The main story arc for me was that we used to win more when we had three teams, because it creates greater cohesion for selectors.
It helped that some of those guys had played a lot of rugby together through their early years. And that they also played MORE rugby back then - even in club land that can be an asset. I think there is good data (Ben Darwin's Gainline Analytics) that backs up the cohesion argument BUT it isn't the only factor IMHO.
Australia hasn't been a rugby powerhouse for most of its history. Fact.
What the "Three Team Theory" doesn't sufficiently address is the talent level of those players who came together in the Wallaby jersey, during our most recent success at the turn of the century. There were some all-time greats there, but it took some time to get there.
Most of them had spent a portion of their career prior to professionalism going around club rugby, and a LOT of their opposition had done the same. We adapted to profesionalism faster than everyone else, and reaped (and then squandered) the benefits.
The team in 1991 was much the same, without the professionalism.
1984? You had the Ellas.
And yes, 1991 and 1984 were guardrailed by only having 2 representative teams, but the code wasn't even good enough to be a non-event back then.
Before the Ellas, it was a very dark time punctuated with flickering magnesium candles.
TBH the pathways are the problem, not the number of teams we have at pro level.
