Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

Sure, but there's a lot going on in a one off case that can distort things - one of the points he regularly makes is that while going down to one team at super level can greatly boost cohesion you are very exposed to injuries. There's also the point that most teams grow through the tournament in a world cup, as the nature of being in camp improves cohesion. End up in a pool of death and you may not have chance to get that cohesion before getting knocked out - England in 2015 might be an example of this.

I have watched it, the whole 80 minutes.

Thing with Gain Line is it's a consultancy.

Bloke has a good idea (and I agree it is one) and is flogging it to all and sundry from basketball to ultimate frisby. He freely admitted there's no lucre for what he's selling in sports so he's now targeting corporates. That's all you need to know.

I say that because the substantive numbers (and how they're being crunched) won't see the public light of day. It's business which means you don't pay, you don't play.

A beguiling view, no peer review.

 

[Rebels3]

I have watched it, the whole 80 minutes.

Thing with Gain Line is it's a consultancy.

Bloke has a good idea (and I agree it is one) and is flogging it to all and sundry from basketball to ultimate frisby. He freely admitted there's no lucre for what he's selling in sports so he's now targeting corporates. That's all you need to know.

I say that because the substantive numbers (and how they're being crunched) won't see the public light of day. It's business which means you don't pay, you don't play.

A beguiling view, no peer review.

I 100% agree with this.

We all need to understand the variables been crunched to produce the data he’s supplying.

I also have a few questions on the data.

Is it the success of the teams that’s causing cohesion? Or is it the cohesion that’s causing success? There is a huge difference between the two questions.

Also like any data, it is very easy to find data to back up your hypothesis.

Personally I think Darwin is a great mind but if he wasn’t a rugby man his analysis wouldn’t be looked on as favorably as it receives.

He also can’t have it both ways, he can’t say the Argentines lost cohesion because a foreign no.10 was pulling the strings (despite he had played lots of rugby with the same guys), but then say South Africa had great cohesion (despite there was a number of teams represented in their game day 23) because they had played lots of rugby together in the past.

As I said, if he wasn’t a Wallaby there wouldn’t be nowhere near as much fan fare about it.

As someone that’s worked in data before you can always put abit of lipstick on your figures to push it in the direction you want. Have seen it a 1000 times and will continue to see it another 1000 times

 

[Derpus]

Darwin's analysis is good but his conclusions are kind of unremarkable. We need to broaden the base to improve the top? people have been saying that for years and years.

Edit: Why not make the Force and Rebels foreign teams until enough of a base is developed for them to develop their own talent.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is it the success of the teams that’s causing cohesion? Or is it the cohesion that’s causing success? There is a huge difference between the two questions.

I don't think it matters. He's saying that cohesion is a good predictor of success and touched on early in the podcast that their data would give them a significant advantage from a gambling perspective in the first third of each season in a given sport because it allows them to predict which teams will do well before the market catches up.

In answer to your question I would say it is a combination of the two. Being successful allows for far greater cohesion because players want to stay and will often accept less money than is on offer elsewhere allowing you to keep them. It also allows young talent to be introduced seamlessly and for them to succeed.

If you place value in that metric being a predictor of success you would put in place measures that would help make greater cohesion more possible at each level.

 

[The Honey Badger]

How many teams do Ireland have, Braveheart?

There are 4 provinces in Ireland and 4 pro teams

 

[Omar Comin']

Over time they improved but then in the 2019 RWC they suffered an injury at 10 and chose to bring in an overseas player with no cohesion and everything fell apart.

I found a lot of what he said convincing but not this point. I think there's a danger that if you look at everything through a cohesion lens that you'll just see it in everything and use it to try and explain too much.

That back up 10, Urdapilleta still had the same amount of time together with the rest of the squad to build cohesion that previous Pumas world cup squads had - and Ben Darwin argued that previous squads had outperformed because that time together was adequate to build cohesion. I think there can be no doubt that the Pumas of 2019 were a far more cohesive squad than any they've previously sent to a world cup and failed anyway. If anything it's an example that illustrates the limitations of cohesion.

But whichever way you look at it, a single example tells you very little. The pumas were 1 missed penalty goal and a dodgy ref decision away from beating France and making the quarter finals in the world cup. If they had they would have played Wales and had a decent chance of making the semis, and if they'd done that I'd guess Ben Darwin would be arguing it was an example of the benefits of cohesion. It can't lose!

 

[molman]

I don't think it matters. He's saying that cohesion is a good predictor of success and touched on early in the podcast that their data would give them a significant advantage from a gambling perspective in the first third of each season in a given sport because it allows them to predict which teams will do well before the market catches up.

I found Darwin's comments around the predictive qualities of his model curious, because if he is indeed being factual the commercial viability of such for the gambling industry or other parties would be worth a lot more than any consultancy of the sporting clubs themselves.


I've always found Darwin's ideas interesting, though as others have mentioned his ability to proclaim things is a little easy when it's hard to critique or effectively validate because the data sets, weightings, variables etc..etc.. are not publicly available and from all reports not peer reviewed.


I'm somewhat curious around the removal of The Force from SuperRugby and what notable improvement that had on the Wallabies? because we have a sample case for an element of what Darwin is proposing with a reduction in teams.


I'm also further curious about the overlay of other aspects such as the market dynamics around financial elements as I'd imagine that economic considerations would be as crucial in the promotion of many facets of what makes up his cohesion marker. Additionally large elements of his data sets would come from periods where I would imagine other variables would be much more significant, such as the transition from semiprofessional to professional in the mid to late 90's and to be honest even probably into the early 2000's for some parts of the world.

 

[Rebels3]

I found Darwin's comments around the predictive qualities of his model curious, because if he is indeed being factual the commercial viability of such for the gambling industry or other parties would be worth a lot more than any consultancy of the sporting clubs themselves.


I've always found Darwin's ideas interesting, though as others have mentioned his ability to proclaim things is a little easy when it's hard to critique or effectively validate because the data sets, weightings, variables etc..etc.. are not publicly available and from all reports not peer reviewed.


I'm somewhat curious around the removal of The Force from SuperRugby and what notable improvement that had on the Wallabies? because we have a sample case for an element of what Darwin is proposing with a reduction in teams.


I'm also further curious about the overlay of other aspects such as the market dynamics around financial elements as I'd imagine that economic considerations would be as crucial in the promotion of many facets of what makes up his cohesion marker. Additionally large elements of his data sets would come from periods where I would imagine other variables would be much more significant, such as the transition from semiprofessional to professional in the mid to late 90's and to be honest even probably into the early 2000's for some parts of the world.

In the chat he talked about a graph which outlines wins against top 10 sides and Australia have dropped. It’s also worth noting that the amount of fixtures Australia plays against the top 2 sides in that duration is a significant variable that would have to be weighted against the other teams. In simple terms you can’t claim Ireland have an improved record against top 10 teams when they are playing the majority of fixtures against teams in the bottom half of that list and Australia consistently plays more and more fixtures against the top 5 of that list. Also like you said the introduction of professionalism is a significant variable.

 

[molman]

In the chat he talked about a graph which outlines wins against top 10 sides and Australia have dropped.

Well I asked about The Force because the graphs in the video stream seemed to show that Australia's drop from 5 to 4 SuperRugby sides in 2018/19 resulted in worst Wallabies performances which seemed to run counter to the general thrust of Darwin's assertions.

It’s also worth noting that the amount of fixtures Australia plays against the top 2 sides in that duration is a significant variable that would have to be weighted against the other teams. In simple terms you can’t claim Ireland have an improved record against top 10 teams when they are playing the majority of fixtures against teams in the bottom half of that list and Australia consistently plays more and more fixtures against the top 5 of that list. Also like you said the introduction of professionalism is a significant variable.

International team comparison is always a tricky affair as you are always having to preform some kind of weighted comparison as we don't have an international top 10 team round robin. Even the RWC doesn't full resolve the comparative challenges as the path teams take doesn't mean you have to play/beat each team.

 

[Wilson]

Well I asked about The Force because the graphs in the video stream seemed to show that Australia's drop from 5 to 4 SuperRugby sides in 2018/19 resulted in worst Wallabies performances which seemed to run counter to the general thrust of Darwin's assertions.

He does also talk about the time it takes to change cohesion and I can't imagine we saw anywhere near enough seasons after the force were dropped to judge the change. I'd also expect that there was an initial drop in cohesion for most Australian super sides, as the force players flooded back into the other sides.

 

[molman]

He does also talk about the time it takes to change cohesion and I can't imagine we saw anywhere near enough seasons after the force were dropped to judge the change. I'd also expect that there was an initial drop in cohesion for most Australian super sides, as the force players flooded back into the other sides.

Considering the same coach and a large contingency of the players integrated at the Rebels I'd be curious how long the the expected lags are because the inference with the Celtic nations was one of immediate improvement for such systemic changes. Also I get a sense the word 'cohesion' is being used a little fluidly between a name of a marker based on a multitude of elements vs. the generalised appreciation for the word.

Also as an aside, besides Rugby insights what is Ben Darwin and Simon Strachan's credentials? From what I'm aware of, Rugby Coaching & Video Analysis? I couldn't see a lot of advance statistical/data modelling experience in their backgrounds both in terms of formal education and/or work related experiences. I appreciate that the company may be more than the two of them but I found it interesting to note.

 

[KOB1987]

The Aus running an exclusive this morning that all 5 franchises will survive and there will be a 12 team TT comp from 2022. Next year will see parallel domestic comps, with the Sunwolves to be invited into ours, and the Pacifika team in NZs. CVC and Silver Lake fighting it out to buy in. Those 12 teams to form the initial comp in 2022. Also, Foxtel have been reasonably happy with the SRAu ratings.

 

[Dan54]

The Aus running an exclusive this morning that all 5 franchises will survive and there will be a 12 team TT comp from 2022. Next year will see parallel domestic comps, with the Sunwolves to be invited into ours, and the Pacifika team in NZs. CVC and Silver Lake fighting it out to buy in. Those 12 teams to form the initial comp in 2022. Also, Foxtel have been reasonably happy with the SRAu ratings.

I hope that is true KOB, Super 12 again, always the best product we had, though will be interested to see how it all pans out.

 

[molman]

The Aus running an exclusive this morning that all 5 franchises will survive and there will be a 12 team TT comp from 2022. Next year will see parallel domestic comps, with the Sunwolves to be invited into ours, and the Pacifika team in NZs. CVC and Silver Lake fighting it out to buy in. Those 12 teams to form the initial comp in 2022. Also, Foxtel have been reasonably happy with the SRAu ratings.

I'll be curious what the Sunwolves actually are (expat team based in Japan/Singapore & elsewhere?) and how much involvement JRU have with the setup this time with their focus semingly on their own domestic comp and who out the assortment of Pacifika options actually gets the green light.

This is probably the Super setup most of us would love to see given a go.

 

[Omar Comin']

I'll be interested to see what length of season they are looking at. I don't think there's any chance of a double round robin but a single round is probably not enough games. They could have a 2 conferences model (play each team in your conference twice and each team in the other conference once), but I'm not sure if NZ will go for this. I guess if it's say 16 rounds that they could randomise who plays twice, or use some weighted rule like the AFL does.

Or maybe they will just have a single round robin and then have the Super 8 and State of Union in addition to that (and NZ could have a regular South vs North series). I'm not sure if a Super 8 would be possible though given South Africa seem certain to play in the Pro16.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'll be interested to see what length of season they are looking at. I don't think there's any chance of a double round robin but a single round is probably not enough games. They could have a 2 conferences model (play each team in your conference twice and each team in the other conference once), but I'm not sure if NZ will go for this. I guess if it's say 16 rounds that they could randomise who plays twice, or use some weighted rule like the AFL does.

Or maybe they will just have a single round robin and then have the Super 8 and State of Union in addition to that (and NZ could have a regular South vs North series). I'm not sure if a Super 8 would be possible though given South Africa seem certain to play in the Pro16.

Why not? All parties need to look at maximising their respective value and opting for a full double round robin would certainly achieve that. The June window is becoming the July window and I'm pretty sure was recently extended by a week or two via a vote. Could be wrong there. But either way. There are ways to make a full double round robin work.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'll be curious what the Sunwolves actually are (expat team based in Japan/Singapore & elsewhere?) and how much involvement JRU have with the setup this time with their focus semingly on their own domestic comp and who out the assortment of Pacifika options actually gets the green light.

This is probably the Super setup most of us would love to see given a go.

What we'll have next year is pretty much how the conferences of Super Rugby should have evolved to when the Sunwolves entered the fray.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The Aus running an exclusive this morning that all 5 franchises will survive and there will be a 12 team TT comp from 2022. Next year will see parallel domestic comps, with the Sunwolves to be invited into ours, and the Pacifika team in NZs. CVC and Silver Lake fighting it out to buy in. Those 12 teams to form the initial comp in 2022. Also, Foxtel have been reasonably happy with the SRAu ratings.

Any mention of recruitment of Argentines?

 

[KOB1987]

I'll be interested to see what length of season they are looking at. I don't think there's any chance of a double round robin but a single round is probably not enough games. They could have a 2 conferences model (play each team in your conference twice and each team in the other conference once), but I'm not sure if NZ will go for this. I guess if it's say 16 rounds that they could randomise who plays twice, or use some weighted rule like the AFL does.

Or maybe they will just have a single round robin and then have the Super 8 and State of Union in addition to that (and NZ could have a regular South vs North series). I'm not sure if a Super 8 would be possible though given South Africa seem certain to play in the Pro16.

I think the logical solution for next year is as you suggest, play 2 domestic rounds and then plan for a third Trans-Tasman round, however if Covid flares up again then this reverts back to another domestic round. If a TT finals series can be held great, but if not the franchise with the highest points tally hosts a simple 4 team finals series over 2 weekends - NZ 1 v Aus 2 & Aus 1 v NZ 2 the first week, the winners play each other for gold and the losers for bronze the next week. This would require a 2 week quarantine window.

 

[KOB1987]

Any mention of recruitment of Argentines?

nope