The great Australian lack of depth myth

i also think retension of original RU players is neccessary, coz if you look a the NRL there are heaps of RU juniors

Ok. I'm just wondering where these cycles stop and start in the context of VC's statement, and in the comparison about playing depth vis a vis Australia and Ireland that the author proposed.

Bay35Pablo, You're absolutely right that the player numbers issue is far over stated. Just look at soccer - highest numbers, but all our most potent soccer players all have to come home from overseas leagues for the national side. What's needed in Australian rugby is structure. There's a reason that the all blacks have a steady stream of talent: they have a multi-teered fully system that is fully professional at 3 levels (national, S14 and NCP) that leads directly to the All Blacks. This is the exact same reason why the Kangaroos look so embarrassingly talented. It's not just the lack of opposition, it's the fact that they have 16 fully professional clubs, each with extensive development programs beneath them, training up and producing high quality players. Those are they player numbers that are the most important. Once Australia gets it's Victorian frachise and the extended Super 15 season up and running, we'll have another platform to the wallabies, but we still need more... Perhaps it wouldn't hurt for there to be a knock-out comp of some sort between the Sydney and Brisbane clubs at the beginning or end of each season in a Nab cup-like scenario? In any case, we need more players playing tougher footy more often, and preferably less who need to keep a day job too...

I was referring to a player cycle, Pothale.

Cycles based on players makes sense - which kind of tallies with the table I did above. And going by your earlier statement about them now being at their absolute peak, (and not 2007 as many averred at the time) then Ireland will be past their peak point by the time RWC comes around. Right?

I think cycles are determined by the players. The Australian cricket team's cycle, for instance, was determined largely by the retirements of Warne, Gilchrist and McGrath. The English rugby team's cycle was determined by the retirements (or long-term injuries) of Johnson, Back, Wilkinson, Hill, Greenwood, etc. This Ireland team's cycle will come to an end when BOD, POC, ROG and Hayes (I mention him not for his class but for his importance to the team) drift off into the sunset. We'll see then whether Ireland's recent success is sustainable.

Here's the cycles of what VC is referring to. Here's the results of Ireland v England macthes since the 6 Nations started: 2000 Eng 50-18 Ireland 2001 Ire 20-14 England 2002 Eng 45-11 Ireland (TC Eng) 2003 Ire 6 -42 England (GS/RWC Eng) 2004 Eng 13-19 Ireland (TC Ire) 2005 Ire 19 -13 England 2006 Eng 24 -28 Ireland (TC Ire) 2007 Ire 43 -13 England (TC Ire) 2008 Eng 33-10 Ireland 2009 Ire 14 -13 England (GS Ire) England hit their peak between 2000 and 2003. And beat Ireland comprehensively, winning three matches from four. They obviously had a blip in 2001. They won the RWC. England then went downhill and lost the next four matches to Ireland culminating in the thrashing in Croke Park in 2007 when everyone said Ireland had hit their peak. Ireland promptly bombed in the World Cup in their supposed peak year. England humiliated them the following year with Cipriani at the helm. But Wales won the Grand Slam. And then Ireland having peaked in 2007, are now going downhill, luckily picking up a Grand Slam on the way down in 2009 but only managing to beat England by one point. So England should be on the way up in this 6 Nations 2010 and should promptly hand another beating to Ireland as they pass them on the way down in their cycle. Following the upward cycle, England should win in handsome style in 2011 just in time to launch their bid to win the RWC again. If you look at the last ten years in the 6 Nations All-time table, Ireland and France are joint first having won 36 of their 50 games played with 72 points. France have won 4 championships in that time, 2 of them as Grand Slams. Ireland have won one Grand Slam, and three additional Triple Crowns. England won three championships, one of them a Grand Slam. But telllingly they also won a World Cup in 2003.

I don't believe that Ireland is at a peak. My opinion is that Ireland is finally reaping the rewards of professionalism, hence at loosehead Healy and Court have arrived. Therefore, Ireland is at the beginning of a peak. The same competition for places is consistent throughout the team aside from perhaps 3 and 4. Realistically, only Hayes, Wallace and O'Gara are not long-term prospects.

How long to do you see this cycle going, VC, that you refer to? Are you talking about a few years, a decade, two decades?

The Irish do suffer from a lack of depth. It's why - as Eddie Jones rightly points out - they have no chance of winning the World Cup. At the moment, their shallowness is somewhat hidden by the presence of several once-in-a-generation players. Remember, also, that this Ireland team is at the absolute peak of its cycle. Other nations - e.g. France and England - are somewhere near the depth of their cycles, and yet Ireland still only edges them out by the narrowest of margins. Reverse the cycles - put France at their peak and Ireland near their zenith - and we'd be seeing 50-point monsterings of the men in green. So the depth issue is real, imo.

"Whoa is Australian rugby"? Whoa dude, methinks you mean "WOE is Australian rugby" ;-)

Pablo, By way of one explanation, perhaps supporting your argument, I was a great fan of Saffies cricket in the 70s. Mainly because playing them had been taken away from us, so I followed them from afar. They had smashed us 4-0 in 1970, & the 71/72 tour was cancelled. Their star players were awesome - Barry Richards, Mike Procter, Eddie Barlow, the Pollock brothers Graeme & Peter, Denis Lindsay, Lee Irvine, Ali Bacher, Vice van der Bijl, Clive Rice, etc. However, the interesting thing is, take out the top 17 or 18 players in SA cricket, & the quality fell off quite noticeably. But that top clutch of 17-18 players was really something. You could even reduce that number of players down to about 5-6 truly world class players. By way of another explanation, both England & France has the greatest number of first class players, but that doesn't guarantee them regular success. Bob Dwyer once argued you need about 5-6 world class players at any time, & you can guarantee a top quality national team. And this seems to be the crux of the problem, or its significance - having those 5-6 world class players. A world class player being defined as a player most judges would select in a world XV at any given time. You look at the recent world cup winning sides - Boks (2007), England (2003) & Wallabies (1999). Those teams were built on a handful or so of world-class players. Ditto the all Blacks, who have finished in the top 4 at every world cup 1987-2003, bar 2007. Obviously you still need the appropriate structures in place to develop players. But it seems having those 5-6 players of exceptional ability is what separates the best from the rest.

Australia are a net exporter of professional rugby players, so this supports your article Pablo.

Great stuff Pablo, a really well-written, quality piece. I think you hit it on the head with "...or is it just that we have expectations higher than reality at times?", and in some regards the World Cup wins could be viewed as the worst thing to happen to Australian rugby. Now suddenly anything less than a semi win is a failure. Rickety's point about what might have been after a third ARC season are very valid too..

and neither have the Wallabies .... for quite a while at least.