I see this often in corporates as well . Today , data is like an asset , it’s critical. Gone are the days of making decisions on gut feel , everything is based on what the data says, however there are 2 very big risks:

- The person doing the data analysis is math wizz kid but he doesn’t understand the business and then draws the wrong conclusions.

- The person understands the business , but isn’t mathematically inclined.

Rugby is super complicated and given enough data I will draw a conclusion that teams that win competitions must have A,B and C. The more complex , the more irrational conclusions.

Having said all that , I would love to spend a year deep diving in some proper data , I reckon you can “Moneyball” a winning team by doing so , if you understand the game and math...

Football clubs get this idea and often have a "director of football" or a "transfer board" who decide how the team will play and what players they need to play that way. Then go and find coaches (junior and senior) to train players that way and sign junior and senior players with the skill set needed, and align all teams from under 10s up to have the same formation, tactics and style. Players natural progress through the system and those that reach the 1st team naturally slot straight like, a like for like swap with the player they replace. When Lyon were super successful in France, before the Qatar money arrived at PSG, their owner put their success down to limiting the power of the manager/coach. He had a group of directors who decided how the team would play and what to do to achieve that style. The coach could change but the team would remain the same, ensuring continuity and stability. 

When the SA rowing 4- won gold at the London Olympics, their mantra was "trust the system". Their entire focus for the 4 years up until then was about going through a process to ensure they peaked in that race. Results didn't matter, only the process. That "system" or "process" was building cohesion.