Ok, im going to try and break down this conversation.
1.
@TRF_heineken Started by saying that because the Jags did not rest their players enough in Super rugby that would be justification on why Argentina had a dismal world cup personally think it was mainly because of a bad first half against France in what was a must-win game. Here I and H differ a bit.
2.@Cruz_del_Sur stated in reply that "
The first thing that came to mind when I read your post was Japan. They are the closest comparable and although they don't have to play TRC that should fade out given the time we had between TRC (short version this year) and the WC. They are performing. We are not." I differ with Cruz on the fact that it's comparable, below I say why.
3. I am not sure what you mean by a fade out but regardless my take is that Japan is not comparable. I thought that Argentina would eclipse Japan and England for that matter based on the fact that they played with the same team for four years in SR and Internationally. Japan had a different philosophy, they never played their Japan players week in and week out they treated SR with disrespect, they performed badly and they got booted, but... it seems to have worked for them. the Argentina philosophy did not. It was to my surprise and I can guarantee you that. But my final comment on this point is that it's not comparable and my justification for this last statement is based on the contrasting philosophies that the Sunwolves and Jags took.
4. Cruz in your next point you say that if it was not for that first half against France then we would not have had this discussion. I agree. But you did lose to France and now we are having this discussion.
5. H responded that the difference was rest, and I agree with that but the other factors were that Japan had an easier group and home advantage. so if Argentina played Japan tomorrow then Argentina would win. But the draw was what it was and now we are here with Japan going to the quarters (maybe) and Arg already out. if I had to choose I would say the draw screwed them over more than their philosophy compared to Japan.
6. Cruz then responded, but he did not use the tough group as a scapegoat instead refuting that the concept of rest was an issue. This was the only justification he provided on why rest is not a factor "Another problem with that argument is that if that were true, you would see the stats (fewer tackles, more % of missed tackles, etc) worsen across time. That is not the case". I have one response to this. Minnows tend to make more tackles. Minnows tend to be less conditioned and drop off their tempo then they end up defending all the time. Go and check the WR site and see which teams have made the most tackles so far. So your tackle amount could arguably increase as the game goes on if rest is an issue, but let's not get caught up with this.
7. Cruz then said that he does not buy the argument that Japan beat Ireland because they were well-rested. H never mentioned Ireland vs Japan specifically but im sure no parties would object that it could be a valuable case study. Personally, I think that home advantage and complacency on the side of the Irish played a huge role in Japan winning. Let's acknowledge that our feelings regarding why Japan beat Ireland are a matter of opinion.
8. Cruz responded "Preparation I can understand. Rest, all the evidence I have strongly implied that is not the case here." rather attribute the failure to "Sanchez, Cubelli, Moroni and Boffelli having a brain fart on the first game"
9. I don't see the evidence that you provided up until this point, maybe it was this statement that served as your evidence:
"In non world cup years, players go from SR, to TRC to Mid-year internationals almost without a break. That is a very demanding schedule. But in world cup years we have a 1 and a half month window between the last game. Ask any sports physician and they will all, invariably, assure you that a month and a half is more than enough for a player to rest after a hard season," so personally I would rather say the above is opinion instead of evidence. I am inclined to agree though that a month and a half should be enough to rest, however, Japan definitely could prepare much more for the World Cup while the Jags were focussed on the SR ***le.
10. H referenced previous world cups as to why rest was important. Our case study involves Super rugby teams resting players and then the impact it has on their national team's world cup. Here I agree then that we should look at
past performances at world cups and whether those teams rested players in a world cup year during SR.
11. Cruz says he has considered it. But that the evidence itself has refuted the possibility. Here I wonder, was this evidence that Cruz refers to the bolded part at point 9? Does Cruz believe that quote overrides the other evidence such as the bolded part in point 10?
12. Cruz then followed up by saying "In 2007 Argentina wasn't playing SR, nor TRC and had amateur players in its squad. We got 3rd place." and Cruz said, "following your logic, we should disband Jaguares and cancel our part in TRC..."
From my understanding that was not what H said, instead be part of SR and rest more, that's what he said. But the quotes you made here are damning, it's true that in 2007 you did not play in SR and its true that you made it to the Semis that year. That team was undoubtedly more rested and they made the Semis so yes H's argument on rest does gain more prominence here with the evidence you brought up. Personally, I still think that the tough group was the reason that Argentina exited at the group stage despite the evidence but if we are going to look at this specific case study of 2007 then it is damning. Naturally there are much more factors in play so we cant delve to deep into this.
13. H then takes it a little personally and says leave then, eluding that the rest might, after all, be better for Argentina. It probably not meant literally though, but the evidence that Cruz provided does reinforce the point of H.
14. Cruz then says he is not sure the actual point eluded H. I wonder what was the actual point? Was the actual point just that we need to discount the rest factor as the main reason for the Argentinian WC exit was a **** first half against France? then I would like to add yes it could be and then also the tough group with England in but surely there is no valid reason to throw away the rest suggestion. Im sorry, Cruz but you simply have not provided enough evidence to the contrary to refute the rest idea.
In other words, I don't think the France game can be used as a contrasting point against the rest argument. Rather that all these factors should supplement each other in trying to determine the reasoning. Then hopefully a way forward for Argentina. The four year project failed last week, but IMO SR is stil the best way forward to develop Argentina
