Could XV Rugby do with less players?

First topic message reminder :

It might seem an odd proposition, but with defences much improved and players much bigger, could having less players open up the game and grant more try scoring opportunities?

I like to see running rugby and tries being scored from 40m out but these seem rarer these days. It seems more common to see tries from close range through the forwards.

My proposition would be to take out one centre and a back-rower to leave 13 players on the field. That way the ball should come from the ruck quicker and there will be more space out wide to attack, promoting running rugby.

All home nations have great counter attacking FBs and other dangerous runners - North, Kearney, Daly & Maitland - but I can't help but feel we're not seeing them at their full potential. It's a bit disappointing to see that all the talk is over power (re Sam Burgess) not agility to break defences (like Wade).

I'm not sure what others think but for me the sevens is what I like to think of Rugby as - almost like playing on the beach with tricks and beating your opponent. XV rugby is just getting a bit stodgy for me personally.

Cut it down to 13 and merge it with Rugby League   

Just imagine the the top teams in each league playing off for a spot in the Grand Final. You could even split the leagues into four divisions of 6, two northern division (RL), two southern divisions (RU). You play the teams in your division home and away, the other six in your league once and one of the other divisions once every two years (22 games).

Seriously, they should keep it at 15. What should happen is there should be a proper structure/ calendar worked out that fits both international and club rugby into a season and you don't get the ridiculous weeks were the league and internationals both play.

sportform wrote:
Seriously, they should keep it at 15. What should happen is there should be a proper structure/ calendar worked out that fits both international and club rugby into a season and you don't get the ridiculous weeks were the league and internationals both play.

And they should make rucks and mauls a genuine contest for the ball by people on their feet - which would tie in players leaving space to run.

gregortree wrote:Scot
Is that solution working out ? I see you beat Italy with it.
Jim used to play for my beloved Glaws. We miss his abrasive grit tbh.

Scott Johnson seems to think so. Keeps picking him, apparently for his lineout expertise (just ignore the stats from this tournament, they lie).

sportform wrote:Cut it down to 13 and merge it with Rugby League   

Just imagine the the top teams in each league playing off for a spot in the Grand Final. You could even split the leagues into four divisions of 6, two northern division (RL), two southern divisions (RU). You play the teams in your division home and away, the other six in your league once and one of the other divisions once every two years (22 games).

Thats essentially how the NFL is set up

Nemetode. The Scotland game did have excitement I'll grant you but the quality of rugby was quite poor. There were mistakes all over the place and the intensity was village. Two poor teams evenly matched.

why just less players? why can't the game be allowed to evolve naturally. The prospect of removing players to please fans who think rugby is just about try scoring shows just how commercial the game has become. Want 6 tries per game, go watch 7s.