Talk:2019 Rugby World Cup squads

Should this page have an infobox and if so what should it say?

Infobox is on all previous Rugby World Squad pages, and is a standard feature. This one has very little info in it at the moment, should extra information be added (total players?, tournament dates?) and if so what, or should it be deleted? Skeene88 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There's really no need for an infobox. All the relevant info can be seen at 2019 Rugby World Cup. – PeeJay 15:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree, 2018 FIFA World Cup squads does not have them for instance as a direct comparison.Skeene88 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Clubs listed and use of flags

We've had several cross-edits on what clubs players represent and when/whether to use flags next to clubs. I see no reason to use flags next to domestic teams. It is just clutter on the page. If we are to do this however we need to add it to all national squads. Regards what clubs should be shown, it should be the current club not one they are due to join after the tournament. It should also match their personal page, though appreciate that is a very big job as a lot are out of date.Skeene88 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Skeene88 On most of the case that you have reverted in regards to clubs, are to the clubs that are listed on the press release by the respective unions. Surely that is the source we should go by? For example, just because is still listed on Toulouse squad page, that is more their website is not up to date - cleared listed as unattached (Svincolato) on FIR press release

Leonardo Ghiraldini is a good example where we need to also update his personal page and the Stade Toulousain page. That is a good source and can 100% be used.Skeene88 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue we've got is in alot of the cases on here, the 2018/19 season has actually finished in the Northern Hemisphere and the 2019/20 season has begun - Top 14 for example is round 2 this weekend. How can we list Rory Best as Ulster, when has announced his retirement? He isn't registered to a club, when Ireland finish the world cup he finishes. In this case, the respective unions know better than us, and therefor we should list the players on here as per what the unions announce them as at the final squad? Agreed?

So long as we cite reputable sources with a current club listed, such as the Italy squad announcement. It's a tricky situation and not our place as editors to make a judgement call. The South Africa squad list for instance does not mention club affiliation and those moving to Japan won't start until January. I would agree that Best should be listed as unattached. The rule of thumb should be "where would he be playing but for the RWC", but that is only my opinion. So yes, where a reputable source lists the clubs I see no problem at all to use it. Any views on when to use flags? I'm not too bothered about them but if we have domestic ones at all then we should have them on all of the squads really.Skeene88 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Disagree about Rory Best for several reasons. Firstly, he is still listed on IRFU website as an Ulster player in the final squad announcement. There is no source listing him as unattached. I can't see why we would label him in a different state of employment than his direct employer does. Secondly, for the "where would he be playing but for the RWC" question, the IRFU have a precedent from the previous World Cup with a player announcing intention to retire post-World Cup and then not making the final squad. In that case, Gordon D'Arcy continued to train with Leinster until Ireland were eliminated to keep himself match fit. It is reasonable to assume Best would have done the same thing, so the answer to that hypothetical question is Ulster. Finally, in other team sports, most prominently soccer, is customary for a player recently released by their club ahead of an international tournament to be listed with their most recent club, with a specific example being Keith Andrews at Euro 2012 coming into the tournament a free agent, but listed as a West Bromwich Albion player on the squad page nonetheless. Going from the 2018 to 1994 squad lists for the FIFA World Cups, I don't see a single player listed as unattached or free agent. If it's good enough for soccer, why not here?Scewmadden (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If its sourced as that in the official IRFU squad announcement then yes we go with Ulster being listed, no argument against here. 11:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have set his club to Ulster with my most recent edit. Consider it provisional until a hard and fast policy is decided. As of right now, I can't see the basis for listing him as unattached. It would be a claim original to this article, which is contrary to the website's general purpose. Scewmadden (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed about Rory Best. He is no longer contracted to Ulster, so it wouldn't make sense to list him as an Ulster player here. As for flags, I think they're only necessary when the player plays for a club from a different country to the national team they're playing for. It makes sense to assume that any England players without flags, for example, play in England. – PeeJay 13:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Should Sunwolves even be listed for Japan either? They're barely not a team anymore and Japan cleared listed their players to the domestic clubs. Rugby.change (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If the Japan Rugby Union's squad announcement didn't mention the Sunwolves, neither should we. – PeeJay 00:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I just looked it up: they will play in Super Rugby in 2020, but not after that, so they do still exist. We should list them, surely? – PeeJay 00:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sunwolves squad comes and goes on a seasonly basis. They don't contract player for more than one season by the looks of things. You never see a player sign with Sunwolves and announced they will be there for X amount of years. I think we should just go with the Japanese domestic teams. Rugby.change (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In regards to flags, I don't really have much preference to it. I would argue for, purely because it's used in previous years on teams that has mixed clubs from different countries. Further to that, the players that has a club that is not linked to a page, gets lost amongst the players who are unattached - and vice versa. Rugby.change (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely and I think it's more in keeping with precedent from previous sports and tournaments to have flags for each club regardless of where it's based. For countries that have all their players based domestically like England, Ireland and New Zealand, it is understandable to not attach club nationality on the team's own page as it is superfluous, but for the sake of clarity, uniformity and continuity, I think it would be best to simply include every club's nationality. If there's no serious objection or reply on this issue before Thursday, I'd propose to provisionally change it back. Scewmadden (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

People doing things in the past are not a reason to do them in the future. I see no benefit to this change, it also significantly increases the article size. If it is superfluous for one nation to flag domestic teams why not another? I also strongly question whether this falls under MOS:Flags#inappropriate use as it gives undue prominence to the "nationality" of the clubs, when the clubs themselves do not have a nationality per se.Skeene88 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My argument was not to leave flags off clubs for England, Ireland and New Zealand but to have flags on all clubs for all teams. I was just explaining where the recent trend of excluding flags started. The nationality of the club is relevant, or we wouldn't have the foreign-based players on each team highlighted. I would argue that it is more arbitrary to decide to have flags on some clubs and not on others. For a first-time visitor interested in learning about the sport seeking to read the squad lists, having some clubs with flags and some without is confusing. A squad list page like this should be designed for a user to be able to click on the name of the relevant team and find all necessary information within. Unless we intend to explain above each squad list that flags are only used for foreign-based players, I think it is more effective to simply have each club's country shown. I also don't see why it's a bad idea to follow precedents from other sports. If football, basketball, ice hockey, field hockey and other professional team sports do things in this way, it seems contrarian and potentially confusing to newcomers for us to do things differently. Scewmadden (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah if you want to add them in that's fine, I'm not going to revert it or anything. As I understand it if you put "hatnote=yes" on the squad template it says the flags are the union of the club's location.Skeene88 (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with the idea of adding flags for all clubs. They're simply not needed for clubs in the same country as the national team they're listed under. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a very small note to explain what we've done there, but it's just overkill and probably a violation of MOS:ICON to add flags for every club. – PeeJay 13:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would be surprised if it were a violation of the MOS given it is common practise among sports with far more active editor bases to include the "nation" of all clubs in squad lists for international competitions. As Rugby.change stated in the original post on this topic, the unattached players get lost among those at a domestic club without a page. My reasons, as stated above, are clarity, uniformity and continuity. Clarity: that, at a glance, it is clear where each player is based, uniformity: that it is easily digestible to readers familiar with reading similar pages about other sports, and continuity: that it's consistent in style with previous World Cups. I appreciate that the last of these arguments is the most nebulous as the style of previous squad lists for these tournaments is scattershot at best (it would be my intention to update them following this tournament in accordance with the style we decide on here) but most previous tournaments have included flags for domestic clubs. Scewmadden (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just because something is done a certain way by others doesn't mean it's not a violation of Wikipedia policy. A lot of people simply aren't aware of the policies we have here. Per WP:TOOMANY, we shouldn't use too many icons. If we can find a way to reduce the number we use (i.e. by not adding icons where the nationalities of the club and the national team are the same), then that would be supported by policy. – PeeJay 13:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's a violation of wikipedia policy. Firstly, the Wales national rugby union team article has been featured with the squad list included featuring Welsh flags before the Welsh clubs. Another featured article, the France national rugby union team has flags before every club, and all the clubs are French. If it's good enough for feature, surely it's good enough for here. Secondly, I would argue flags before clubs in national team squad-lists is similar to flags before player names in club squad-lists and it is established convention there to put a players nationality, even if the player is from the same country as the club and even, in some cases, where the entire club is made up of players from that country. The Crusaders (rugby union) page, another featured article, has flags before every New Zealand player. The flags serve a similar purpose, a similar case could be made for them being superfluous but they are good enough for feature. Scewmadden (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I forgot to add, the club nationalities also serve a practical purpose in the squad list. With flags on all clubs, clicking sort by club separates clubs into their respective nations and gives a clear picture of the spread of players. As is, sorting by club on Canada for instance, splits Canadian clubs into three different sections. The alphabetical nature of the list is also thrown as it sorts by "C for Calgary Canucks" then "E for England," then "F for France," "M for Markham Irish." This just gives a muddled spread of the clubs and somewhat defeats the usefulness of the sort list. Scewmadden (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a very specific inquiry about clubs, relating primarily to New Zealand and South Africa. Why is that there are two clubs listed for each player in New Zealand and some of the domestic South African players? I understand this refers to their provincial teams, but surely this is is superseded by their Super Rugby side? The Irish squad announcement included their province and their local club but Jonathan Sexton is not listed as playing for "St Mary's/Leinster," just Leinster. Likewise, all Japanese players play for Sunwolves, but Michael Leitch is not listed as "Toshiba Brave Lupus/Sunwolves." There is not even consistency within Super Rugby. Tyler Ardron is listed only for the Chiefs, not "Chiefs/Bay of Plenty," while his Chiefs teammates playing for New Zealand have extra details added. It's just my opinion but it seems like arbitrary and superfluous information to include considering top level internationals rarely play in the Mitre 10 and Currie Cups anyway. By the logic of including the provincial team, why should Beauden Barrett's club details not also include his local club and be listed as "Blues/Taranaki/Coastal" or something to that effect? Meanwhile, in the South Africn squad, some are listed just as Bulls, others as "Bulls/Blue Bulls," and others as "Sharks/Sharks," which is somewhat ridiculous. Again, this is just my opinion he most consistent way to handle this would be, if given multiple 'levels' of clubs by the source, to stop at the highest level they play at, as in the Irish squad list. By this system, in the New Zealand squad list, Beauden Barrett would simply be listed to the Blues, Retallick to the Chiefs, etc. and in the South African list, Trevor Nyakane and Lood de Jager would both be listed only to the Bulls, Tendai Mtawarira would be listed to the Sharks, rather than "Sharks/Sharks" and so on. Scewmadden (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking South Africa first, their Currie Cup teams are contracted separately from their Super Rugby team despite them often being owned by the same people, this is why some have it and some don't. Personally I would agree that just using the Super Rugby teams for South Africa would be fine, particularly as they all play for the "obvious" Currie Cup team where applicable, previous articles also only ever list the Super Rugby side. For New Zealand it is trickier, their Super Rugby teams are drafted from the Mitre 10 teams, so there is less overlap, Sevu Reece or Nepo Laulaula for instance play for Mitre 10 teams which are not in the "sub-unions" of their Super Rugby team. They do genuinely play for both of these sides, particularly in normal years. Reviewing previous articles 2015 Rugby World Cup squads uses the convention of listing both, 2011 Rugby World Cup squads goes Super Rugby only, 2007 Rugby World Cup squads goes Mitre 10 equivalent only, 2003 Rugby World Cup uses this convention plus NZL flag. So there is no historical consensus particularly. Regarding the Sunwolves as per the above they are generally listed by their corporate club on external reputable sources so that's what I'd go for there.Skeene88 (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the New Zealand situation is somewhat tricky, but for Ireland, Joey Carbery's club is Clontarf in Leinster, with whom he has won an AIL title, while his provincial team is Munster. Robbie Henshaw plays for Leinster, but his club in Buccaneers in Connacht. Neither of these occurrences are noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion of their clubs alongside their province in their squad lists. At the risk of being over-simplistic, I would wager Reece has been picked for New Zealand on the back of his performances for the Crusaders rather than Waikato. Regarding previous years, I think it would be best to use the ongoing talk in this World Cup to devise a style that could retroactively be applied to those lists, in situations where a lack of continuity exists. As for Japanese situation, while it is complicated by the situation of Sunwolves impending dissolution, the union has nailed its colours to the mast in this regard by naming the players by Top League club only so, yes, I feel it's best to follow that example and leave as is. Scewmadden (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think AIL sides are equivalent to Mitre 10 cup sides. Firstly, as a basis Mitre 10 Cup is regarded as a professional competition that qualifies you for an article on this website under general notability, AIL doesn't. Secondly, the New Zealand players are employed by the Mitre 10 sides separately from their Super Rugby contracts, the AIL is totally amateur or at least the provincial players are employed by the province not the club. Thirdly, All Blacks not selected for this competition did rejoin the Mitre 10 competition "please see link here"., whereas I believe Joey Carberry last played for Clontarf in 2016. These are fairly strong differencesSkeene88 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as we seem to be in agreement about South Africa and no one else has added to this conversation, I'll make those changes for now. I would still be of the opinion that New Zealand players should be listed only by Super Rugby team, as the current situation just creates inconsistency with other squad list. Scewmadden (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, just go with the one team to list, no need to have franchise/region and club. So Super Rugby clubs only, pro14 regions/clubs only etc etc. I'm for having flags, but have no preference if there users against. Rugby.change (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion around flags is ongoing, so I won't touch that, but I'll provisionally move to Super Rugby teams only for the sake of consistency to see if anyone has other reasons for reverting it. Scewmadden (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Prose

I'm sure it's been others who have done this as well, though I've noticed it a couple of times from User:Skeene88, but we should be leaving as much prose as possible in this article. It doesn't help anyone to remove text about each team's initial squads, even if it's just to say "Team X announced their original training squad on DD MMM. Player Y pulled out due to injury on DD MMM and was replaced by player Z. Team X confirmed their final squad on DD MMM." – PeeJay 13:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing against this, we just need to make sure we do this for all 20 teams. Rugby.change (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Can I also add, it might be just a preference thing, we should try and source all the squads to the RWC Official Website or official union website rather than any average website. Thoughts? Rugby.change (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Rugby.change on where to source squad lists from. Totally disagree that we should be leaving loads of old and useless information on team lists. This article is a list of the squads for the 2019 Rugby World Cup. Not a list of training squads and anyone who happened to have a training session in the 6 months prior. There will be plenty of injury replacements to add in once the tournament actually begins, we do not need at all information on people that did not go the tournament in any shape or form. remember Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Skeene88 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to mention exact names of people who didn't make it, but it makes sense to chart how the squad was formed since the initial training squads were announced. – PeeJay 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to chart in too much detail. The page is for squad lists for the final tournament. I think it just adds superfluous information and is an invitation for further unneeded information to be added. The squad lists themselves should be as concise as possible, as in basketball or soccer. Scewmadden (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Overview" section

Is it really necessary to have a section listing the head coaches and captain of each nation? While a table like this is useful for club competitions like the Premiership or Pro14, where there isn't a dedicated squad page for each season, it seems out of place here and isn't present in previous years. I don't see the requirement for it. I think it would be more efficient and more in keeping both with previous editions of the tournament and with other sports to simply list each head coach above the squad list for their team and then denote the captain within. Scewmadden (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, if anything an "overview" section would be prose about how the squads were named, controversy in selections, etc. If the table were to be retained then the title "Coaches and Captains" would be more appropriate.Skeene88 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This hasn't really generated the discussion I was hoping, but I'm going to go ahead and add the coaches above their respective teams, as in previous editions of the tournament and in comparable tournaments in other sports. Whether or not to remove this table can still be discussed afterwards. Scewmadden (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Caps

Is it planned to update the total number of caps of players to have an up to date figure as of the beginning of RWC? I think it would be more appropriate, but not sure on how to find these figures 185.46.214.119 (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is "hidden text" <--Appearing in the article like this --> which says the caps are going to be up dated once the warm up games are finished. I'm not sure who put it in but yes the intention will be to up date it. espnscrum is a usually reliable database to use for international caps. [1]

I have updated all caps in pool A to be accurate to after the last warm-ups played. I used the ESPN Scrum website as the source. The primary team requiring changes was Russia, whose official site listed "games played" rather than caps and seems to count non-capped games like the recent friendlies with Jersey and Connacht. To prevent confusion, I've left an archived copy of the ESPN Scrum page for Russia as a source in the article. Scewmadden (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have just completed checking of caps for pools B and C and made a few changes. Once I do pool D tomorrow (or if someone else does it), I'll update the blurb to state that caps are as they were on the eve of the tournament. After this point they should be left alone, and all injury-replacement players should of course only have caps from before the tournament counted. Scewmadden (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Done there. Scewmadden (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Player representation by league

Obviously two of us were doing this at the same time resulting in crossed postings. I have blanked off the other version. My reason for doing so is that the other version was actually "representation by country of club" that is to say it combined leagues in the same country, i.e. Top 14 and Rugby Pro D2 but separated Super Rugby into its consistent countries. As the title of the section is "representation by league" it should be broken down by the league's involved, i.e. Premiership Rugby, Global Rapid Rugby, Major League Rugby rather than by nation. I have no objections for adding a further table by country of the club's origin. I was also unsure on exactly what every club in Japan was in, there is conflicting information available on wiki on NTT DoCoMo Red Hurricanes and the Coca-Cola Red SparksSkeene88 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

For reference here are the two tables being discussed:

League	Players	Percent	Outside national squad
Total	620	—	—
Pro14	118	19.0%	12
Super Rugby	118	19.0%	6
Top 14	78	12.5%	47
Premiership Rugby	74	11.9%	43
Major League Rugby	37	5.9%	11
Top League	32	5.1%	1
Rugby Premier League	31	5.0%	2
Namibia *	20	3.2%	0
Campeonato Uruguayo de Rugby	16	2.5%	0
Pro D2	16	2.5%	16
RFU Championship	13	2.0%	13
Global Rapid Rugby	10	1.6%	6
Didi 10	9	1.5%	0
Other	28	4.5%	18
Unattached	20	3.2%	—

* Namibia's Welwitschias most recently played in South Africa's 2019 Rugby Challenge but do not appear in a regular league as such.

League		Players	Percent	Outside national squad
Total		620	—	—
England		88	14.2%	57
France		96	15.5%	65
Georgia		9	1.5%	—
Japan		33	5.3%	2
Namibia *		20	3.2%	—
Russia		31	5.0%	2
Uruguay		16	2.6%	—
Global Rapid Rugby	Australia	3	0.5%	3
	Fiji	4	0.7%	—
	Samoa	2	0.3%	—
	Singapore	1	0.2%	1
Major League Rugby	Canada	9	1.7%	2
	United States	28	4.5%	18
Pro12	Ireland	31	5.0%	—
	Italy	26	4.2%	1
	Scotland	27	4.4%	5
	South Africa	1	0.2%	1
	Wales	32	5.2%	5
Super Rugby	Argentina	26	4.2%	—
	Australia	32	5.2%	2
	Japan	1	0.2%	1
	New Zealand	36	5.8%	5
	South Africa	23	3.7%	3
Other		24	3.9%	15
Unattached		20	2.9%	—

* Namibia's Welwitschias most recently played in South Africa's 2019 Rugby Challenge but do not appear in a regular league as such.

Skeene88 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth renaming the table then, to something like about the union/country of clubs. Your points exactly with NTT DoCoMo Red Hurricanes, they come under the Japanese league structure but may not necessarily be Top League. (Also should be 33 for the Top League if NTT are Top League) Darlington Mowden Park for example is part of the RFU league structure, but listed under I assume Other, why not just combine by union of league. France, England, Japan, etc. Whats the issue with denoting countries in Pro 14 or Super Rugby? FYI, its 117 on Pro14 not 118. Rugby.change (talk) 22 September 2019

So on my table we have a list of leagues and the counts of the players in them. It does what says. On the other table we have three totally separate leagues combined, (both Premiership Rugby, RFU Championship, National League 1 and Top 14, Rugby Pro D2 and Federal 1), while at the same time separating out other leagues by the team's location. On the player count I have Rueben de Haas as a Cheetahs (rugby union) player per the side listed in the article. I assume that is the discrepancy? All the numbers and leagues are from this article.Skeene88 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

31 from Ireland, 32 from Wales (2 Samoa, 1 Scotland, 1 Namibia, 1 Tonga, 27 Wales), 27 from Scotland (22 Scottish, 1 Canada, 1 Tonga, 3 Fiji), 26 from Italy (25 Italy, 1 Tonga), 1 from South Africa (1 USA) - You might have included Gordon Reid as a Scottish Regional player?

If we are to have it in the Skeene88 way, there isn't much point of the Outside Nat squad section. You can't tell how many players are outside the national squad for Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Australia, USA, Canada - basically more than half of the countries competing. But then you can't expand all of multi-country leagues (pro14, super rugby, GRR, etc), and have each single country league listed (RFU Champ, Pro D2, etc) cause then the table will be huge. That's why I think it would be best to go with what I had, atleast there is the argument that RFU Champ, Prem, Nat 1 all come under the RFU league structure and Pro D2, Top 14, Fed 1 all come under the FFR league structure. And you can clearly see how many players play in the RFU leagues that are not English, how many players play in the French leagues that are not French and you can still see how many players play in Wales that are not Welsh, or in Scotland that are not Scottish. Rugby.change (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Why would you need to break it down by nation like that? The table is "Player representation by league". The table should show the leagues with the most players in it. I think you are looking at a different thing best suited to using a different table. The purpose of the section is to show how many Premiership Rugby or Rugby Pro D2 players have been selected. Combining the leagues fundamentally undermines that and makes it pointless. I can see an argument for removing the other nationalities column, but I feel it is clear that these are "other than the nations listed". RE: pro 14 players there are two Namibian players listed, Lesley Kim for Ospreys and Aranos Coetzee for Cheetahs.

Proposal: We add in another table called "Player representation by nation", and include the non-MLR Canadian players, non-Super Rugby New Zealand based players etc in their home country for consistency between England and France's league and the others. What do you think to that? We could remove the "Other nationalities" column from the "by league" column if that reduces overlap.Skeene88 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Players representation by league

League	Players	Percent
Total	620	—
Pro14	118	19.0%
Super Rugby	118	19.0%
Top 14	78	12.5%
Premiership Rugby	74	11.9%
Major League Rugby	37	5.9%
Top League	32	5.1%
Rugby Premier League	31	5.0%
Namibia *	20	3.2%
Campeonato Uruguayo de Rugby	16	2.5%
Pro D2	16	2.5%
RFU Championship	13	2.0%
Global Rapid Rugby	10	1.6%
Didi 10	9	1.5%
Other	28	4.5%
Unattached	20	3.2%

* Namibia's Welwitschias most recently played in South Africa's 2019 Rugby Challenge but do not appear in a regular league as such.

Player representation by nation

Union	Players	Percent	Other national squad
Total	620	—	—
England	88	14.2%	57
France	96	15.5%	65
Georgia	9	1.5%	—
Japan	34	5.4%	3
Namibia *	20	3.2%	—
Russia	31	5.0%	2
Uruguay	16	2.6%	—
Australia	38	6.1%	8
Fiji	4	0.7%	—
Samoa	3	0.3%	—
Canada	13	2.1%	2
United States	28	4.5%	18
Ireland	31	5.0%	—
Italy	26	4.2%	1
Scotland	28	4.5%	5
South Africa	28	3.8%	4
Wales	32	5.2%	5
Argentina	29	4.7%	1
New Zealand	41	6.6%	10
Other	5	0.0%	3
Unattached	20	2.9%	—

Skeene88 Wouldn't disagree with your proposal, but why not just the second table? Rugby.change (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Because they show different things! Leagues and unions are not interchangeable, especially with so many cross border leagues in operation. I mean at some level why include any of it? Shall I change/add the tables?Skeene88 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)