International tours at a bad time?

The idea of Mini tours of both Hemispheres is excellent, BUT the timing is gross.Sandwiched in a 3 week Break in the Super Series means
due to injuries many Players won`t get a chance to play in them.The Boks are particularly hard hit this year currently,as is Australia even the All Blacks are missing some who would be automatic choices.Depth in Nz and Sa is legend so they will not be weak sides BUT many faces will be missing.It really is time that a properly organised universal season was introduced so that RUGBY,and NOT MONEY is given priority.It is surely not beyond the wit of IRB to organize,Club,Super/HC,Internationals in a way so that players can make the maximum appearances for there clubs/franchises and tests without fixtures clashing.

For me the it'd be ok if the super 15 wasn't soooooooooooooooooo long. I liked the good ol' days when it was a short sharp competition featuring the elite from NZ, Aus and RSA before the internationals started. Now its talent pool is diluted to the point of mediocrity and it goes on far too long. And with its unneccessary length it means it's taking up valuable space which could be given to internationals or rest for the players

Its SANZAR who are the real money obsessed group in world rugby. They seem intent on milking their players to the bone and cramming as many games as possible into their short season.

IN SA the season starts in Feb & ends in Sept. During this time the SR teams will play maybe 19 SR games, 12 Currie Cup games and the boks will play 9 tests... with another 4 in the AIs soon to follow.

A first choice bok player like Spies, Bismaarck etc may play all 13 tests, 19 SR games and 5 Currie Cup matches.. thats 37 games with 33 of them coming in 6 months.

In Europe they play 30+ games also but their season is 3 months longer.

I think in the long run AUS may struggle to cope with the pressures although given their SR conference is far less competitive than SA's or NZ's they make up a little on their lack of player depth.

What we may see is increased player fatigue, more stress related injuries and time management to be imposed on all players. Perhaps no centrally contracted player should play more than 30 games in a given season... something like that is currently in place for the boks, but its broken now and again and we are now seeing perhaps 5 more matches in a season from the year before.

You may see less competitive AI touring sides though. The 4N sides will prioritise their tournament but post that with many players at breaking point it may be unwise to tour with guys who have had an already long season. This will be apparent for the old guard especially... guys like Carter, McCaw, Burger, Habana etc.

Precisely my point it is a case of ensuring player management etc.I do not support a Club/Franchise.BUT if I did and was paying at the gate each match I would want to see my best players.AS someone who only really is interested in Test Rugby I want to see my strongest team fielded as much as possible.
For me the problem is in the Professional era a player is either playing,training or recovering from injuries for all but about 6 weeks a year.The Modern player is not like those in the Amateur Era,where many were hard working outdoors types.Muscle was natural then,not Gym built etc.the workload is not evenly spread.A Coach like Freddie Allen or Kitsch Christie as examples had 100% win records of about roughly 14 matches spread over maybe 4 years.Today that is a players International norm,in recent years the AllBlacks average.Is 14 or 15 a year with an average of 2 losses per year,that also applies to all the Sanzar Countries at least.Problem is AllBlack and Bok fans and media expect there sides to win every test.Of course they don`t BUT have a bad run as the ABs did in 2009 or the Boks in 2010 and there are cries of sack the coaches.

I agree with most of what you say. Apart from the first sentence. The reality all countries are money obsessed. They have to be because it allows them to put out their top teams and remain competative amd fund the amateur game. In the case of countries like England and France it allows them to pay clubs to access players. In the case of NZ, SA and Australia it allows them to hold on to enough of their top players to keep the game alive.

The reality is the broadcasters control the game. It means a long TV season. However, whilst the seasons are the same length (10-11 months), control by a single entity (e.g. NZRFU, IRFU, SARFU etc) means some nations can rest players. during the season. International players are often rested in parts of the super rugby and national provincial competitions. Non test players often get a break during the international season. Contrast this with club vs country option in France and England, and the impact this has national teams that rely on these players.

fa0019 wrote:Its SANZAR who are the real money obsessed group in world rugby. They seem intent on milking their players to the bone and cramming as many games as possible into their short season.

IN SA the season starts in Feb & ends in Sept. During this time the SR teams will play maybe 19 SR games, 12 Currie Cup games and the boks will play 9 tests... with another 4 in the AIs soon to follow.

A first choice bok player like Spies, Bismaarck etc may play all 13 tests, 19 SR games and 5 Currie Cup matches.. thats 37 games with 33 of them coming in 6 months.

In Europe they play 30+ games also but their season is 3 months longer.

I think in the long run AUS may struggle to cope with the pressures although given their SR conference is far less competitive than SA's or NZ's they make up a little on their lack of player depth.

What we may see is increased player fatigue, more stress related injuries and time management to be imposed on all players. Perhaps no centrally contracted player should play more than 30 games in a given season... something like that is currently in place for the boks, but its broken now and again and we are now seeing perhaps 5 more matches in a season from the year before.

You may see less competitive AI touring sides though. The 4N sides will prioritise their tournament but post that with many players at breaking point it may be unwise to tour with guys who have had an already long season. This will be apparent for the old guard especially... guys like Carter, McCaw, Burger, Habana etc.

I don't think the problem lies with the international tours to be honest.

The tests are the pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, it is the incessant demand of broadcasters for more "product" that is causing a bottleneck of too much domestic rugby.

We had this debate many times before, the Super rugby is too long and too many teams in its current format.

As far as the SH is concerned TV demand for product led to the 6 match 3Ns format and expanded Super series.SA`s attempt to further increase it by adding a 6 th side is causing further problems.Frankly a Super 10 or 12 is far more sensible.Super Rugby iniatially was a good idea but now it has become a monster.ITM/Currie Cup and the International programs has been effected badly.
The former the sides have been reduced to half and seldom see there stars,the Latter by injuries sustained have to field weakened teams.Of course it has the up side of player development at Test Level but THAT is hardly the point.

The modern world is all about "never mind the quality feel the width" - It's a shame but that's life. The same principle filters through our business and economic lives creating an impression that more is better which of course is like drinking 12 pints of shandy and comparing that to 8 pints of real ale. Who's the real winner there eh? Fxck I'm good.

I think the best programme for the SH would be to make the Currie Cup and ITM Cup the highest pro rugby again and then have a HC style knockout comp.

A 12 team comp would be best. Had this discussion with my Mum the other day. You'd have to combine Auckland and Waikato into one franchise, then Wellington-Taranaki, Canterbury-Tasman, Otago-Southland.

Australia would have to ditch one of the Rebels (won't happen) or Perth. Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic.

SA - recombine Transval and Freestate. Forget about another new franchise in the south east.
Just the Sharks, Bulls, Stormers, and the Cats again...

Each country has 4 teams. Each team plays each other twice. 22 rounds... simple and balanced.

So you'd save 5 -6 weeks per year, more rest and recovery for the players and spread out internationals a bit more in the slots created.

LB you'll save more than just 5-6 weeks. The whole thing will take 13 weeks of unadulterated watching pleasure,

I was thinking you play each other team twice... 11 x 2?

You mean they play each other only once?

Yeah, that would save even more time. But I like the idea of 'home' and 'away' matches for each side still. Try to avoid the "this year it's X but next year it's Y" thing which may advantage a side.

They did in the past. I would also love to see them play home and away, but then the season will be too long.

Unless of course you make it a SUPER IX.