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
Super Rugby
Sunwolves Reprieve?
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="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 972445" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>And it would seem to be the wrong answer for any nation. It would seem like 4 is the minimum number of top tier clubs necessary to provide a growing national game - let's take a look at the top tier of rugby:</p><p></p><p>Argentina has 1 top table club - struggling to stand still in quality, even when they allow their overseas players to join in.</p><p>Scotland has 2 top table clubs - struggling to stand still in quality</p><p>Italy has 2 top table clubs - strugging to stand still in quality</p><p>Wales has 4 top table clubs - very hit and miss at club level, mostly hit but occassional miss at national level with excellent coaching</p><p>Ireland has 4 top table clubs - very strong at club level, growing stronger at national level now they've got good systems in place</p><p>Australia has 4 top table clubs - falling off a cliff at both club andnational level as rugby drops to 3rd / 4th choice of football variants</p><p>New Zealand has 5 top table clubs - holding place at the top, some advantages due to history of the sport meaning that rugby has 1st pick of available athletes</p><p>South Africa has 6 top table clubs - largely very strong at both club and national levels</p><p>England has 12 top table clubs, though the clubs just about winning the club vs country power stuggle - variety of strengths at club level, getting stronger at national level now they've got decent systems in place - still plenty of wasted talent, some issues with overseas players blocking local talent</p><p>France has 14 top table clubs, though the clubs have absolutely won the club vs country debate - variety of strengths at club level, national team held back by clubs holding power over the union, major issues with overseas players blocking local talent</p><p></p><p>4 seems to be the minimum to have depth, development and enough talent in all positions to supply a coherent national squad</p><p>12 seems to be a little unwield and starting to wobble, with not enough talent involved regularly enough at the sharp end</p><p>Somewhere between 5-11 is likely to hold the perfect balance of spread and competition, but the higher numbers lead to a lot of imports, which can limit options in important positions (random example - 12 premiership clubs can amass 6 first choice scrum halves who are EQP). Any less than 10 though, and you can't really maintain a domestic league (not enough games), needing to cross borders to get enough game time.</p><p>To me, 6 seems the ideal number of clubs if you don't want any/many imports; with 10 being the maximum desireable number if you're fine with imports.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 972445, member: 73592"] And it would seem to be the wrong answer for any nation. It would seem like 4 is the minimum number of top tier clubs necessary to provide a growing national game - let's take a look at the top tier of rugby: Argentina has 1 top table club - struggling to stand still in quality, even when they allow their overseas players to join in. Scotland has 2 top table clubs - struggling to stand still in quality Italy has 2 top table clubs - strugging to stand still in quality Wales has 4 top table clubs - very hit and miss at club level, mostly hit but occassional miss at national level with excellent coaching Ireland has 4 top table clubs - very strong at club level, growing stronger at national level now they've got good systems in place Australia has 4 top table clubs - falling off a cliff at both club andnational level as rugby drops to 3rd / 4th choice of football variants New Zealand has 5 top table clubs - holding place at the top, some advantages due to history of the sport meaning that rugby has 1st pick of available athletes South Africa has 6 top table clubs - largely very strong at both club and national levels England has 12 top table clubs, though the clubs just about winning the club vs country power stuggle - variety of strengths at club level, getting stronger at national level now they've got decent systems in place - still plenty of wasted talent, some issues with overseas players blocking local talent France has 14 top table clubs, though the clubs have absolutely won the club vs country debate - variety of strengths at club level, national team held back by clubs holding power over the union, major issues with overseas players blocking local talent 4 seems to be the minimum to have depth, development and enough talent in all positions to supply a coherent national squad 12 seems to be a little unwield and starting to wobble, with not enough talent involved regularly enough at the sharp end Somewhere between 5-11 is likely to hold the perfect balance of spread and competition, but the higher numbers lead to a lot of imports, which can limit options in important positions (random example - 12 premiership clubs can amass 6 first choice scrum halves who are EQP). Any less than 10 though, and you can't really maintain a domestic league (not enough games), needing to cross borders to get enough game time. To me, 6 seems the ideal number of clubs if you don't want any/many imports; with 10 being the maximum desireable number if you're fine with imports. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Sunwolves Reprieve?
Top