THE RWC,cash,player workloads.aftermath ,and every thing

This thread touchs on several points germane to the RWC,which have arisen in seperate debates for which frankly I cannot see a solution .
But would welcome sensible debate,I will start off my own ethos which is well known but apt,so please stay with me.In the professional era
More and more it has become not a sport but a business,the buying and selling of players,expanding franchises,advertising wars and so on.
It has been perceived that the traditional tournaments are sacrificed for a tournament once every 4 years,that anything goes to win it etc.
I won`t belabour those points but will say this,it concerns mostly me field of expertise in SH Rugby as opposed to NH but it also applies.
The expansion of the Super series gradually S6/10/12/15/then what plus in the average year anything up to 15 test matches has meamt
an intolerable workload on the players.It is a full time job a top professional player will maybe get 6 weeks of a year.With playing and training
in the NH this has been covered by larger squads,importing SH players,some even especially in top14 just standing in for players on test duty.
This workload has in the SH especially this year led to a lot of injuries in the S15 especially for ALL the SH participants,some have been really
bad and will mean months of rehab.
This has meant weakened teams playing in S15 and the early season Test matches,IF they are genuine and many are then it is sensible not to risk them early
in a RWC year.Unfortunately they seem to be taking an extremely long time to heal by ALL SH sides and in a normal year would expect many to be back playing.
The differing stories about especially [But not limited too] SA players that they are either unavailable ,and in light rehab mode or iintensive training at Rusten berg
whichever story you believe.
Doesn`t get away from the facts that player workload is now causing staleness,prematureburnout,or more time players out injured,that of course does have some benefits
players on the fringes deserving a chance get it.Perhaps at the price of Cheapening the SHIRT.
Post RWC it seems likely first the IRB will belooking at the rules again especially in the Scrum/breakdown areas,secondly Sanzar will be looking at maybe playing the 4Ns in only 3 of 4 years
instead of in RWC year as well.Certainly the Governing Boards need to look at re-jigging the season in both Hemispheres to reduce the work loads on players.
It must be very frustrating if you are a regular visitor to your local club only to find all your star players are playing elsewhere or are injured some where.
Finally it is inevetable,That many senior players go out,at the end of a RWC it being perceived to be the ultimate goal [rightly orwrongly]
What do you think your squads will look like next year? NZ for instance Thorn,Sivivatu,Rokococo,Mulian,Afoa,Tialata, Schwalger, Payne, Berquist, Delany, Donald,Brett,Mc Alister plus possibly Cory jane are leaving,
There may well be others,5/8 could be a problem for a couple of years before Blayendahl,Anscombe, Barrett,Topanga,back up Crudon, Slade,Carter,And Tony Brown,may even see Piri Weepu doubling at 9 and 10.
Forwards and wings no trouble,Full Back Cory Jane if he stays is arguably the best FB in NZ ,backe up by Dagg, Toeva,and Ben Smith again no problem.SBW has only committed for one year
Good as he maybe is it worthwhile investing in him for just one year.Maybe Ryan Crotty is the answer,has Benson Stanley commited himself th a NH move?
A lot of Boks will be gone presumably Smit, DuPreez,Juan Smith,Matfield, Bakkies Botha,and some will return to there Nh clubs as well.
Australia maybe Sharpe and Vickerman, Giteau already gone.France, and Ireland will probably lose key players.England Wilkinson,tindall,Thompson,Stevens I would all expect to exit.
Thoughts any one?

The Rugby World Cup (7 games in 4 years) doesn't cause an intolerable workload on players. The point about the expansion of Super Rugby and increased number of test matches in a year leading to player burn-out isn't relevant (as far as I can see) to the Rugby World Cup.

I doubt Stevens will be anywhere near done after the World Cup, there is no point him working hard through a two year ban to make it back to International Rugby, only for him to play 8 months and retire.

Wilkinson will be either be placed into exile (for being in France) or get a special dispensation (as he was already in France before the rule was brought into place). I would hope Tindall and Thompson stick around until at least the 2012 Six Nations.

Alan, our back line is relatively young, apart from Fourie du Preez who has already said he is leaving the rest might still be around for a while.

As far as I know guthro Steenkamp, John Smit, Victor, Bakkies are leaving.

Juan Smith is only turning thirty, Schalk burger, Pierre Spies, Heinrich Brussouw, Andries Bekker, Bismarck du Plessis, Jannie du Plessis, Beast and the new guys such as Jean Deysel, FLip v d Merwe etc should still be around.

robbo 277 it IS pertinent because players especially this year has seen a big increse in injuries.
It has affected the domestic season because I suspect they would normally have made recoveries in a normal year.Not diluting the domestic comps to save them for a RWC.I think that applies to all SH sides to some extent this year.
If Sanzar does not step in ,or rearrange things come 2015 the problem will be worse with an expanded 4Ns,and probably additional teams added to the Super 15.
As you are aware I don`t agree with watered down sides playing in comps in a RWC year,so I was being diplomatic.
Certainly the number of injuries sustained this year is exceptional.and in the modern game regular injuries are occuring in training sessions now.
Something that did not seem to happen much in amateur days,Nz and Bok players were often outdoorsmen and physically naturally strong.
As opposed to the fitness gained in a gym,and if you think training now is more intensive than a previous All Black versus Bok training session I think you would be sadly deluded.

In Ireland we are aided hugely by the size of our squads, and also the IRFU player welfare programme which means our internationals can only play a certain number of games per season and Kidney can decide that he wants Paddy Wallace to play 10 for a few games or Luke Fitzgerald to play 15.

Gives our manager a lot of control.

In terms of after the RWC I imagine we will see something of an exodus.
It will happen after the RWC and after the Lions tour

I see these players retiring or losing their place shortly after the RWC

Mick O'Driscoll---->Tuohy/Ryan
Peter Stringer---->Murray/Williams
John Hayes---->Ross/Buckley/Hagan
Gordan Darcy---->McFadden/Marshall
Shane Horgan---->Bowe/Trimble/Carr/Gilroy/Fitzgerald/Earls

I see these players retiring or losing their place shortly after the Lions '13

Brian O'Driscoll---->Earls/Spence/Bowe/Fitzgerald/O'Malley
Jerry Flannery---->Cronin/Strauss/Sherry
Marcus Horan---->Healy/McCallister
Geordan Murphy---->Kearney/Jones/Conway
David Wallace---->O'Brien
Paul O'Connell---->Nagle
Ronan O'Gara---->Sexton/Keatly
Leo Cullen---->Nagle/Tuohy
Paddy Wallace---->McFadden/Marshall

If you are going to lsit Spence and O'Malley for 13 you have to list Cave

I should add I think Buckley will disappear without trace

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:I see these players retiring or losing their place shortly after the Lions '13

Brian O'Driscoll---->Earls/Spence/Bowe/Fitzgerald/O'Malley
Jerry Flannery---->Cronin/Strauss/Sherry
Marcus Horan---->Healy/McCallister
Geordan Murphy---->Kearney/Jones/Conway
David Wallace---->O'Brien
Paul O'Connell---->Nagle
Ronan O'Gara---->Sexton/Keatly
Leo Cullen---->Nagle/Tuohy
Paddy Wallace---->McFadden/Marshall

I think unless we discover some elixir of youth then a few of these guys will be gone before then...

Good point Rodders.
I would suggest all are doubtful and some have no chance - Wallace, Murphy, Horan.

geoff998rugby wrote:If you are going to lsit Spence and O'Malley for 13 you have to list Cave

I should add I think Buckley will disappear without trace

I agree, tragic amount of wasted time and resources put into trying to make a good player out of this guy. Now hes off to Sale, someone messed up big time when it came to Buckley, how many signs were ignored that he wasnt good enough.

Was strange with Buckley though because he had so many good physical attributes and his handling and rucking were so good. Pity. Ah well.

In terms of the RWC, I think once it's over the lads after the ----> should be the ones starting for their provinces, it's in everyones interest that they begin to get more game time and start becoming starters

Rightly or wrongly for most SH teams the RWC has highlighted
a real 4 year cycle. Players in the twilight of their careers tend
to head overseas for a large final paycheck(Thorn,Mils,Smit). Fringe players who perceive
their time in the national squad is under threat do likewise(Afoa, Tialata, De Melmanche). Also those rep players
just below international level tend to look for overseas contracts prior to
the RWC in order to secure their playing futures (Payne,Macalister).
To me it seems like there is much more emphasis on rebuiding teams in the SH more than the NH
after a RWC. If SH unions relaxed their player residency reqmts maybe this would change but i
cant see this happening too soon.

I thought Buckley was now in the Ireland 1st 15. Who are your likely starting props?

Healy and Ross Boom.

I don't know Gunner I think the NH cycle idea has caught on a bit since 07. A lot of players will either retire or won't be selected in Ireland anyway (don't know about other places)

The IRFU wants to benefit the Irish rugby team and has the power to do so.

For instance after the RWC they may decide to push younger players through foe example they may order

McFadden to start more games instead of Darcy
Ryan to start more games at lock than season before
Gilroy to start a number of games instead of Danielli

emack,

Good article. But, if you don't mind, I'd like to make a few comments. Professional sport is business. Its a business for the players, staff, clubs/regions/franchises, and governing bodies. So everyone has to make the financial decisions about what is best for themselves. Especially the players whose shelf life is short. And their salaries are not enough to set them up for life, unlike soccer, baseball, NBA and so on.

The increase in games played/workload has been a big issue in the NH for quite a while now. This is one of the reasons for those weakened NH teams touring in June, though there are notable exceptions. In England, players have a max. limit of 32 matches per year. 32! Now we see the extended season in the S15, and usually 6 maches in the Tri-Nations. More injuries should be expected. It is driven by the need for more revenue iin order to continue to grow the sport, both gate revenue and TV revenue. Some of that revenue goes to player salaries and medical support.

Now my opinion as a shoulder/knee surgeon (and a Rugby fan/coach/player) is this is too much on the body. Especially now that players are bigger, faster, and stronger at the top level. I do not see how laws can be changed to minimise contact anywhere in the game. That would destroy Rugby. But the number of matches at the top levels need to be reduced. Or else everything becomes self-defeating. And this comes from someone who could watch Rugby all year long........

So we have a Catch-22. Be professional and strive for growth - right now that is more matches. Or go backwards, with less revenue. There is a mantra I heard from some people associated with pro sports, but applies equally to all businesses, which says one is either going forwards or going backwards. No idling and trading water. Player management is critical, limitiing matches played annoually and over set periods of time can help.

Thanks Pete.

Doctor Grey,thank you for your incite especially from a surgeon who knows the ins and outs.I see from another thread Young would be Boks are seeking artificial aids to bulk up.
This does not surprise me in a tradition of Bok rugby that two players of equal or similar ability.biggest and heavist is picked.Tha ttradition goes back to the age of realitiy[1940-60s].Butit is still sad to see.
In a for want of a better word business is run by,advertising Revenue,Tv/radio broadcasting rights ,cash from home unions plus gate receipts.
Rugby Union is no longer a Sport,it is a product every thing works around money.THE best time for viwers,never mind if it isn`t for travelling fans,transport,the players they don`t count.
The work load on the teams when more matches are crammed in,and higher intensity ones at that,the only solution would seem bigger squads.
In the NH that is a viable solution for the richer especially top14 clubs where mony seems no object.Importing SH players on short term contracts to cover in matches when test matches or tours are involved.
In the SH this is not so much an option,cash is in short supply especially in NZ.Despite hosting the RWC they are expecting record losses.
It is true that the depth of NZ or SA Rugby is such ,they could field 3 or 4 sides at Test level of roughly equal strength and give a good account of themselves.
Australia with there infrastructure you could make that two or 3 at most.
BUT THE ALL BLACKS is a brand,a product,101 defeats in 108 years,with a nearly 76 % win rate.
Time was every one wanted a win versus the All Blacks,only 27 wins by NH sides[including the Lions] in all that time.
For them watered down teams is not a viable option,read the different reviews of the Recent NZ v SA in the NZ and UK press you would think it was a differnt match they watched.
If they lose a match,in the press world wide,"well France have won recently in NZ"[a total of 4 times since matches between them started] not "N Z injury weakened side Share series one each in NZ".
All we have heard since Hong Kong and Reds win,has been "Aussie this,and Aussie that"
"No Aussie win one out of 4 in 2010," or "first win in 11 games" or "first Super Rugby title since Brumbies two in 2000-1 "
Glossing over NZ`s 10 -3Ns and 10 Super titles,for NZ Rugby your as good as your last game.Lose and your pilloried by the press,and the opposing sides wallow in it .It does happen that often ,England or France or whatever lose a match moans for a week then forgotten.
Weakened sides managing players happen but gradually over a 4 year or so cycle,which usually occurs post RWC.
If you just take the Crusaders two great test locks are going for cash Brad Thorn,[and surprisingly to me]Chris Jack he could have had the Thorn role for Crusaders and Even the All Blacks.a young loose forward,Poff,back up Fh Berquist,and SH samoan international whose name I cant pronounce.
All the other franchises are similarly compromised 3 ALL Black props,ALL the senior five eights bar Carter and Tony Brown,2 AB wings,maybe a third,an AB Hooker plus several wannabes.
So new players will be drip fed in,established back division is intact,but vacancies are there at full back and wing .Forwards are OK ,better than for years.
I read with some interest some dis gruntlement of not doing similar things with the Bok side from SA posters.
Be interesting if the Boks successfully defend there title as I expect them too.
If PDV will continue as Coach and applauded for his game plans

You know, mate, the increased workload is a vicious cycle. To have more workload (more revenue), the logical approach is larger sides. But this in turn needs more money to fund the larger sides. And then we sometimes have less than the top players playing. There is a need to cut the cord somewhere.

I read an article in Rugby World recently illustrating for England clubs how razor thin the line between profit and loss. If I remember right only three clubs actually made solid profit. In France, Stade Francais is a financial mess. Some others are on the bubble. So I am not really sure how financially strong the England or French clubs are. They, especially the French, seem to portray themselves as these financial powerhouses, but I think thats not the reality.

Going back to the injury point for a moment. Back in the end of May, I reconctructed a knee for a Championship (old Div 1) level young man. Injured in his last (or second last) match of the season. Good player, and a good kid. Kept asking when will he be back playing. The procedure was cutting edge, and took almost 6 hours in total (including neural monitoring), I had to tell him to learn to walk first before thinking of running. Rugby is at aleast one and a half years off for him, if he is lucky. Damage came not through contact, but as he pivoted hard. Strong kid, but I think too well muscled for his frame, and the muscles were highly fatigued through the season. Almost 40 matches, he said. Shame. Hope he recovers for a normal life. Any Rugby (and I am hopeful) will be a bonus. This is why I worry about workload. As I said, a good kid.