International teams tiers

[smartcooky]

We feel injuries a lot more than England, Oz or the Boks as we have only a fraction of the players to choose than those 3 Nations.

I was going to question that, but you're right (this is 2011 but it won't have changed much)

In total playing numbers, you are about par with Italy. However, in Senior Male players (from which your playing squads are drawn) you are about par with Ireland and New Zealand.

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

 

[McTallshort]

I was going to question that, but you're right (this is 2011 but it won't have changed much)

In total playing numbers, you are about par with Italy. However, in Senior Male players (from which your playing squads are drawn) you are about par with Ireland and New Zealand.

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

Its because we are crap

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

Easy, it's not just about the quantity of players that you have, but the quality of the players in that group.
The best athletes in NZ will statistically pick rugby, i'm guessing, 9 out of 10 times. That is not the case with several of the other countries. If a guy in England/Argentina/France (just to use 3 examples) had the skills to make it in both soccer or rugby, chances are he will pick soccer.

I always use the same example. The US has more registered soccer players than Argentina. The problem is that the vast majority of those are people who couldn't make it into top tier US sports. They have a bigger group of second tier athletes.

 

[ENZED-88]

The best athletes in NZ will statistically pick rugby.

I guessing you haven't looked at our rugby league team, with athletes like roger tuivasa sheck, Shaun Johnson, jared waerea Hargreaves. The first two I doubt any of the ABs possess their athleticism.( my opinion) our league team also gave us incredible athletes like SBW.

 

[nzlizard]

Easy, it's not just about the quantity of players that you have, but the quality of the players in that group.
The best athletes in NZ will statistically pick rugby, i'm guessing, 9 out of 10 times. That is not the case with several of the other countries. If a guy in England/Argentina/France (just to use 3 examples) had the skills to make it in both soccer or rugby, chances are he will pick soccer.

I always use the same example. The US has more registered soccer players than Argentina. The problem is that the vast majority of those are people who couldn't make it into top tier US sports. They have a bigger group of second tier athletes.

Yeah agree with this completely, rugby is our national sport and most professional sport, followed by league & cricket, and then maybe a handful of other sports where people get played to play.

Soccer is the national sport of most NH countries and then I imagine, ice hockey, basketball, rugby and other national sports compete for the remainder, obviously the sports change across the NH but the key thing rugby is not first choice for most places.

 

[james5000]

Easy, it's not just about the quantity of players that you have, but the quality of the players in that group.
The best athletes in NZ will statistically pick rugby, i'm guessing, 9 out of 10 times. That is not the case with several of the other countries. If a guy in England/Argentina/France (just to use 3 examples) had the skills to make it in both soccer or rugby, chances are he will pick soccer.

I always use the same example. The US has more registered soccer players than Argentina. The problem is that the vast majority of those are people who couldn't make it into top tier US sports. They have a bigger group of second tier athletes.

"Generalizations lead to fallacies" Your quote but true in this case

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I have and that is why i said 9 out of 10. I made a generalization, which I still believe is directionally correct, and you are cherry picking the exceptions. That is not the point.

Rugby Union is the bigger sport in NZ. That is not the case in England, Argentina or France (to use the same examples).

 

[McTallshort]

Yeah agree with this completely, rugby is our national sport and most professional sport, followed by league & cricket, and then maybe a handful of other sports where people get played to play.

Soccer is the national sport of most NH countries and then I imagine, ice hockey, basketball, rugby and other national sports compete for the remainder, obviously the sports change across the NH but the key thing rugby is not first choice for most places.

Its got nothing to do with it, the rugby culture is currently better in some countries than others, English rugby is in a very strange place, its always re-building, developing, trying to get the right mindset with the players blah blah blah. In other countries coaches try and win games from the off. One day we might get a ruthless, hard nosed coach but Im not holding my breath.

 

[james5000]

I still wonder how Jacko Gill would have gone if he was bred to play rugby, one of our top physical athletes of today

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

"Generalizations lead to fallacies" Your quote but true in this case

The difference is i used a generalization for didactic reasons since i don't have the correct numbers at hand (and admitted it from the start, hence the word "guess") while you used it to extrapolate a point. Not quite the same thing.

 

[james5000]

The difference is i used a generalization for didactic reasons since i don't have the correct numbers at hand (and admitted it from the start, hence the word "guess") while you used it to extrapolate a point. Not quite the same thing.

Your numbers are so far off it isn't funny

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Your numbers are so far off it isn't funny

It's as if you are completely unaware about the meaning of "didactic reasons" and "directionally correct". You bring nothing to the table other than pettiness.
You've bored me. Added you to my ignore list. Not worth my time.

-----------------------
Back on topic.
Just found this video from POC that uses a very similar argument.

http://rugbylad.com/rugbyladblog/video-paul-oconnell-recalls-a-story-that-illustrates-the-difference-between-rugby-in-ireland-and-new-zealand/

 

[james5000]

It's as if you are completely unaware about the meaning of "didactic reasons" and "directionally correct". You bring nothing to the table other than pettiness.
You've bored me. Ignored.

-----------------------
Back on topic.
Just found this video from POC that uses a very similar argument.

http://rugbylad.com/rugbyladblog/video-paul-oconnell-recalls-a-story-that-illustrates-the-difference-between-rugby-in-ireland-and-new-zealand/

The average man would agree (lol), that the numbers would have to be in the realm of possibility for it to be didactic reasoning.

You still can't even accept that more forum users were supporting Australia (pre the world cup final) and we had a poll which resulted in 2/1 support for the Aussies.

 

[j'nuh]

In total playing numbers, you are about par with Italy. However, in Senior Male players (from which your playing squads are drawn) you are about par with Ireland and New Zealand.

Looking at this chart, you have to wonder how on earth England don't utterly dominate the international game?

The big circle represents the total number of players (men, women, boys, girls) and the small circle the total number of men. I think it's a reasonable assumption that there are more men playing rugby than women, so at most there are 166,000 adult women playing (but it will be lower), so a very top-end estimate for the number of adults playing is 330,000. This would infer that there are approximately 2.2 million children playing rugby in England. There are approximately 10 million 5-18 year olds in England. That would imply there are 2.2 million out of 10 million (i.e. ~20%) of children playing rugby. Which is not even close to realistic, unless you are counting children playing it in PE as being a player.

I don't think it's a realistic estimator of interest in the sport. It would be better if there were figures on the number of club registrations.

 

[smartcooky]

The big circle represents the total number of players (men, women, boys, girls) and the small circle the total number of men. I think it's a reasonable assumption that there are more men playing rugby than women, so at most there are 166,000 adult women playing (but it will be lower), so a very top-end estimate for the number of adults playing is 330,000. This would infer that there are approximately 2.2 million children playing rugby in England. There are approximately 10 million 5-18 year olds in England. That would imply there are 2.2 million out of 10 million (i.e. ~20%) of children playing rugby. Which is not even close to realistic, unless you are counting children playing it in PE as being a player.

I don't think it's a realistic estimator of interest in the sport. It would be better if there were figures on the number of club registrations.

The figures for England were from the old IRB website.. and were provided by the RFU.

 

[james5000]

Football and Rugby are so different you need a completely different kind of athlete. Especially when you are considering Rugby forwards to Football players. How many international footballers weigh 100kgs let alone 120kgs. I don't think there is always direct competition

 

[McTallshort]

The figures for England were from the old IRB website.. and were provided by the RFU.

With respect the RFU is wrong. Like J'nuh pointed out 20% of kids in England do not play rugby. Dont get me wrong I went to my local club last Sunday and it was packed but its not that big, no way near. Senior male players sit around the 170k mark.

 

[Peat]

The figures for England were from the old IRB website.. and were provided by the RFU.

Then the RFU is stretching the truth in some form. Not sure how, but as said, we don't have in 1 in 5 kids playing rugby regardless of gender gap.

Football and Rugby are so different you need a completely different kind of athlete. Especially when you are considering Rugby forwards to Football players. How many international footballers weigh 100kgs let alone 120kgs. I don't think their is always direct competition

A fair number of NH rugby players played football to a relatively high level, there is competition and the same type of athletes are in demand until you get to the tight five. Those picking rugby will put more weight on, but the same basic frame is there underneath - particularly when talking about young kids, where the competition is.

I feel reasonably certain that if you gave me carte blanche to remove the best suited 16 year olds from England's football academies and completely immerse them in rugby at the very least I'd get a professional standard 7s team out of it.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

1 NZ
2 SA and Aussie
4 Ireland, Argentina, England, Scotland, France and Wales
10 Italy, Samoa, Fiji, Japan
14 Romania, Georgia, Tonga, Canada and the USA
19 Namibia
20 Uruguay

These are the 'bands' I had in mind in that results within these bands make no difference but wins between bands would be considered 'outside of expectation' (my own expectations of course).

I'd call the top 3 bands tier 1, the bottom 3 bands tier 2 and the middle band on the fringes.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

1 NZ
2 SA and Aussie
4 Ireland, Argentina, England, Scotland, France and Wales
10 Italy, Samoa, Fiji, Japan
14 Romania, Georgia, Tonga, Canada and the USA
19 Namibia
20 Uruguay

These are the 'bands' I had in mind in that results within these bands make no difference but wins between bands would be considered 'outside of expectation' (my own expectations of course).

I'd call the top 3 bands tier 1, the bottom 3 bands tier 2 and the middle band on the fringes.

Mine would be very similar.

1 New Zealand
2 Australia, South Africa
3 England, Ireland, Wales
4 France, Argentina
5 Scotland
6 Italy, Samoa, Fiji, Japan
7 Tonga, Georgia, Romania, Canada, USA
8 Namibia, Uruguay