Are certain international players a drain on a clubs resources?

Genuine question, we often see some players hardly feature for their clubs but are always available for the international side, granted that knocks and injuries cannot be avoided but its still disheartening for fans to only see their stars play a handful of games per season. Are these players who are taking a salary at their clubs, only playing a few matches and then spend the rest of the time with team Wales a drain on the clubs resources?

Another question, should injured players be rushed back into Test rugby or given some time with their clubs to regain match fitness?

A few quick examples off the top of my head:

George North at one point played more games/scored more tries for Wales than the Scarlets during his breakout season.
Sam Warburton has played 5 out of the 18 competitive matches for the Blues this season, yet is included in the Wales squad.
Gethin Jenkins has played 1 game this season so far with injury, yet is included in the Wales squad.
Jamie Roberts has played maybe 1 or 2 competitive matches this season and is included.
Jonathan Davies has missed the majority of this season so far.

It does seem to me that the coaching team have their favourites that are going to feature regardless of how much game time they've had.

Yes.

Alex Corbisiero has to be the most obvious example of this.

Personally, returning players should play with their clubs before going back to internationals. If it's such a big step up they should be dumped right it.

Also, I'd like to know how many players are kept playing at international level when they should be rested because in a couple of weeks they'll have a couple of months break (from internationals).

Yes.

Is pretty much the opposite of football.

Shows the power of central contracts in rugby, or union-centred setups like irfu, sru and (sort of) wru. i personally think it's not a healthy balance. RFU/PRL have got it right, and FFR/LNR are hoping to get to the same symbiotic relationship. wru/rrw are clearly the disaster scenario. as with much in life, half measures just dont work.

IronMike wrote:Genuine question, we often see some players hardly feature for their clubs but are always available for the international side, granted that knocks and injuries cannot be avoided but its still disheartening for fans to only see their stars play a handful of games per season. Are these players who are taking a salary at their clubs, only playing a few matches and then spend the rest of the time with team Wales a drain on the clubs resources?

Another question, should injured players be rushed back into Test rugby or given some time with their clubs to regain match fitness?

A few quick examples off the top of my head:

George North at one point played more games/scored more tries for Wales than the Scarlets during his breakout season.
Sam Warburton has played 5 out of the 18 competitive matches for the Blues this season, yet is included in the Wales squad.
Gethin Jenkins has played 1 game this season so far with injury, yet is included in the Wales squad.
Jamie Roberts has played maybe 1 or 2 competitive matches this season and is included.
Jonathan Davies has missed the majority of this season so far.

It does seem to me that the coaching team have their favourites that are going to feature regardless of how much game time they've had.

Yup.

Yes, but the real problem is that certain unions have allowed systems to grow that encourage club and country not to work together and our mess of a calendar places them into conflict. With more centralised power and planning we could have averted this and kept major clubs from falling into the hands of private owners but that would have required cooler heads and more vision at the start of professionalism- the kind of talent that wasn't encouraged to be part of the old amateur structures of rugby union. Now we have privatised owners working against the interests of certain parts of the sport. They will increasingly feel that their best assets are not available to them but unfortunately this can't be remedied without major structural reform. The sad, sorry situation we see in Wales is a perfect example of what happens when there are no people of vision or talent on either the Unions side or the side of the clubs!!

I think the most major problem is that we run a calendar where international windows are dispersed throughout the season and club seasons are overly long- the best thing for the sport would be separate half-seasons so 60-70% of the current season could be dedicated entirely to elite level club level tournaments and 30-40% the season could be dedicated to international rugby in one single block with lower level club tournaments running in the background- occasionally players might need rested or managed but there wouldn't be this issue of players coming in and out of their clubs and being unavailable for portions of the season. You get a season ticket, you get what you pay for. You know who is in the squad and it won't change subject to the whims of the international game halfway through the season.

The SH unions were savvy enough to sort this out and the gulf between us and them will continue to grow at every level as a result.

notch, on so many levels i completely disagree with what you have posted here.

the reason that the english and french club games are in such rude financial health is precisely because they didnt go down the centralised control route. so as far as i am concerned that ends the discussion about which club route was the right one.

NZ and SA always were, and still are, the dominant international sides in world rugby, and you know what, nothing has changed there. their rugby heritage and tradition and cultures are the reason for this. nothing to do with the choice of central control or decentralised private club ownership.

To be honest, quins, given the vast disparity between our respective belief systems about both rugby and the world in general we are unlikely to ever agree on this! And I take the fact that we don't as more of an affirmation than anything else.

All of that said with the respect due to someone else who has the intelligence to back up their convictions- which may be the only thing you and I have in common!   

i agree. we are products of our environments.

it does make rugby as a sport a bit more spicy when it also pits capitalism against centralised control. wonder where we will be in another 10 years. that's probably worth a thread in itself.

quinsforever wrote:notch, on so many levels i completely disagree with what you have posted here.

the reason that the english and french club games are in such rude financial health is precisely because they didnt go down the centralised control route. so as far as i am concerned that ends the discussion about which club route was the right one.

NZ and SA always were, and still are, the dominant international sides in world rugby, and you know what, nothing has changed there. their rugby heritage and tradition and cultures are the reason for this. nothing to do with the choice of central control or decentralised private club ownership.

I agree that centralised contracts would not have worked in the UK.  But then the England had a far greater critical mass to allow a professional setup at club level to take hold.  Indeed before professionalism came in, the clubs were of a level of follower that in essence created cashflows that they were already professionalised.

But one approach doesn't fit all.

The English clubs had support in the high tens of thousands (maybe even into hundreds of thousands range).  Welsh, and Irish clubs (not regions or provinces) only had support in thousands (maybe not even tens of thousands in places).  So the clubs in Ireland never had the critical mass to support wages for an entire squad.  And the provincial set up in Ireland just about covers itself in most cases, but for Ireland that left us with 4 provincial teams which means you could never be self sufficient.

I'd also add that while the Rabo isn't the Jeff or the Top14, for its age (it is only an infant when you think of leagues) it is doing surprisingly well.

Interesting thread and comes back to the fundamental thing about whether you think that the club or international scene is the most important.

I have to agree with Notch that the way that the SH is structured means that we will always be playing a sort of catch up. But they were pretty much pro when the game went pro so they knew it would work/was in place. NH rugby was filled with morons in the unions with their heads in the sand who thought that it was all about the Corinthian spirit and ignoring the fact that the clubs were essentially paying their players so we have ended up with a back to front system. And I cannot see it changing. I fear that we end up with a football like system where the international game is second best to the clubs.

Maybe the Welsh are trying out a new theory where the clubs are never weakened by internationals as the are all playing club rugby somewhere else. I'm sure someone thinks that's genius!

Solution has to be a properly structured season. RFU has gone somewhere there with LV games during some internationals but that's a bodge.

Obviously this will not happen though and we'll dig ourselves further into the hole. (Would having to go to Edinburgh for 6 nations in April/May be so bad?)

It's undoubtedly true that some players can disrupt the equilibrium of a team by sucking up money, management time or other scarce club resources. Mind you, there are also teams who end up being wrong for players.

Ben Clarke should never have joined Richmond, Gloucester was wrong for Olly Barkley, Gethin Jenkins couldn't settle at Toulon etc. Obviously, the fault doesn't always lie solely with the club, and most have a good record with other players, but if someone's career goes into reverse after a move, then something's usually up.

Then there are cases where you wish someone had made a move. For many years, Jonny Wilkinson played with Newcastle, and rarely saw much top European competition. For all the creditable loyalty both sides showed each other, that seems like a good example of a player ending up being wrong for the club and a club being wrong for the player.

HammerofThunor wrote:Personally, returning players should play with their clubs before going back to internationals. If it's such a big step up they should be dumped right it.

Jon Davies is an excellent example of that (and to be fair North was in the early days too), he is looking like a possible for the first game of the 6 Nations, and may be able to get a ten mins cameo of the bench for the Scarlets in advance. However surely it would be better for him to have 10mins off the bench, then 60 mins start, and then either a full game for the Scarlets or being on the Wales bench.

HammerofThunor wrote:Also, I'd like to know how many players are kept playing at international level when they should be rested because in a couple of weeks they'll have a couple of months break (from internationals).

There has been talk of players delaying surgery until after AIs or Summer tours in order to reduce the amount of time they will be out of the international game.



The worst internationals to have on your books though are the 3rd choice in skilled positions (like Hooker, Scrum Half, etc) that will not get to be in the match day 23, although they will always be the 'travelling reserve'. These players (thinking of say Tavis Knoyle) will be away with the international squad the full duration of the tournament, however they will not get a minute of game time, and return to their club/region rusty.

That said there are other International players, like Toby Faletau, who give it as much in a regional jersey as they do in a Wales or B&I Jersey. Or even people like Sean Lamont, I honestly doubt he would give anything less that his all for any game, and would be just as likely to do something brave/stupid that would risk injury the weekend before an international for Glasgow, as he would the last week of the 6Ns for Scotland. So even though there are some examples of international player not being worth their wages there are also examples of some that are well worth it.

It is exactly why, outside of France, England and South Africa, a Union based system is an absolute necessity.
Clubs do not have a strong enough hinterland to stand alone.
If they did the International game , for those countries, would suffer considerably.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
The worst internationals to have on your books though are the 3rd choice in skilled positions (like Hooker, Scrum Half, etc) that will not get to be in the match day 23, although they will always be the 'travelling reserve'.  These players (thinking of say Tavis Knoyle) will be away with the international squad the full duration of the tournament, however they will not get a minute of game time, and return to their club/region rusty.

Yes, that is always incredibly frustrating!

SirBurger wrote:Alex Corbisiero has to be the most obvious example of this.

Would this be the injury prone Alex Corbisiero who, despite playing on a Lions tour was picked to start in a pre-season friendly in August for Northampton?

Some clubs just don't manage their players very well...

The worst internationals to have on your books though are the 3rd choice in skilled positions (like Hooker, Scrum Half, etc) that will not get to be in the match day 23, although they will always be the 'travelling reserve'. These players (thinking of say Tavis Knoyle) will be away with the international squad the full duration of the tournament, however they will not get a minute of game time, and return to their club/region rusty.

Or in the Blues case, Owen Williams, Corey Allen and Rhys Patchell come back injured.

Could creating a universal club and international window fix this problem? Instead of sporadically having international games throughout the year, we follow what the SANZAR teams do and have a few months of international games followed by an uninterrupted club season.

This way, players are less likely to "save themselves" for the international games and will actually play for their clubs.

IronMike wrote:

The worst internationals to have on your books though are the 3rd choice in skilled positions (like Hooker, Scrum Half, etc) that will not get to be in the match day 23, although they will always be the 'travelling reserve'. These players (thinking of say Tavis Knoyle) will be away with the international squad the full duration of the tournament, however they will not get a minute of game time, and return to their club/region rusty.

Or in the Blues case, Owen Williams, Corey Allen and Rhys Patchell come back injured.

Hey they all made it onto the pitch! Tav rarely did that.

Isn't this one of the (many) reasons causing the rows between Regions and Unions, the Regions are paying the most money for the players they see the least of.

In November, Wales had 4 looseheads in training at one point. 2 of them were holding tackle bags. Rob Evans wasn't even released to his region either. The Union doesn't care about it's pro clubs succeeding. Quite the opposite infact.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Isn't this one of the (many) reasons causing the rows between Regions and Unions, the Regions are paying the most money for the players they see the least of.

And its very easy to see the reasoning behind it, why should the Regions pay the salary for their more expensive players, pay for the rehab and any other costs while they go off for most of the season with Wales and potentially remain injured when not playing for Wales.

Risk and Reward, mun.
Point no.1 in Moffett's fiendish 3 point plan to make us the envy of the world.....mun.

IronMike wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Isn't this one of the (many) reasons causing the rows between Regions and Unions, the Regions are paying the most money for the players they see the least of.

And its very easy to see the reasoning behind it, why should the Regions pay the salary for their more expensive players, pay for the rehab and any other costs while they go off for most of the season with Wales and potentially remain injured when not playing for Wales.

Mike,

I agree add to that the fact that they sell season tickets and a lot of merchandise to kids on the back of their stars, if they are then not playing when the kids go to games they lose interest to.

That said and slightly off topic I think the Regions and WRU are both at fault in this row.

IronMike wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Isn't this one of the (many) reasons causing the rows between Regions and Unions, the Regions are paying the most money for the players they see the least of.

And its very easy to see the reasoning behind it, why should the Regions pay the salary for their more expensive players, pay for the rehab and any other costs while they go off for most of the season with Wales and potentially remain injured when not playing for Wales.

I do wonder if by not having big star names, who can end up missing due to WRU injuries, may work out better for marketing the team to fans too. My thoughts are, people have said to me before they are not going to a game because player-X or player-Y is out missing, and it is not like our full team. However if those players were missing all the time then it would be our full team, and maybe those people would attend.

Agreed they're both at fault, it makes it quite difficult to support one or the other

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

IronMike wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Isn't this one of the (many) reasons causing the rows between Regions and Unions, the Regions are paying the most money for the players they see the least of.

And its very easy to see the reasoning behind it, why should the Regions pay the salary for their more expensive players, pay for the rehab and any other costs while they go off for most of the season with Wales and potentially remain injured when not playing for Wales.

I do wonder if by not having big star names, who can end up missing due to WRU injuries, may work out better for marketing the team to fans too.  My thoughts are, people have said to me before they are not going to a game because player-X or player-Y is out missing, and it is not like our full team.  However if those players were missing all the time then it would be our full team, and maybe those people would attend.

SS,

Again I agree and on the whole that's one advantage for us Dragons fans as it's only been the odd one or two that have been missing but I am guessing if you're a young kid then to a certain degree you are more interested in seeing your heroes as opposed to the game itself.

Yes mickado - the same Corbisiero who has barely played since. Still, seeing him in that pre-season game must have been awfully exciting for you.

Bedford, I think from a kids point of view (and even from mine still at time), the thing that makes attending a game special is the quality time with their old man (or uncle, granddad, mum, brothers etc) and the meeting of people you only see at the match, the atmosphere, the local star players, the opposition star players, the burgers before/after the match, and then last of all the game.

SirBurger wrote:Yes mickado - the same Corbisiero who has barely played since. Still, seeing him in that pre-season game must have been awfully exciting for you.

I didn't actually see it. But it must have been a real thrill for him to play in it.

Jamie Roberts   

In North America, they have the MVP for Most Valuable Player (wage there are public!)

In rugby they could do a similar thing but for the MUP, not sure the likes of Jamie Roberts would be pleased with that!

I like warburton but he's another.

Get's injured in the last game of the AI's and misses all our games but is then included in the wales squad. Ridiculous.

I guess it depends on each individual player.
I have a lot of frustration with player like Sam Warburton and Jamie Roberts becuase they are clealry prone to injury.
Some players can cope better with injuries and sustain big hits better than others, Alyn Wyn and Toby Falateu are the best examples for that; both play their @rses off all year for club and country because they have a very small injury record becuase thy can take hits better than the likes of Sam and Jamie.
No doubt when Jamie and Sam are fit they make a difference and i think its is more the fact of mind over matter with some players. I mean Jamie Roberts was injured for most of the lions test but he came back and had a blinder in the last test. Same with Warburton against Scotland in lasts years six nations. Two big occasion and they both played very well even though they had only just come back from injuries.
It's definitely a risk to put players back in but Gatland is known for making these risks and most of the time they pay off.

Jhamer25 wrote:I guess it depends on each individual player.
I have a lot of frustration with player like Sam Warburton and Jamie Roberts becuase they are clealry prone to injury.
Some players can cope better with injuries and sustain big hits better than others, Alyn Wyn and Toby Falateu are the best examples for that; both play their @rses off all year for club and country because they have a very small injury record becuase thy can take hits better than the likes of Sam and Jamie.
No doubt when Jamie and Sam are fit they make a difference and i think its is more the fact of mind over matter with some players. I mean Jamie Roberts was injured for most of the lions test but he came back and had a blinder in the last test. Same with Warburton against Scotland in lasts years six nations. Two big occasion and they both played very well even though they had only just come back from injuries.
It's definitely a risk to put players back in but Gatland is known for making these risks and most of the time they pay off.

Gatland doesn't pay their wages though.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:I guess it depends on each individual player.
I have a lot of frustration with player like Sam Warburton and Jamie Roberts becuase they are clealry prone to injury.
Some players can cope better with injuries and sustain big hits better than others, Alyn Wyn and Toby Falateu are the best examples for that; both play their @rses off all year for club and country because they have a very small injury record becuase thy can take hits better than the likes of Sam and Jamie.
No doubt when Jamie and Sam are fit they make a difference and i think its is more the fact of mind over matter with some players. I mean Jamie Roberts was injured for most of the lions test but he came back and had a blinder in the last test. Same with Warburton against Scotland in lasts years six nations. Two big occasion and they both played very well even though they had only just come back from injuries.
It's definitely a risk to put players back in but Gatland is known for making these risks and most of the time they pay off.

Gatland doesn't pay their wages though.

Very true i do understand the fact that is it unfair for the regions but it's how the system works. They can't do anything about that

Jhamer25 wrote:I guess it depends on each individual player.
I have a lot of frustration with player like Sam Warburton and Jamie Roberts becuase they are clealry prone to injury.
Some players can cope better with injuries and sustain big hits better than others, Alyn Wyn and Toby Falateu are the best examples for that; both play their @rses off all year for club and country because they have a very small injury record becuase thy can take hits better than the likes of Sam and Jamie.
No doubt when Jamie and Sam are fit they make a difference and i think its is more the fact of mind over matter with some players. I mean Jamie Roberts was injured for most of the lions test but he came back and had a blinder in the last test. Same with Warburton against Scotland in lasts years six nations. Two big occasion and they both played very well even though they had only just come back from injuries.
It's definitely a risk to put players back in but Gatland is known for making these risks and most of the time they pay off.

I would wager that both Roberts and Warburton have long term untreatable injuries and have done for a while. Which is why they flare up from time to time in matches, and I wont be surprised if the pair only had a few more years of top flight rugby left.

Its been said many times before now and my more than one player but players at this level very very rarely play at 100% fit they are invariably always carrying little knocks and strains.

Some I guess are just better at shaking them off.

IronMike wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:I guess it depends on each individual player.
I have a lot of frustration with player like Sam Warburton and Jamie Roberts becuase they are clealry prone to injury.
Some players can cope better with injuries and sustain big hits better than others, Alyn Wyn and Toby Falateu are the best examples for that; both play their @rses off all year for club and country because they have a very small injury record becuase thy can take hits better than the likes of Sam and Jamie.
No doubt when Jamie and Sam are fit they make a difference and i think its is more the fact of mind over matter with some players. I mean Jamie Roberts was injured for most of the lions test but he came back and had a blinder in the last test. Same with Warburton against Scotland in lasts years six nations. Two big occasion and they both played very well even though they had only just come back from injuries.
It's definitely a risk to put players back in but Gatland is known for making these risks and most of the time they pay off.

I would wager that both Roberts and Warburton have long term untreatable injuries and have done for a while. Which is why they flare up from time to time in matches, and I wont be surprised if the pair only had a few more years of top flight rugby left.

Jamie wont last much longer, he has his degree as well, i think after his racing contract is up he will retire personally. Not sure about Sam though, still young as well but if he carries on getting injured and the likes of Tipruric stay fit and consistently play for wales then he could fall out of favour, cant see him retiring within the next 3 seasons thought; unless he has a career ending injury.

To me this all about balance.

Following a difficult start in the relationship the balance seems to be about right in England. Clubs get fair use of their players but Stuart Lancaster also gets good access. Unlike previous managers he sends players back to their clubs during the 6N period if they are unlikely to play for England. In the new agreement that is to be negotiated the only improvement I would make is a rule that players can not go on two summer tours on the trot whether Lions or England to prevent players playing all year round with no breaks.

Pretty sure MJ sent non-playing squad players back as well. But it is a lla bout balance.

Exile, I like the two tours idea, make the SH do the same with the autumn series and rwc too and it would be even better

Whilst no one would dispute that Tests are top of the pyramid for players - is it really success at Test level that drives the popularity of the sport ? Given the limited access other than tv, the huge focus of resourcing financial or otherwise and the subsequent risk with lack of success for a test side.

Surely the future of the game is at grassroots where there is greater access across a country and can be followed throughout a season. This is where the focus should be and 6N and RWC and even HC should be the cherry on the cake.

The Union pr machine over the last twenty years has been very successful.

IronMike wrote:Could creating a universal club and international window fix this problem? Instead of sporadically having international games throughout the year, we follow what the SANZAR teams do and have a few months of international games followed by an uninterrupted club season.

This way, players are less likely to "save themselves" for the international games and will actually play for their clubs.

I wish that were true and may be it used to be the case but with the expanded Super competition we now see a break while England touring NZ for 3 tests) just as the S15 gets to the interesting stage then a few more weeks of Super rugby and then the 4 Nations-while the 4N is taking place NZ and SA will also have their domestic competition taking place as well. After the 4N the domestic competition continues (though most ABs) wont be involved as they take a break to get ready for the NH tour.

I think the difference that the domestic competition is only semipro and the money is in the Super and test level so we are resigned to pretty much never seeing our test players back in our clubs (domestic level). For a team like Wellington that includes first choice ABs like Dane Coles, Ma'a Nonu, Conrad Smith, Cory Jane, Julian Savea as well as fringe test players like Jeff Toomanga-Allen, Jeremy Thrush, , TJ Perenara and Ardie Savea.