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
General Rugby Union
The decline of Australian rugby. Is there a way out?
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="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 1164053" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>Interesting, thanks for sharing. Made me think which I enjoy, but not sure i agree with most of it thou. </p><p>The main argument is something along the lines of: 'Aus used to pick players from 2/3 teams, that increased cohesion which meant a better national side'. He also uses some changes in Wales and Ireland as examples. The first problem i have is causality. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The fact that one thing changed doesn't necessarily mean that that one thing is the sole cause of a change in outcome. </p><p>The second problem I have is the following: the video argues that Aus went to shite when they started picking up players from more than 2/3 teams. The problem i have with that is that NZ had 5 SR teams in 2011 and 2015 and that didn't really appear to have impacted the results in the way the video suggests. Maybe it's not a factor or maybe it is a factor, but one of many. </p><p></p><p>The third problem I have is Jaguares. Arg reached semi's in 2015 after which we got a SR franchise which was basically +80% of pumas playing in ONE team. Not three, not two, ONE. Week after week. Many thought at the time, myself included, that we were something along the lines of an unfair advantage. 'we might have created a monster' was the phrase I recall. We were allowed to concentrate all of our resources on one team and compete against teams that could not. </p><p></p><p>The results were not as straightforward as the video suggests. Jaguares did manage to get to one SR final in those years but that never really translated to the national team. And the first years were pretty bad too (in SR). </p><p>Pumas got themselves eliminated in the group stages in 2019. You could argue that might have been a one-off but if you look at our performances at TRC during those years there is no clear improvement vs pre or post-Jaguares in SR. </p><p>Kinda tricky for me to make this counterargument because on paper, i agree(d) with the video. It just makes sense. But when i look at the evidence the results appear to be mixed at best and i see quite a few counterexamples that the video conveniently forgets to mention.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 1164053, member: 55747"] Interesting, thanks for sharing. Made me think which I enjoy, but not sure i agree with most of it thou. The main argument is something along the lines of: 'Aus used to pick players from 2/3 teams, that increased cohesion which meant a better national side'. He also uses some changes in Wales and Ireland as examples. The first problem i have is causality. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The fact that one thing changed doesn't necessarily mean that that one thing is the sole cause of a change in outcome. The second problem I have is the following: the video argues that Aus went to shite when they started picking up players from more than 2/3 teams. The problem i have with that is that NZ had 5 SR teams in 2011 and 2015 and that didn't really appear to have impacted the results in the way the video suggests. Maybe it's not a factor or maybe it is a factor, but one of many. The third problem I have is Jaguares. Arg reached semi's in 2015 after which we got a SR franchise which was basically +80% of pumas playing in ONE team. Not three, not two, ONE. Week after week. Many thought at the time, myself included, that we were something along the lines of an unfair advantage. 'we might have created a monster' was the phrase I recall. We were allowed to concentrate all of our resources on one team and compete against teams that could not. The results were not as straightforward as the video suggests. Jaguares did manage to get to one SR final in those years but that never really translated to the national team. And the first years were pretty bad too (in SR). Pumas got themselves eliminated in the group stages in 2019. You could argue that might have been a one-off but if you look at our performances at TRC during those years there is no clear improvement vs pre or post-Jaguares in SR. Kinda tricky for me to make this counterargument because on paper, i agree(d) with the video. It just makes sense. But when i look at the evidence the results appear to be mixed at best and i see quite a few counterexamples that the video conveniently forgets to mention. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The decline of Australian rugby. Is there a way out?
Top