@yeahcaz said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1400749) said:
https://youtu.be/PFhQsgNdOFE
Not sure if it’s deemed relevant for this thread but I will share it as I have before.
If you skip to the 1 hour and 3 minute mark of this video, labelled balls deep (in depth dive into rugby league stats over the last few years) you’ll find the info there pretty interesting.
If you can’t be bothered to watch basically to cut a long story short it’s about roster management. Split into 2 groups, teams that make 5 or less changes to the top 20 and teams that make 6 or more. In the last decade, out of teams that have made 5 or less each year, only 12 haven’t made the top 8. Compare the 2 best teams of the decade (storm and roosters), Storm haven’t made 6 roster changes for the whole decade and the roosters have twice and in those years they finished 15th and 13th or whatever they did in those 2 down years. Compared to a team like us, knights and the Titans (top 3 worst teams of the decade) we have made 6 or more changes 7 times with the best finish of those years being 10th and in the 3 years we haven’t we’ve finished 5th,9th, and 9th. Good listen that I encourage anyone to hear.
Point I’m making is I hope we do clear out some deadwood at seasons end but maybe it is beneficial to stick strong in the long run
Chicken or egg?
Did those teams make the 8 because they didnt make many changes, or did they not need to make many changes because they had a top 8 quality team?
Exactly right.
Not exactly, no.
What it indicates most is that those teams understand the dark arts of roster management. The key components. Recruitment, development retention, rotation and rebuilding.
Melbourne have been in 4 rebuilds since they started, And about 3 in the time under Bellamy. But you wouldn’t know about it.
That is the point they are trying to make.
That continuity is the key but the key is knowing which components need tweaking what is the expiration date of players and how they can be replaced whilst winning.
Roosters have been through the same process however, under robinsons rule they had a rebuild year. However since 2016 they’ve managed to rotate the roster, either or not by their choice. I honestly thought last year was going to be another 2016 for them but they still remained incredibly repetitive.
Doesn’t seem like a coincidence to me.
That's what I meant! I'm not saying it's easy to keep a strong roster but it's a lot easier if you've got a strong roster to start with. There aren't enough quality players available to swap out more than a couple of players at a time. Take SOO for example. NSW didn't make too many changes to the side that got beat last year and they didn't really pick too many debutants either but having Turbo and Latrell together with Teddy at the back made them unbeatable. They built on a very strong base though. Conversely, QLD were a bit short of their best due to injury and even though most had played SOO before, they were never really in it because they weren't that great a side to begin with.
Neither agree or disagree there. The NSW side this year was a lot closer to the Game 2 side of 2019 then the game 3 side of last year in my opinion.
More than ‘a couple of changes’ were made but most importantly players in form experiencing a winning feeling were picked. Really interesting how that team managed to play the same way a lot of the dominant teams have played this year despite the referees not getting involved much to effect the momentum of the game.
There was no evidence of the new rules contributing to that result but yet that game 1 score line makes you believe otherwise.
How did it come about in a game as tight as origin is supposed to be.
The only thing I can think of is the form and confidence of those key players must be that high that they were willing to take the risks that aren’t usually seen in origin. There was no second guessing in decision making and every movement or play was crisp and support was at an all time high.
NSW played the perfect game of the new style of play but yet not one of the new rule changes affected that result.