how did we go from being a mid table team to be on every final of the series so far, in just two year? I wonder how much the players are getting pay, cosidering the dont really play 15
I guess i could sum it up in three things:
1- A coach with a long-term plan (incredibly rare in 7s). Look at things like restarts or tries from fixed formations. That reveals there is a very clear intention behind calls and that things have been practiced ad nauseam. Look at how the players commit to rucks. We hardly ever overcommit. There is virtually never a situation where Arg commits more players to a ruck/maul and loses possession. That is 100% the coach's merit. You watch them play and they all seem to know what they need to do. Gomez Cora knows his ****. And this has a few trickle-down effects. Sure, a speedster gets us every now and then but it is incredibly rare to watch the pumas and think 'What's wrong? They look tired and slow'. If you get ruck commitment right you get more players outside, which means less running, which means fresher legs on average. Again, there is a plan behind all of this.
2- 3 freaks on the team (Isgro, Gonzalez and Moneta) with complementary skills. This is luck. You need to develop it, nurture it, etc, but just to get that level of talent is luck.
You've got a natural playmaker (Isgro), a speedster with incredible instincts and a sweet boot (Moneta), and a bulldozer (Gonzalez). The way they create spaces for each other is very, very unique. And the constant threat of these 3 opens up a lot of space for the other 4, which they tend to exploit beautifully.
Listen, i don't want to take merit away from the rest. Schultz, Pelladini, Alvarez, Revol, osadczuk, Fraga and Elizalde are very, VERT good, but those three are something else. And having 3 (as opposed to 1 or 2) takes away a LOT of pressure from their shoulders. They are all allowed to have a bad game. We have the right players, peaking at the same time, with the right coach, at the right time in an Olympic year.
Think of the US without Baker or NZ without Rokolisoa (? number 4). Arg would still manage to do
more than ok with 2 of those 3. Look at how they are being fielded. They generally place 2 as starters and leave 1 for the second half for big games.
And the confidence... jesus christ. Look at the start of the final. NZ not only scored 2 easy tries, but tries that suggested weaknesses in what is supposed to be Arg's strength. You need to have a LOT of confidence to turn that around the way they did. You need to be able to look at each other and think 'nah, that was a one-off, NZ got lucky. We will stick to the plan and we will win.
Give me the ball'. That is rare, very, very rare.
3- (related to 1) the worst 7 players we could field are still pretty good. They will probably lose to NZ, or Fiji, but they would have a fair shot against top teams like Ireland or Australia.
I'd like to add one thing: we kinda got away with murder against Samoa. Well, not murder but we got a scrum when they should have been given the throw-in. It was a close game and every little detail matters.
Other than during the final, i don't think Arg played particularly well. But that is kinda what i like. A sign of a great team is to be able to get victories on bad days, and they did exactly that.
Alright Eagles! 
rugbyamericasnorth.com
