Timbo wrote:The players through the RPA should be lobbying- and taking direct action if needed- to reduce the number of games overall. Unfair to ask individual players to sit out big test series deciders or prem finals/semi finals etc. Those games are career defining and why they play the sport in the first place. If 32 is the max a player should be playing then there should be no more than 32 games in a season.
Also the only real way the sport will deal with the concussion is issue is to reduce the number of fixtures and have a proper break between seasons.
I mean, you're absolutely right, but I don't think the appetite is there from the players. Fewer club games means less money for the clubs, less money for the clubs means lower wages, and while they might want less abuse of their bodies (and wish they'd voted for it when they're 40), they're not willing to take a lower paycheque for it. Speaking as someone who does life insurance and income protection insurance for a living, people of 20-29 are very hard to convince to take jam tomorrow.
Puja
Right, but over the last few years you’ve had a players union that has stood by while the number of fixtures have gone up and the salary cap has gone down. Whatever the reasons, if I was asked the do more work for less pay I’d expect my union to step in. No good chiming in now with a few sound bites.
The problem is that, over the last few years, it's been more work for more pay as salaries have risen. The RPA have made big strides on the regulatory side of protecting the players by getting the 32 game limit introduced in the first place (about 5 years ago?) and bringing in contact training limits and rest periods for England internationals (such as they're observed), but there hasn't been the appetite to have the conversation about the structural issues like reducing the size of the Premiership because the first riposte is "It'll mean a drop in salaries" and players don't want that.
I mean, look at all the players who waived their Lions rest period because it affected their bottom line/they were worried about losing their place which would affect their bottom line. The only one to choose jam tomorrow and take it all was Maro Itoje and he's the only one who didn't spend a substantial time out with injury.
Oakboy wrote:I still think a 'top-down' dose of realism is the only way to get anywhere. The first agenda item has to be country/club fixture clashes. No top club games should be scheduled when internationals are on. If that creates overall fixture congestion, reducing the size of European competitions should be a first step.
Loss of club 'gate' income needs imagination and compromise to overcome. Under-21 competitions, reinstating 'A' internationals on Friday nights at club grounds and even regional games could all be considered - any competitions that do not involve international players (all within the 32 game rule etc.).
Good thinking. When I drew up my Grand Unified Theory of Season a couple of years back, I put in a 4th AI with the idea that the funds would go towards compensating the clubs for the loss of home fixtures that my reduced size Premiership would've created. A full Twickenham makes more money than a whole round of GP, I'd wager.
I think an opportunity is available with the rise of the women's game and Premier 15s. It's content that could fill grounds and fallow days and clubs should be leaning into it hard.
13 and possibly 14 teams in the Prem is too many but i'm not sure any of the clubs would like to see that reduced.
Ideally we'd have 10 teams, room for a Prem/Champ cup which would encourage clubs to play fringe/young players and still leave enough room for Euro commitments.
As far as avoiding clashes with international, i'm amazed that we dont see more midweek games while the AI's and 6N's are on.
Anybody else yearn for honesty and transparency from the rugby authorities? One little trivial example is the advertised KO times in Australia. They still show as 10.55 am our time but both matches so far have kicked off at least 10 minutes late. Presumably, it was always a ruse to get more people tuning in to get all the historical/tribal stuff.
Jones has not mentioned that but now wants TMO use curbed.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:Is winding up the opposition a new thing?
No, but don't you think it's really a sign of weakness (or at least an indication of a lack of faith in your own set-up)? Top sides don't need to waste their time on it.
IMO, it's as unnecessary and tasteless as patting your opponents on the head at scrum penalties etc. I don't see how a head coach can criticise ill discipline on the field if he has indulged in petty verbal wind-ups before the match.
I don’t like it. We don’t need to do it and I’d like to think we’re better than that.
I don’t think Eddie has ‘indulged in petty verbal wind ups’ on this tour though. The Aussies been talking about shutting us up this week which felt a bit ironic IMO as I really don’t think we’ve been saying a great deal. If anything, they’re coming across as the more vocal in the media.
Got to say that the first English contribution of the day was an excellent display from Barnes.
Maybe could have been a yellow for Savea in the 2nd half, but he withstood the pressure to even things up with the head to head collision, but also pinged the Irish defence for being offside a few times and also for the choke tackle too.
