Science Says The Best Rugby Players Come from Rural Areas
If you’ve read Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers, you know his theory regarding how a youngster’s birthday can affect their ability to rise in the ranks of hockey. Whether you believe it or not, it’s an interesting, quantitative way to look at exactly how people become successful at the sport. As it happens, scientists in Australia have come to a similar conclusion regarding rugby players, though it has less to do with age, and more to do with geography.
Scientists from Sydney University’s Faculty of Health Sciences recently published an article in the International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching stating that Australian players from smaller towns are much more likely to succeed in the later stages of rugby than those from larger cities. According to Dr. Stephen Colby (via Business Insider):
“Our research reveals if you started out as a junior in a small country town the odds are stacked in your favour. Statistically, it’s more likely that you will go on to play at a professional level compared to a junior who starts their participation at a club within a big city.”
The study focuses not on where players live currently, but more on where they played at the junior level within the country. The exact reason has yet to be nailed down, but there appears to be some sort of physical or sociological advantage to playing and training in smaller cities and towns. The study looked at the current rosters of Australian National Rugby League players, and from where the players hailed.
The jury may still be out as to exactly why rural kids have a better shot in the rugby world, but it’s a great example of how researchers and scientists are using datasets to find trends and correlations within sports.
(Header photo via reepy_au)
David G. Temple is the Managing Editor of TechGraphs and a contributor to FanGraphs, NotGraphs and The Hardball Times. He hosts the award-eligible podcast Stealing Home. Dayn Perry once called him a "Bible Made of Lasers." Follow him on Twitter @davidgtemple.
You may want to find a new photo. The article talks about rugby league, but the photo you’ve included is a rugby union game.
I’d be curious to see if similar numbers are found with the other codes of footy, i.e. rugby union & aussie rules. To me, the obvious first guess at a reason would be junior participation rates. The numbers in the article seem to be based purely on total population, not on the junior playing population. Small country towns have less junior sporting clubs, less options available than the multitude of sports available in big cities. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover small towns have 16% of the junior playing population, even though they only have 8% of the overall population. In which case, you’d expect 16% of the professional players as well.
Hard to find numbers, but the state of NSW has ~7.5 million people, and about 78,000 junior rugby league players according to a 2010 ASC report. That’s 1 junior player for every ~100 people. City of Cooma has 6,300 people, and over 150 juniors according to http://www.foxsportspulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-1084-18168-0-0&sID=16765 when you’d only expect 63 according to the statewide numbers.
My guess would be that it’s not due to better development of players or a physical advantage, but that if you’re a future elite athlete in a small town, you’re more likely to spend your junior career playing rugby, whereas in a big city you might be involved in rugby, hockey, basketball, rowing, etc, etc. You’re unlikely to become a professional rugby player if you spent most of your time from age 5 to 18 playing hockey.
Thanks, Matt. The photo has been updated. Sorry for the error.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see similar results for US football. In many small towns in the US, football is the one sport with significant “barriers to entry” (equipment, facilities, etc.) that garners substantial public support. This would lead to elite athletes in the smaller towns being more focused on football, following on Matt’s point above about rugby.
Another possible factor is that big cities have less open space for kids to play games such as rugby on their own, while small towns have more open areas. This was one of the items brought up in Matt Swartz’s THT series on the declining number of African-Americans in baseball – growing up in an inner city shifts the pickup games to basketball, which can be played indoors or on an asphalt court.
Reading the linked article- the only data they talk about is how there are more players per capita from rural areas. That’s probably because there are more juniors per capita in small rural areas. That is completely different to saying that juniors from country areas are more likely to reach the majors. And I think it’s quite likely that a higher percentage of kids play rugby league in small country areas than in the city. For example I live in the western suburbs of Sydney (Penrith), which is considered rugby league heartland, but most youngsters play soccer anyway. While in rural areas I don’t think they play soccer as much.
Also thx for changing the picture- the names are confusing but rugby league is a different sport. Although it sounds like it’s a ‘rugby’ league. The games are genuinely different, more so than Canadian football and NFL- maybe like ice hockey and field hockey.