. If dilution was the problem the best in Australia wouldn't be affected, the individual super rugby sides might, with the "talent" being spread too wide, but the "cream of the crop" wouldn't be - yet the Wallabies just had the most points scored against them in the first half of a test EVER. 40 to 6 the ABs way.

    Bullshit the dilution argument, we simply aren't anywhere near up to the standard of NZ rugby - try another pathetic argument ARU, you can't blame this shambles on the Force.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #23
    Veteran chibi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chinatown, Roe St
    Posts
    3,020
    vCash
    5348000
    That's right, it's not the dilution of the pool that's the problem; it's the size and quality of the pool in the first place.

    Australia could have 9, 1, 2 or 6 teams in Super Rugby, the Wallabies would still be in the same predicament.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!


    Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!

    Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?

  9. #24
    Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    265
    vCash
    5000000
    If there is a lack of player depth it is because the ARU has failed its fundamental job in development... With virtually no assistance from the ARU the Western Force has organised a development pathway through the Future Force Foundation which is now producing players for Super Rugby. The ARU response to lack of players... cut the organisation doing the most to grow the pool of players by bringing on young West Australian based athletes.... Insane...

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. #25
    Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Reality
    Posts
    1,443
    vCash
    5000000
    The thing that makes no sense is that we have players in Europe, who have turned their back on Aussie rugby, being developed in Aussie, being paid more then Aussie clubs can afford, then the ARU is spending millions getting them back. We've spent money on developing the player then we spend millions just to get access to the player. Its like Maccas making a big mac for a dollar, selling it for $5, then buying it back for $50 just to be able to sell it again. Its insanity.
    Watching Genia last night just makes my head spin. This is a guy who is commanding $800 000 a year to "return" home, yet watching him play last night, you know you've got problems when Nick Phipps out plays you and Nick Phipps is getting out performed at Super Rugby by Louwrens, Ruru, Powell and Tuttle.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #26
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    rugby.com.au rated Curtis at 5.5 and Adam ad 7.5, Hooper at 5.

    Was Curtis only half a point better than the guy the Kiwis called Australia's "wee Little battler" (I guess they're not scared of the national captain)

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

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
  •