The point about Victoria being more successful at Under 18s and Under 20s level.
Firstly there is no U/18s competition, so thats a lie and 2 or 3 more wins in a 2 year old Under 20s comp is hardly anything that can be labeled a trend of success.
Yes, there is an Under 18s comp. Here is a link to a page titled "Western Force Schoolboys" https://www.rugbywa.asn.au/western-force-school-boys/.
Here is a link to an article last year where they came last: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/97932/
Here is a link to the top squad they got no players selected for in 2016 (nor the 2nd squad): http://www.rugbynews.net.au/2016-australian-schoolboys-teams-announced/
As far as 20s goes, if "2-3 more wins" is what you have to minimise the difference to create a point, okay. Another framing (and a more accurate one) is the Rebels have come 2nd and 3rd of 5 in the comp, and the Force have come dead last twice and never won a game.
Also 2 of our 3 Aus under 20s this year are WA born. Our other rep, much like the majority of The Rebels u/20s squad, is from interstate.
Do you know something I don't about the Aus 20s squad?
In last years squad there was one WA player (not born, nor developed in WA).
In this year's squad there is two, and the local boy is at short odds to get cut due to some super contracted players vying for back 3 positions.
Here is the article: http://www.rugbynews.net.au/2017-australian-u20s-extended-squad-announced/
If were picking on technicalities of where players are born vs where they were developed then Perth still wins. The majority of the homegrown players we are claiming spent more than 4 years playing in WA pathways. This is on top of the 20 plus players now interstate or overseas. Even one of your own is from Perth. Cruz Ah-Nau ring a bell?
Seeing as your larger point was the Rebels have produced equal levels of talent, there is no evidence to support this. The numbers still remain - Rebels have 2 players developed in Melbourne. Naivalu and Fereti Sa'ga. The Force have 11 in their current squad, 2 in the Brumbies, 2 in Qld and one in Melbourne.
Tell me if I miss any currently CONTRACTED WA developed players -
Ah-Nau (Rebels)
Jooste, Godwin (Brumbies)
Scoble, Hardwick, RHP, Koteka, Burton, Peni, Rona, DHP (Force)
If I'm generous, I could give you Rangi, Ruru, and Ainsely. But that's quite generous considering they all played senior rugby in a Tier 1 nation that wasn't Aus first.
So that obviously doesn't meet up with your numbers, even if I add in the 'generous' additions. Perhaps you're counting uncontracted players who've done preseason? Even still, I don't know where the numbers come from.
Current Victoria developed players (which you've massively misreported) include -
Faulkner (Force) - "ring a bell?"
Lealiifano, Valetini (Brumbies)
Saaga, Siliva, Uelese, Douglas, Tupai, Tuipolotu, Tuimalealiifano, Naivalu (Rebels)
Peter Samu (Crusaders)
So the numbers look pretty similar. In fact, Victoria is down one player with 5 years less development.
Maybe you can unearth a couple of extra WA names, but does a couple of names really rationalise 5 years extra?
The Rebels have had less time to produce players. Yes correct but 2 in 7 years vs 16 in 11 years points to Melbourne having 4 players in 14 years at current pace. At our current pace we will have 32 players of super rugby standard in another 11 years. That shows our growth is exponentially better the Melbournes.
But i truly suspect your true larger point is based on your allegiance to Melbourne not on the figures that explain what is happening.
haha.
