Six Nations 2018

[GB72]

So, the professional teams need to have bigger pools to avoid the injuries that come along in the modern game. If injury, fatigue and shortened playing career are all prevalent in today's game, then ther is a fundamental flaw in the way the game is administered and played. Something needs to change.

That is all correct and the running of the game is awful. Troubleis you have a salary cap in place pushed by increasing wages hyped up by countries with no cap so the option to increase squad sizes is limited. Yh5e big problem is the summer and autumn internationals but remove them and the only international rugby outside of the 6 nations will be the world cup. You could ditch the lions but that is a massive cadh cow for southern hemisphere nations struggling for funding. You could cut the number of teams in the premiership but the turkeys aint going to vote for xmas. You are then left with the option of devaluing the club game with central contracts and up with something like cricket where the big names are hardly seen.

Rugby does need to do something but it is not an easy question to answer. My thought is to stop the clock when the ball leaves play and reduce the number of subs. Then players would need to focus more on stamina and could not carry the bulk and muscle they di at the moment

 

[Lord Tyrion]

There was a big chat about player fatigue and central contracts on r5 today. Basically, the Irish set up is bang on, central contracts and the players get a proper recovery. Wales are nearly there, Scotland wasn't mentioned so I can't pass that on. England have the worst situation where the club's have the power. Problem is the club set up is now entrenched.

Everyone recognised the issue for England, no one could see it changing.

None of the above is to take away from Ireland's win. They are a world class side and have been for some time.

 

[Val]

There was a big chat about player fatigue and central contracts on r5 today. Basically, the Irish set up is bang on, central contracts and the players get a proper recovery. Wales are nearly there, Scotland wasn't mentioned so I can't pass that on. England have the worst situation where the club's have the power. Problem is the club set up is now entrenched.

Everyone recognised the issue for England, no one could see it changing.

None of the above is to take away from Ireland's win. They are a world class side and have been for some time.

Players playing for Glasgow or Edinburgh are on central contracts with the SRU

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Players playing for Glasgow or Edinburgh are on central contracts with the SRU

Thanks Val. So Scotland have it right as well. Only England where clubs win out over country.

 

[Val]

Thanks Val. So Scotland have it right as well. Only England where clubs win out over country.

I maybe wrong in numbers only but I believe that Scottish International players only play 5 club games in a row before being rested and rotated by the clubs unless there are injuries to others which may necessitate their inclusion into match day 23's.

Other international players in Scotland play when required, they don't get such luxury

 

[Old Skier]

Rugby going the same way as football, it's all about money now. Club fans now getting fed up when their best players are not available for important club matches.

 

[Val]

Rugby going the same way as football, it's all about money now. Club fans now getting fed up when their best players are not available for important club matches.

Only in the 2 powerhouse leagues in Europe, England and France. Less so in the Pro14.

 

[GB72]

England missed the chance for centralised contracts when the game went professional. Sadly that horse has bolted.

The salary pressure from the big French teams and the constant calls from certain premiership clubs to up the salary cap has resulted in a dramatic increase in player wages and that has resulted in reduced squad sizes. The constant need to win means that the main players are on the pitch every week rather than rotated.

The big problem, however, is the constant demand at international level to win every time you send out an England team. In reality we should be trying out new players and new combinations in both the summer tour and most of the Autumn internationals but to do so and lose results in a lambasting in the press, calls for sackings etc. Also harder to fill the grounds with a reserve team out. As such, the same squad goes out every time and fatigue kicks in.

Rugby has a problem in that the human body simply cannot take the demands that the sport puts on it over and extended period. There needs to be a massive re-think about the way the game is run to remove some of impact on the players. I can only think of a couple of options:

1. A limited number of games that players can be picked for England in a year. It is unreasonable for clubs to take on all of the pressures associated with resting players. As such, (perhaps only in non world cup years), internationals are limited to playing a set number of tests per year.

2. You adopt the New Zealand approach. Players are allowed off on a sabbatical after the world cup to just play club rugby wherever they want. They then head back to New Zealand the year before to focus on international duty.

3. You change the rules. At present players can bulk up and focus on impact because there are many in built breaks in the game and a large number of subs to players can dictate how long they are on the pitch for. If you stop the clock when the ball leaves play or reduce the number of subs then players will need to train for stamina and not power. This should result in smaller players, less severe hits and less injuries.

4. You reduce the number of subs so as you cannot plan on half the team only playing 60 minutes. Again, this will move the focus to stamina over bulk.

5. You go the other way and have rolling subs and reduce fatigue and injury through less time on the pitch.

Thing is, something does need to change as rugby at the moment is almost becoming unplayable.

 

[Foxholer]

England missed the chance for centralised contracts when the game went professional. Sadly that horse has bolted.

The salary pressure from the big French teams and the constant calls from certain premiership clubs to up the salary cap has resulted in a dramatic increase in player wages and that has resulted in reduced squad sizes. The constant need to win means that the main players are on the pitch every week rather than rotated.

The big problem, however, is the constant demand at international level to win every time you send out an England team. In reality we should be trying out new players and new combinations in both the summer tour and most of the Autumn internationals but to do so and lose results in a lambasting in the press, calls for sackings etc. Also harder to fill the grounds with a reserve team out. As such, the same squad goes out every time and fatigue kicks in.

Rugby has a problem in that the human body simply cannot take the demands that the sport puts on it over and extended period. There needs to be a massive re-think about the way the game is run to remove some of impact on the players. I can only think of a couple of options:

1. A limited number of games that players can be picked for England in a year. It is unreasonable for clubs to take on all of the pressures associated with resting players. As such, (perhaps only in non world cup years), internationals are limited to playing a set number of tests per year.

2. You adopt the New Zealand approach. Players are allowed off on a sabbatical after the world cup to just play club rugby wherever they want. They then head back to New Zealand the year before to focus on international duty.

3. You change the rules. At present players can bulk up and focus on impact because there are many in built breaks in the game and a large number of subs to players can dictate how long they are on the pitch for. If you stop the clock when the ball leaves play or reduce the number of subs then players will need to train for stamina and not power. This should result in smaller players, less severe hits and less injuries.

4. You reduce the number of subs so as you cannot plan on half the team only playing 60 minutes. Again, this will move the focus to stamina over bulk.

5. You go the other way and have rolling subs and reduce fatigue and injury through less time on the pitch.

Thing is, something does need to change as rugby at the moment is almost becoming unplayable.

All good stuff that I generally agree with, but doesn't answer the basic question of 'Why has England's performance been so, comparatively, poor?'. The one glaring difference is the amount of Rugby England players have had compared to the other Unions. And most of that is down to the Central vs Club contracts!

I don't believe 'the horse has bolted' in this at all! I don't believe there is any way other Unions are going to allow the sort of (rule) changes you are proposing when it's only a problem for England - and one of their own making!

 

[GB72]

Not sure some of it is just an England problem. The stresses on the body do need addressing. You cannot keep letting players get bigger and hit harder.

But you are right. The simplest solution would be fir England to use more of their playing resources on thr understanding that some games will be lost but some gems will be found as well.

 

[fundy]

Not sure some of it is just an England problem. The stresses on the body do need addressing. You cannot keep letting players get bigger and hit harder.

But you are right. The simplest solution would be fir England to use more of their playing resources on thr understanding that some games will be lost but some gems will be found as well.

Its sort of self defeating to some degree though, because the more you limit the number of games an individual can play the higher the pace/tempo and size of hits become and hence the stresses on the body. Think you hit the nail on the head earlier with regard to a greater emphasis back towards stamina requirements, you know when you hear a coach saying that a front row forward should never be playing 80 minutes then the current emphasis is way off track sadly

How many games is too many? Available games in a season seems to be premiership (22 games max), play offs (3) , european games (9) , autumn internationals (5) , 6 nations (5) and potentially a summer tour. (5 on a lions tour?)

So a top flight player could be playing 25 games before you include his home league appearances (and i expect Farrell did in the last 12 months!) which just cant be close to sustainable, especially when even a playmaker is expected to be far more physical than used to be (compare to the protection a quarter back gets in nfl for eg and relatively how short their season is)

At the moment neither England nor the clubs are about to back down and the product and especially the players are the ones that will suffer

 

[Doon frae Troon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43452261

Team of the series.......can't really argue with that although I thought Hamish Watson may have been in.

 

[Val]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43452261

Team of the series.......can't really argue with that although I thought Hamish Watson may have been in.

From a purely Scottish perspective I think Leavy deserves to be ahead of Watson but reckon Jonny Gray would replace AWJ and Stuart McInally replace Rory Best, other than that I wouldn’t argue

 

[Doon frae Troon]

From a purely Scottish perspective I think Leavy deserves to be ahead of Watson but reckon Jonny Gray would replace AWJ and Stuart McInally replace Rory Best, other than that I wouldn’t argue

Gray[J] never gets the recognition he deserves, time after time he comes off the pitch with the 'most tackles made'.
Generally plays the full 80 mins as well.
McInally had a superb series.
Never been a great fan of AWJ but he seemed to play well this series.

 

[Dibby]

The below table highlights the overuse of English players.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

The below table highlights the overuse of English players.

View attachment 24674

Poor wee souls.
Most of them will be millionaires though.:lol:

 

[Rooter]

Poor wee souls.
Most of them will be millionaires though.:lol:

Really? they are not footballers!!! While some will be, and most will be paid well! Its nowhere near the realms of the football equivalents. Take Owen Farrel, he gets 750k a year, he is probably one of the best paid in the squad, compare him with Harry Kane for example...