2
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
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..
cheers auss...
fabricarti diem punc
Oh and if you're interested? The link below shows the World Rugby census..
http://www.worldrugby.org/development/player-numbers
cheers auss...
fabricarti diem punc
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.
They're right according to World Rugby https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...-MAP-FINAL.pdf
C'mon the![]()
![]()
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.
Generally speaking you aren’t learning much if your lips are moving!!!
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.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
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?
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?
C'mon the![]()
![]()
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.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
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.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David