The players should have some autonomy. Given they’re on record that they would like shorter seasons and were brought in to discussions on the new ‘global’ season, it seems strange to completely remove them from this decision.Which Tyler wrote:I'd argue, strongly, that the point is that players want to play - and need to be protected from themselves.Banquo wrote:I think the point is that the players want to play. Certainly the two I know about want to stake claims early in the season. As above, a blanket rest period doesn’t suit some players.
Players also want to play after a head knock - that doesn't make it okay to do so.
There's more to it than just physically playing. I've allowed elsewhere that I don't mind eating into the 10 weeks for those not playing in the last test - but they're still training, they're still in the gym, they're still in analysis meetings... they're still psychologically knackered.Mellsblue wrote: Take the example of England’s three fullbacks on England’s summer tour. Furbank played no matches, Freeman played two and Steward played three. All had totally different loadings throughout the tour, not to mention the entire season. With all the GPS and smart gumshield data a blanket rest period is years out of date.
As above, players need to be protected from themselves, and from their coaches. A blanker break may be out of date, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other option.
Obviously nowhere near my area of expertise, but I fail to see how tailoring breaks for each individual based on their, accurately measured, workloads can’t be achieved and can’t be the best case scenario. Sale did it with Tuilagi and kept him fit long enough for Jones to break him. Quins managed players workload so well, based on gps and smart gumshields, that they came from nowhere to win the Prem final.