New Zealand desire a global season

It appears that New Zealand are pushing for a global season....with some stories / reports suggesting they may even strike if they dont get what they want. Is there any truth in that??

Whats your thoughts. Should we have a global season?

GeordieFalcon wrote:It appears that New Zealand are pushing for a global season....with some stories / reports suggesting they may even strike if they dont get what they want. Is there any truth in that??

Whats your thoughts. Should we have a global season?

Some context:
http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/182678.html

The strike suggestion is coming from the head of the NZ players' association (aka union ) - hard to see the players voting for that, though Nichol is also involved with the NZ Cricketers' association, and they did strike (from 1st class games) a year or 2 back.

I think the threat of strike is just a way to show how serious they are, I doubt a strike will be employed at any stage. It will do more harm than good.

Do they want the southern hemisphere teams to follow the northern hemisphere season?

No, from what I understood the issue lies with the June test series.

profitius wrote:Do they want the southern hemisphere teams to follow the northern hemisphere season?

I hope not, the NH season structure is a right mess currently.

Some kind of structure that invoved more co-ordination between hemispheres would be nice. Not complete co-ordination mind you, playing in the South of France in August presents similar climatic challenges to playing in Queensland in January.

I've only read the title and can't be arrised to read the article so here goes:

I think this new global season should be called 'Summinter'. Good eh?

Why not just Wimmer?

Feck me Bilt, that's blydi genius mate. C'mon chaps, we need to get behind Wimmer!!!

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Feck me Bilt, that's blydi genius mate. C'mon chaps, we need to get behind Wimmer!!!

Thmeg off. I wefuthe to thupport the complete arthe that ith Arnold Wimmer.

LondonTiger wrote:

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Feck me Bilt, that's blydi genius mate. C'mon chaps, we need to get behind Wimmer!!!

Thmeg off. I wefuthe to thupport the complete arthe that ith Arnold Wimmer.

The northern hemisphere season is a mess, and I've no great beef with it being made a bit more sensible. Not sure how a global season would help though, surely it's more about having a sensible season up here and a sensible down there - with a suitable window for tests involving both hemispheres. Maybe that's what they mean?

Anyway, I'm struggling to see how this would help as the article suggests it is the increasing demands they have a problem with (and that seems fair enough in and of itself). Surely the answer to that is the amount of rugby played not whether they are playing at the same time as us. How about cutting out the unneccesary additional tests? E.g. the additional game they seem to insist on against Aus before the November tests and the increasing occurence of an extra test at the start of December, not to mention the ever growing fixture list for the Super however many are in it at the time competition.

I have thought about global season for test rugby and think it should be Augsut to November, have all the tests in one go, it will help to build continuity and will be great to have them all in one go.

Big wrote:The northern hemisphere season is a mess, and I've no great beef with it being made a bit more sensible. Not sure how a global season would help though, surely it's more about having a sensible season up here and a sensible down there - with a suitable window for tests involving both hemispheres. Maybe that's what they mean?

Anyway, I'm struggling to see how this would help as the article suggests it is the increasing demands they have a problem with (and that seems fair enough in and of itself). Surely the answer to that is the amount of rugby played not whether they are playing at the same time as us. How about cutting out the unneccesary additional tests? E.g. the additional game they seem to insist on against Aus before the November tests and the increasing occurence of an extra test at the start of December, not to mention the ever growing fixture list for the Super however many are in it at the time competition.

NZ has opted not to pay a 4th AI this year, as thanks to the AIG deal the NZRU doesn't need the money. I suspect the WRU are disappointed (it would have been their "turn" to be the 4th match for the ABs this year).

I don't think it will work.... I think it could happen but I don't think the end result will work.

Why? the NH want their current format, the SH want theirs. Both will want the other to conform to their format. That will not happen.

How peeved are the players to actually strike?

The last time they struck it was because the unions were getting bumper revenue deals and they weren't getting a penny.
Now they get paid reasonably well and have decent conditions what will be their incentive to strike???

Networks have a pretty sweet deal. There is first class rugby being played every month of the year and due to timezones we have rugby being played over 12 hours of the day.

At the moment a lot of matches get shown due to the timezones and the periods when their isn't much choice.... what would happen if their would be more clashes? Less games shown, less money for unions etc.

I'd be surprised if it financially benefitted the unions and because of that I would see it as unlikely.

You could argue it doesn't help players physical condition but money talks.... and whatever is the best deal financially is probably going to be the one that is maintained/taken.

If players were that worried about throwing themselves in front of a steam train every game I doubt they would be too concerned about the season's timing.

What is the reasoning for wanting a global season?

red_stag wrote:What is the reasoning for wanting a global season?

I can see most fans warming to it

If there was a global season then surely that would mean an end of one of the AI's/summer tours.

Both are end of year tours by the repected hemispheres.

If both ended at the same time then 1 would go. If you had it at the end then would some teams stay at home and some go away unlike everyone in one hemisphere at the same time.
You'd probably see NZ tour England for instance for 3 games rather than them play 1 match vs. England, Wales, France etc.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer. The original interviews were done with Steve Hansen and Rob Nicholls. They've been reproduced in the media and by the time they've got to places like ESPN it seems to me the context is gone.

From memory it's the hoary old chestnut of player burnout and the length and structure of the season. The international players union (in this case represented by Nicholls) is responding to players who say they need more more down time.

This is probably fair enough the game keeps increasing in intensity and skill and players are the ones being stretched. Recent players like Justin Marshall have noted in the last few weeks how the game has progressed, even since, since they played. The game hugely more physically demading than in the amateur days and the season is longer than the only really comparable sports (NFL and rugby league).

Essentially Hansen said he understood where the players w2ere coming from and something needed to happen. he thought the players might have to take it into their own hands as neither the IRB or professional clubs were effecting change.

Nicholl backed this up. The problem basically being that there are traditional and commercial demands that are greater than the players ability to deliver. Rugby needs a viable timetable. There has to be some give on all sides. For instance the timing of the June test windows and 6 nations are relics of a past age and aq handicap in moving forward. It is getting to the points where players internationally will have to look to strike.

If it's the players in the All Blacks I'd suggest it will likely be in the November tests. It gives them the most time of, reduces their travel and the tests are probably the least value to the players (i.e. not at home, or part of the 4 nations).

No test coach can play their strongest team throughout the year. Rugby is a very demanding sport and you need big squads to make sure your best players are in top form everytime they go on the field.

SA have often rested their top players in AIs and 3N during world cup years.

SR does take a massive toll on the body though... that is the biggest one of all. In essence their domestic competition involves flying to AUS and SA multiple times per year.. thats the one which will kill the body not the test window.

As the saying goes... as you make your bed, so you must lie on it.

Biltong wrote:Why not just Wimmer?

Surely that should be wummer?

fa0019 wrote:No test coach can play their strongest team throughout the year. Rugby is a very demanding sport and you need big squads to make sure your best players are in top form everytime they go on the field.

SA have often rested their top players in AIs and 3N during world cup years.

SR does take a massive toll on the body though... that is the biggest one of all. In essence their domestic competition involves flying to AUS and SA multiple times per year.. thats the one which will kill the body not the test window.

As the saying goes... as you make your bed, so you must lie on it.

I never really thought about it like that, but that is a hell of a non-physical (not quite mental) strain and drain to have ona player. Escpecially as it is a case of being in one place on week, then flying back, then flying to somewhere else the following week. Jebus I am feeling tired thinking about it.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:No test coach can play their strongest team throughout the year. Rugby is a very demanding sport and you need big squads to make sure your best players are in top form everytime they go on the field.

SA have often rested their top players in AIs and 3N during world cup years.

SR does take a massive toll on the body though... that is the biggest one of all. In essence their domestic competition involves flying to AUS and SA multiple times per year.. thats the one which will kill the body not the test window.

As the saying goes... as you make your bed, so you must lie on it.

I never really thought about it like that, but that is a hell of a non-physical (not quite mental) strain and drain to have ona player. Escpecially as it is a case of being in one place on week, then flying back, then flying to somewhere else the following week. Jebus I am feeling tired thinking about it.

2 years ago most of the Crusaders' players had 100,000 airmiles up by the end of the competition (they had the extra trip to play at Twickenham due to the earthquake). Even their other home games were in Nelson (40 minutes flight/6 hour drive) or futher afield.

They do manage the draw so that (for example) NZ teams go to SA for a 2 match tour, and then play the Force or Rebels on the way back. But even so you're looking at a fair amount of time in hotels.

Its a bit rich therefore to state its the test season which is causing problems for their players then wouldn't you say???

At least in a test season you do 1 or 2 major flights and then thats it... compare that to number major flights do to the unique SR league setup.

fa0019 wrote:Its a bit rich therefore to state its the test season which is causing problems for their players then wouldn't you say???

At least in a test season you do 1 or 2 major flights and then thats it... compare that to number major flights do to the unique SR league setup.

For the NZ players it's 1 tour to SA, and 2 trips to Australia in the SXV regular season, plus you may have to travel for semi-finals/finals. Granted there's internal flights too (4 away games in NZ) as well, but the travel there is no worse than the Rabo - granted the games are a lot tougher. That accounts for 5 months of the year (factoring in warm-ups, byes and the finals). For players not in the ABs there's the NPC as well, with games every 4 or 5 days for a couple of months.

Internationally the 4 Nations involves trips to SA, Arg and Aus, and AIs means a trip to Europe. Add in the June internationals involving travel (as NZ splits its home games around cities). It's not so much the test season they're unhappy about, it's the timing of the tests - if you play the last AI in late November and then have pre-season SXV training in January you're not getting a massive break for recuperation

are team obligated to play friendlies esp. during the June internationals?

Before teams only played 1-2 matches. There has been a change around with proper 3 test tours coming back and the Lions series has had an impact on the scheduling.

If a team wanted to opt out of the June internationals I'm sure they could.

Most teams in Europe had very rarely sent full strength squads to the SH prior to last year... mainly because they wanted to rest players.... hence why they got beasted i.e. the tour of hell in 98. No reason why the SH teams can't do the same.. although NZ don't tend to do things by halves.

Jake White became famous for sending weakened squads even during the 3Ns tournaments.

If they want to keep all their players continually available at full strength they will need to cut down the number of games drastically... not just by 1 or 2 tests... but perhaps 10 matches a season.

At the moment how many games do top pro's play??? 30 is the limit in SA I think. Same in England.

Personally I think that all could be solved with better player management.

fa0019 wrote:are team obligated to play friendlies esp. during the June internationals?

Before teams only played 1-2 matches. There has been a change around with proper 3 test tours coming back and the Lions series has had an impact on the scheduling.

If a team wanted to opt out of the June internationals I'm sure they could.

Most teams in Europe had very rarely sent full strength squads to the SH prior to last year... mainly because they wanted to rest players.... hence why they got beasted i.e. the tour of hell in 98. No reason why the SH teams can't do the same.. although NZ don't tend to do things by halves.

Jake White became famous for sending weakened squads even during the 3Ns tournaments.

If they want to keep all their players continually available at full strength they will need to cut down the number of games drastically... not just by 1 or 2 tests... but perhaps 10 matches a season.

At the moment how many games do top pro's play??? 30 is the limit in SA I think. Same in England.

Personally I think that all could be solved with better player management.

It's around 25-30 games in NZ too. And the NZRU already works really hard at managing the top players - the trouble is that if you push that too far you risk devaluing competitions.

This was the travelling schedule of Jannie du Plessis last year, he played every match for the Sharks in the Super XV, then every test for the Boks and the semi final and final for the SHarks

24th February to 4th August
Loftus Pretoria
Newlands Capetown
Kingspark Durban
Kingspark Durban
Allianz Stadium Sydney
Canberra Stadium Canberra
Yarrow Stadium New Plymouth
Eden Park Auckland
Kingspark Durban
Kingspark Durban
Kingspark Durban
Freestate Stadium Bloemfontein
Kingspark Durban
Coca Cola Park Johannesburg
Kingspark Durban
Kingspark Durban
Suncorp Stadium Brisbane
Newlands Capetown
Waikato Stadium Hamilton

Inbetween was three test vs England

18th August to 6th October – Rugby Championship
Newlands Capetown
Mendoza Argentina
Patersons Stadium Perth
Forsyth Barr Stadium Duneden
Loftus Pretoria
FNB Stadium Johannesburg

20th October to 27th October – Currie Cup
Kingspark Durban
Kingspark Durban

4th November to 25th December – Autumn Internationals
Aviva stadium Dublin
Murrayfield Edinburgh
Twickenham London


Not sure how many miles that is, but I reckon it is quite a bit.

If there was a global season would there be even less reason for players to stay in their home nation and lead all top players to the honey pot of france? Without the issue of leaving themselves unavailable for some international training or games outside of the IRB windows players will have no reason to choose between country and club and will obviously follow the money trail.

doddieman wrote:If there was a global season would there be even less reason for players to stay in their home nation and lead all top players to the honey pot of france? Without the issue of leaving themselves unavailable for some international training or games outside of the IRB windows players will have no reason to choose between country and club and will obviously follow the money trail.

Very true, but how many more can France accommodate?


There are an infinite number of players and only so many teams, once the teams are filled with foreigners it will have firstly ruined Frances international potential and the rest of the world can carry on building teams

Its not just a case of how many but which internationals set drawn in. At the moment french teams seem to be filled with retired internationals, and those who may have given.up on being picked for their country, wilkinsons, sheridans, gittoes, botha, byrne etc. But.with a global season and players not.having to.choose club or country current internationals will choose france.

Current welsh players are already making that choice now, there might.be nothing to stop sanzar, english and irish players doing the same with a global 6 month club duty, 3 month international duty style season. With a free choice of where to play the elite players will inevitably flock to the same place and where might.that leave the rest of us? Just development teams basically.

Please excuse the full stops. Stupid phone keypad!

doddieman wrote:Its not just a case of how many but which internationals set drawn in. At the moment french teams seem to be filled with retired internationals, and those who may have given.up on being picked for their country, wilkinsons, sheridans, gittoes, botha, byrne etc. But.with a global season and players not.having to.choose club or country current internationals will choose france.

Current welsh players are already making that choice now, there might.be nothing to stop sanzar, english and irish players doing the same with a global 6 month club duty, 3 month international duty style season. With a free choice of where to play the elite players will inevitably flock to the same place and where might.that leave the rest of us? Just development teams basically.

Please excuse the full stops. Stupid phone keypad!

Ok, let's take a scenario where the clubs in France (I am just plucking figures out of the sky for illustration purposes) pays on average 300 000 Euros for their "retired and not good enough to be internationals anymore players" they will pay a heck of a lot more for current internationals. Take Habana for example, they are paying him twice as much to play in Toulouse.

With the salary caps they won't be able to afford that many.

Is there any sport that has a well balanced season? Defined club time, international time and off season rest time with no conflicts? Is it even possible?
Football doesn't, I dont think cricket does, NFL, NBA dont really have international duties.

Possibly biltong, but.with the best of the best the T14 can sell tv rights globally at a higher.price maybe and draw even more.money in. Possibly?

And im sure then the french clubs will simply increase salary caps. AGAIN!

So, the 3 nations consistently in the top 3 in the world rankings are the ones who travel the most and clock up the most air miles? Hmmmmmm, let me put my sport science hat on for a moment. OK, got it - sod the cryo chambers in Poland, I think the answer to success in rugby is long haul flying!

Maybe the boredom and cramped conditions make them super highly charged when they get off the flights? Or maybe the time travelling forges better bonding amongst team mates which leads to stronger teams overall? Or maybe altitude aids VO2 max and helps recovery?

Or maybe they're just better than us......

I think rugby union has a unique problem really.

Rugby league and American football do not have an international game of any note and so it does not really interfere with the domestic game.

Rugby obviously wants both.

I would argue that it more akin to football in that respect. However whilst you can comfortably play 2 games of football a week and probably 60 games a year it obviously doesn't come anywhere near to being as physical.

I think rugby players should probably have 1 weekend off each month and only play 3 out of every 4 games in a season. In that way if a season is 40 weeks long then they would automatically come within a maximum of 30 games.

It also means that different players can have different weekends off so a team is not just pulling all its best players out on one weekend and shortchanging the fans.

Griff wrote:So, the 3 nations consistently in the top 3 in the world rankings are the ones who travel the most and clock up the most air miles? Hmmmmmm, let me put my sport science hat on for a moment. OK, got it - sod the cryo chambers in Poland, I think the answer to success in rugby is long haul flying!

Maybe the boredom and cramped conditions make them super highly charged when they get off the flights? Or maybe the time travelling forges better bonding amongst team mates which leads to stronger teams overall? Or maybe altitude aids VO2 max and helps recovery?

Or maybe they're just better than us......

Just for interest sake, Jannie du Plessis flew as the crow flies, 140 000 km's last year.

doctornickolas wrote:I think rugby union has a unique problem really.

Rugby league and American football do not have an international game of any note and so it does not really interfere with the domestic game.

Rugby obviously wants both.

I would argue that it more akin to football in that respect. However whilst you can comfortably play 2 games of football a week and probably 60 games a year it obviously doesn't come anywhere near to being as physical.

I think rugby players should probably have 1 weekend off each month and only play 3 out of every 4 games in a season. In that way if a season is 40 weeks long then they would automatically come within a maximum of 30 games.

It also means that different players can have different weekends off so a team is not just pulling all its best players out on one weekend and shortchanging the fans.

I honestly believe if the international season is all in one go it will save weeks.

Imagine you have *(as an example) August to 30 November as an international window, but in essence it is 4 months.

That gives you 17 weeks. You can have 12 tests easily in that time, the Six Nations and Rugby Championship can be accommodated, you can have a three test tour to the south and the south can have a three test tour to the north.

The players are there all the time, the coach can build continuity, the coach has enough time to prepare his team and there are no issues.


That leaves 8 months for domestic rugby.

BB

So what difference is your idea from the current SH season??? Other than the scrapping of the June internationals and putting them after the RC right?

I think it would make those 4 months pretty hectic.

Look at SA for instance. During that 4 months they will have 3 matches at home and 1 each in Argentina, Australia and New Zealand.
Then they will face say France for a 3 test series say 2 weeks later and then they would fly to the NH to compete in the AIs.

Thats way too much.

Already the RC lasts from July to Aug, then the players have a rest from the hectic schedule of 6 games in 8 weeks.

and those who have not already burned out will have a 3 test series at home for a month in Sept before heading off to Europe for 3 tests in Nov.

Its a lot.

Perhaps the players will be fresher having June free and a more relaxed SR season.... but packing 12 tests into the end of the year is not a good idea IMO for player maintenance.

Test rugby is significantly more troublesome on the body then club rugby. Packs are 50kg+ lighter, players are smaller, hits are lighter. Make a player play 4 months of continuous test rugby and I think the butchers bill will be very high.

fa0019 wrote:BB

So what difference is your idea from the current SH season??? Other than the scrapping of the June internationals and putting them after the RC right?

I think it would make those 4 months pretty hectic.

Look at SA for instance. During that 4 months they will have 3 matches at home and 1 each in Argentina, Australia and New Zealand.
Then they will face say France for a 3 test series say 2 weeks later and then they would fly to the NH to compete in the AIs.

Thats way too much.

Already the RC lasts from July to Aug, then the players have a rest from the hectic schedule of 6 games in 8 weeks.

and those who have not already burned out will have a 3 test series at home for a month in Sept before heading off to Europe for 3 tests in Nov.

Its a lot.

Perhaps the players will be fresher having June free and a more relaxed SR season.... but packing 12 tests into the end of the year is not a good idea IMO for player maintenance.

Test rugby is significantly more troublesome on the body then club rugby. Packs are 50kg+ lighter, players are smaller, hits are lighter. Make a player play 4 months of continuous test rugby and I think the butchers bill will be very high.

FA, they will have 6 matches at home, three Rugby Championship matches plus an incoming tour from the North.

Agree they will travel to Oz, NZ, ARG and Europe, but that is done anyways. It is only 6 long flights in 17 weeks. Jannie did more than that on his own.

If you break down the 17 weeks, 2 weeks for preparations, unpresedented for how many years?, 3 tests in SA in three weeks, then 8 weeks for the RC and then 4 weeks in Europe,

you can't throw away the three home tests, why should the SH teams play 3 home matches per year and 6 or more away matches?

Revenue, fairness etc

The fact is Tests are the money makers, YOU CANNOT REDUCE THEM.

Reduce the domestic rugby. simple.

ah so you mean scrapping of the June internationals and have SA face a tour in SA every 2 years and travel up north every 2 years at the end of the season?

The only thing with that is the weather in the SH gets quite hot during Oct/Nov and will trouble a lot of players.

If you're suggesting only a NH tour every year then its a big thing to scrap all frothcoming tours by the NH to the SH. Thats 3 matches, a lot of revenue and the NH players would not get a lot of SH exposure.... which I imagine they would want.

I agree BB... its one thing to suggest a sensible schedule to benefit players... its another thing to mess with revenue.

The networks pay big money for matches... what they want they get.

Unless any changes add more money to the pot I doubt they would go for it. Its the world we live in I'm afraid.

Fa, check out my new thread, there is another possiblity