Selecting a team based on symmetry

Picking a sports side is always an interesting venture. Apart from it being an exercise of tactics and planning, there is also the toughest facet of all when it comes to forming a competitive outfit: the human dynamic.

History tells us a group of people that have spent a certain period of time around one another would be better at performing a team task then a group without any experience of working together. In World War II, the best trained soldiers for most of the war were the Germans who, apart from their government being led by a Nazi, had been preparing for war since conscription began in 1935. That meant a four-year head-start on the rest of the continent which proved vital in the initial stages of the war. Training and fighting together does a lot to a group’s base skill level, since they become more effective as they learn of each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

So, assuming that the above is correct, how can we apply this to team selection? The easiest way would be where whole sections of sport teams are selected as cohesively as possible, in relation to their shared responsibilities and function. Some sports unfortunately cannot be included, with cricket being one. Cricket, while a team game, is a game played by individuals in the sense that all the action ie: a bowler sending a delivery down to the batsman, is him versus the batsman. Team sports on the other hand prove easier to work with because many of them can be broken down according to either formation or playing structure.

Football is one such case. Apart from the goalkeeper, the rest of a football team is broken down into (generally) defence, midfield, and attack. While the names don’t hold any relevance to what each class is capable of doing, it is a starting point. In football it is very rare for a side to be complete in all positions. Barcelona and other formidable outfits from the past such as the AC Milan side of the early 90s and perhaps even Spain of 2010 can claim to have unprecedented depth. The majority of Spain’s team play for Barcelona, and they proved through their version of possession football that the 2010 World Cup was indeed a tournament of the team instead of the individual.

You can even go a step further and suggest, for example, the fullbacks could come from the same club and so on and so forth.

Which brings me to the way a rugby side is selected. In the case of South Africa, last year the vast majority of players came from the Bulls (up front at least) while this year there has been an even spread (almost) between the Bulls and the Stormers. With that been said, should South Africa look to pick sides as components of units instead as a team of combined individual talent? It is said that the best 15 players doesn’t necessarily mean the best team.

In rugby, we could break down a side to the following:

1. Front row

2. Locks

3. Loose trio

4. Scrumhalf and flyhalf

5. Centres

6. Back three

If this pattern was followed via selecting units from SA’s Super 14 sides, the team could look like this:

1. Front row – Sharks – Jannie du Plessis, Bismarck du Plessis, John Smit (c) (Beast is on the bench)

2. Locks – Bulls – Danie Rossouw/Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield

3. Loose trio – Stormers – Francois Louw, Schalk Burger and Duane Vermeulen

4. Half-backs – Bulls – Fourie du Preez/Francois Hougaard and Morne Steyn

5. Centres – Stormers – Jaque Fourie and Jean de Villiers

6. Back three – Stormers – Gio Aplon, Bryan Habana and Conrad Jantjies (OK … that is a bit of stretch but if Joe Pietersen were still in SA it would be a quite exciting back three).

Not the worst team is it? Granted, the likes of the Cheetahs and the Lions have been ignored but even then the Cheetahs loose trio of Johnson, Smith and Brussouw isn’t that bad either.

Food for thought?

Prediction for the weekend: All Blacks 42 – 17 Australia.