Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
The Last Aussie Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RedruthRFC" data-source="post: 876640" data-attributes="member: 58362"><p>Good post. A number further up the thread are proof of the old adage that you can prove anything you want with statistics IMO.</p><p></p><p>For starters, nobody has explained the difference between players and registered players and why this number is the same in some countries and wildly different in others. I'm struggling to imagine that unregistered players are ever likely to have an impact upon the national team, therefore, I would think that (unless you are simply quoting figures to support an agenda) it makes more sense to compare registered players. Doing this reduced the disparity hugely, with England having just over 2.5 times the players that New Zealand does. In order to produce a meaningful number from which a conclusion could be drawn, you would also have to remove women, children and recreational players (it's hard to imagine a 45 year old who still laces his boots up once in a while for Old Rottinghamians Extra B XV being that valuable to the national team. This of course ignores genetics - many of the pool left would be physically incapable of playing professional rugby, thus useless to the national team.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RedruthRFC, post: 876640, member: 58362"] Good post. A number further up the thread are proof of the old adage that you can prove anything you want with statistics IMO. For starters, nobody has explained the difference between players and registered players and why this number is the same in some countries and wildly different in others. I'm struggling to imagine that unregistered players are ever likely to have an impact upon the national team, therefore, I would think that (unless you are simply quoting figures to support an agenda) it makes more sense to compare registered players. Doing this reduced the disparity hugely, with England having just over 2.5 times the players that New Zealand does. In order to produce a meaningful number from which a conclusion could be drawn, you would also have to remove women, children and recreational players (it's hard to imagine a 45 year old who still laces his boots up once in a while for Old Rottinghamians Extra B XV being that valuable to the national team. This of course ignores genetics - many of the pool left would be physically incapable of playing professional rugby, thus useless to the national team. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
The Last Aussie Game
Top