Injuries

[fivepointer]

Another game, another player laid out, and others having to leave due to an injury.

Exe and Wasps slugged it out today, both missing about 10 squad players before the game had started.

Almost every team is struggling with injuries and we are only 4 games into the season. Injuries are of course part and parcel of the game. Very rarely do you get to choose from a full squad and coaches will always have to juggle resources to cover unavailability.

But I just wonder if we are at unprecedented levels of injury - some quite serious - allied to the seemingly high number of players being knocked out or taken off for a HIA.

My false perception, or is there a serious injury/concussion problem in the Premiership?

[Oakboy]

I hope it's just one of those unfortunate phases. Otherwise, the game is at risk.

[kk67]

They're cracking down on it, so to a degree we're finding what we're looking for. Which is good.

[Timbo]

I wonder if we haven't made a monster for ourselves. The Prem is a hugely physical league, up there with the Top14, but with loads more ball in play time, played at a way faster pace and our players do a load more training during the week. Plus we don't have a culture of taking it easy away from home like the French nor do we have freebie victories like in the Pro14.

It's just relentless.

[Banquo]

see comments in other thread, maybe a function of less players committing to the breakdown, faster ball meeting a more solid defensive line; players getting fitter so can attack and defend for longer with less mistakes and getting bigger with faster line speed more often. Defenders with less time to react and fatigued and technique fails or no time to use it. Plus players who have and will continue to play far too many games, and have done so since they were young, alongside relentless gym work. There you go.

[kk67]

The AP does seem to have more upright collisions.

[bitts]

I'd wait a little before deciding whether or not this is a freak run or a pattern, but it is worrying.

One thing that does seem fairly obvious is that the modern game is very unforgiving when it comes to a bad tackle technique. If you head is in the wrong place against Hughes or someone similar you are going off.

I do wonder if the rule changes are going to make big gain line collisions more commonplace, as tying players into a Rick is that much more difficult. If so, back rowers could have it that much harder as they will be taking the brunt.

[Banquo]

I'd wait a little before deciding whether or not this is a freak run or a pattern, but it is worrying.

One thing that does seem fairly obvious is that the modern game is very unforgiving when it comes to a bad tackle technique. If you head is in the wrong place against Hughes or someone similar you are going off.

I do wonder if the rule changes are going to make big gain line collisions more commonplace, as tying players into a Rick is that much more difficult. If so, back rowers could have it that much harder as they will be taking the brunt.

yep, as I said on t'other thread.

Less games would be a start, as has always been the case

[kk67]

tying players into a Rick is that much more difficult. If so, back rowers could have it that much harder as they will be taking the brunt.

Rik Mayall jumped into my head.

The higher the continuity the more everyone has to work. That's one of the beauties of it.

[twitchy]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... ben-youngs

[fivepointer]

Just read that Guardian article. Youngs is surely right to be concerned and its plain the players are all too aware of the issues. See also Billy V's comments here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41366795

This could be potentially a bit of an issue too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41386706

I'm not convinced there are major problems at junior levels of the game, but i'm absolutely convinced the elite game has a real problem with the demands placed on the players nowadays. Is the game simply getting too hard, i wonder?

[Which Tyler]

They've been playing too much rugby for a couple of decades; but that rugby is involving more ball-in-hand, and every year sees an increase in the physicality.

On top of that, we're actually looking for concussion now, and resting players appropriately (well, if we've got a replacement on the bench anyway) rather than making them play on when they don't even know which teams they're playing for... or how they're legs work. If we went back and watched a season from 5 years ago, I wonder many North/Matu'u/Ryan incidents we'd see being left out there?

[Oakboy]

I'm not advocating more rugby for a second, but is there a proven link between weariness (mental or physical) and injury?

[Which Tyler]

There absolutely is in the general population, I don't see why it's be any different for rugby players. Who would add in non-recuperation of minor niggles etc as well.

[Oakboy]

There absolutely is in the general population, I don't see why it's be any different for rugby players. Who would add in non-recuperation of minor niggles etc as well.

I'm only thinking of what is scientifically probable based on research evidence. With big money involved and pushing for more games not less, the players' welfare advocates need tangible evidence to back up their case. 'Everybody knows' doesn't cut it. I just hope that things don't degenerate - players' strikes etc.

[Mellsblue]

Ben Youngs is saying he can understand if players want to go on strike. He reckons we are currently at the maximum number of games that it is safe to play. Not sure where/what his research is. He also says he'd be happy to take a pay cut and play less games, but then he earns a healthy six figure salary so he would say that.
There is obviously a balance to strike between the number of games per player and income for the clubs. At present, you'd have to argue that balance is incorrect for players - too many games - and clubs - too few games. I wonder if a concensus needs to be reached where the salary base is spread more thinly across larger squads.

[Which Tyler]

I've posted something more-or-less along these lines before; but that was in the early days of RR; and I've lost.. everything about that original post; but here goes...

Reduce the Prem to 10 teams, and use the opportunity to boost the Champ; giving them a TV deal (If you want to show the Prem, you MUST show the Champ), 1 automatic promotion spot, and 1 promotion play-off spot. Champ then becomes subject to a (reduced) Minimum Standards Criteria, with plans in place to meet the Prem MSC. Both MSCs to include admin requirements. Ring Fence between Champ and ND1 if you HAVE to; but preferably not (Would need to be for any hope of actually happening).

Put the Prem 100% outside of the international windows, and reduce the play-offs to just being a final. Any league point difference between the 2 over the season gets translated to a head-start on the scoreboard.

Scrap the AWC and B⁣ and introduce a new competition with the Prem (10), Champ (12) and 2 invitationals (maybe the Welsh/Scottish, preferably the top 2 from ND1). 6 pools of 4, who play home and away during the AIs and 6N. Players are only available if they played fewer than 30 first class matches over the previous 2 seasons. Cup, Plate, Bowl and Shield SFs - so everyone gets at least 1 knock-out match.

EPRC to play the pool stages in 2 blocks of 3 rather than 3 blocks of 2 - season is also too fragmented (IMO).

Currently, they play 22-24 Prem matches + 6-9 EPRC + 4-6 Cup = 32-39 matches
Aidan's suggesting 18-19 Prem + 6-9 EPRC + 7-9 Cup = 31-37 matches (but 24-28 for the regulars).

Fewer matches of higher quality; a cup competition that we can all actually give a damn about; exposure and increased quality in the Champ; with a better chance at promotion; whilst demotion is much less of a "death sentence"; Champ clubs also get a chance at "giant slaying". Total season is 2 week shorter, so we can either allow a longer off-season, or build in some rest weekends for everyone.

How about:
5 Wks Prem => 3 Wks EPRC => 1 Wk Rest => 3 Wks AIs/Cup =>
5 Wks Prem => 3 Wks EPRC => 1 Wk Rest => 3 Wks 6N/Cup =>
3 Wks 6N/Cup QF, SF & Final =>
4 Wks Prem => 1 Wk EPRC QF => 4 Wks Prem =>
1 Wk EPRC SF => 1 Wk Prem Final => 1 Wk EPRC Final

More opportunities for the fringe squad members, fewer games played for those being ground into... erm... the ground.
The trouble is for the Englad squad, who's game time would remain unchanged; though we could always make the EPS rest weekends to mean rest weekends rather than 80 minutes over 2 weeks; ideally introduce a 3rd EPS rest weekend. The Elite are also murmering about being willing to take a pay-cut to play fewer matches; so that's down to them/their clubs to negotiate. I would hope that a "more valuable" cup competition would increase the valude (as well as game time) for those fringe youngsters, lowering the wage differential between the top and the bottom earners.

For the money men; they get to go from 16 home matches for their STHs (+ any knock-outs) to 15 home matches for their STHs (+ any knock-outs; whilst guaranteed to make at least one QF)

[Oakboy]

A fair amount of work in that, WT. I certainly like paragraphs 2 and 3. The rest, I need to put some thought into.

I wonder if the TV people ever think about saturation. A few years back, I watched everything available. Now, with so much coverage, I'm more selective. It probably means I watch more than I used to but there's a lot I ignore. How typical is that? Obviously, we all have preferences and there must still be a few who would watch rugby 24/7. Generally though, I think there must be some parallels between saturation coverage and player welfare.

[kk67]

There absolutely is in the general population, I don't see why it's be any different for rugby players. Who would add in non-recuperation of minor niggles etc as well.

Hmmm.... Does seem a likely conclusion. Certainly true in construction.
On the other hand, my perception is that collisions in the first 20 mins tend to be the big ones and that players who are physically close to the red line are less likely to lose their heads and do something daft.

[Peat]

The average numbers of played injured in any squad at any one time was being given as 20-25% a while back. No idea if we're running higher than that at present although, tbh, you could argue any league where you expect 20-25% of all players to be injured at any given moment has a serious injury problem to begin with.

[Timbo]

Doesn’t appear as though the number of serious injuries is abating.

[morepork]

Is it a case of more attention being paid to player welfare as compared with a few years ago? In other words, there were as many injuries in the olden days as now, but we do more than "run it off mate" now. Especially with actual/potential head injuries.

[fivepointer]

Dont think so. There just seems to be a lot more players out. Most of the teams in the Prem are suffering. Quins had 40% of their players unavailable this weekend and i'm sure Wasps would be at a similar level. I dont have any stats but i'd be very surprised if this level of injuries is not well above the average.
What would be interesting is if we had some comparison with the Pro14 sides.
Anyone follow this league and can offer an insight?

[Which Tyler]

Is it a case of more attention being paid to player welfare as compared with a few years ago? In other words, there were as many injuries in the olden days as now, but we do more than "run it off mate" now. Especially with actual/potential head injuries.

There's definitely an element of that, especially as relates to head injuries, but I think it's more than that.
The new laws mean that the ball appears to be in play for longer, which makes it more attritional, which I think probably accounts for the balance.

[Stom]

Is it a case of more attention being paid to player welfare as compared with a few years ago? In other words, there were as many injuries in the olden days as now, but we do more than "run it off mate" now. Especially with actual/potential head injuries.

There's definitely an element of that, especially as relates to head injuries, but I think it's more than that.
The new laws mean that the ball appears to be in play for longer, which makes it more attritional, which I think probably accounts for the balance.

Quins lost Horwill to a late head injury failure, so it does have an impact. But on the other side, the majority of the injuries seem to be traditional muscular injuries, with a few fractures and dislocations.