The Four Man Bench

Nick Cain suggested this in TRP to combat injuries and concussion. His main point is to prevent over bulking up leading to 60 minute behemoths.he suggests the bench should comprise only 3 front rowers and a utility back. I'm not sure though would the game lose some of its dynamism?

I think it's a good idea. Not necessarily 4 on the bench but definitely a much reduced bench. You'd think it would increase fatigue on first XV so the game would open up more with more tries as players miss tackles.

Could the clubs and unions afford the redundancies? What would all the unnecessary players do for a living?

I played amateur rugby to a reasonable standard and only ever left the field early if injured.

I'd like to see XV against XV again. Reduce the bench and make substitution only for injury.

Yes I know all the arguments......blah, blah, but I'm a proud old fa*t.

And while we're at it, bring back rucking!

Submachine wrote:What would all the unnecessary players do for a living?

Same as the rest of us who weren't good enough.

offload wrote:

Submachine wrote:What would all the unnecessary players do for a living?

Same as the rest of us who weren't good enough.

Seriously though. That's an almost 20% reduction in players required for matches. It would have to filter down to a reduction in squads.

Submachine wrote:

offload wrote:

Submachine wrote:What would all the unnecessary players do for a living?

Same as the rest of us who weren't good enough.

Seriously though. That's an almost 20 reduction in players required for matches. It would have to filter down to a reduction in squads.

Your right of course.  I can't see a reduction at the professional level - doesn't make it attractive though.  Usually the last 15 mins of most games is a shambles.  I know I'm in the minority, but I will never enjoy seeing the bench emptied to change a game.

Good idea but 5 or 6 subs would be fine.

Submachine wrote:Could the clubs and unions afford the redundancies? What would all the unnecessary players do for a living?

I think this is a great point. The need to reduce bulk to reduce injuries is important, but there will have to be other ways to do it. The players would oppose this almost universally.

Wait a second, If we had smaller teams but still the same size squads... then that'd mean more room for rotation of players, which would mean they could play more games each season, so more money for the clubs... we could add a whole new league for the teams to play in. Winners!

WOuld it reduce the behemoths though? I'd wager it just means in the last twenty minutes you get behemoths making tired, sloppy, potentially dangerous tackles

Lest not follow football

Euro 2016 qualifiers

11 players
12 bench

madness !

Just go back to replacements for injuries only

In principle this sounds fine, but Vunipola plays 80 minutes regularly - small man? North plays 80 minutes regularly - small man?

You can be very big and still last 80.

My point is that I don't think it will necessarily reduce the player size very much at all. Perhaps a few like Bastareaud would downsize but I think it's minimal.

I'd love to be wrong though as I do feel that players are too big and the game is becoming very dangerous for pro players.

simply cut the number of subs you can make... but keep the number of subs you have available.

That will mean more players have to last 80 mins, ending the impact player problem, lowering weights and surely reducing longterm medical  issues.

Will also favour smaller teams better. Often teams can compete 15 for 15 but not 23 for 23.

I think it's a good idea yes.  It's a game of 80 minutes and most players should be expected to play those 80.  Tiredness, fatigue, brain beginning to melt due to oxygen depravation...they're all part of the mix of any team field sport.  Part of the game is to tire out the right people and perhaps then make a killing on the scoreboard.

So it should be about how long you can last - it shouldn't be about how tactically you can drop fresh players in as your obedient 60 minuters ran themselves into the ground knowing they'd be off.

But!  If you force players to last longer and have extended stamina levels in fast and furious games, week after week, then you are also encouraging them to perhaps overlook the morality of staying away from PEDs.

Potential upside.  Potential downside.

kingraf wrote:WOuld it reduce the behemoths though? I'd wager it just means in the last twenty minutes you get behemoths making tired, sloppy, potentially dangerous tackles

They would then be told to get fit and would have to lose some weight.

screamingaddabs wrote:In principle this sounds fine, but Vunipola plays 80 minutes regularly - small man?  North plays 80 minutes regularly - small man?

You can be very big and still last 80.

My point is that I don't think it will necessarily reduce the player size very much at all.  Perhaps a few like Bastareaud would downsize but I think it's minimal.

I'd love to be wrong though as I do feel that players are too big and the game is becoming very dangerous for pro players.

If it didn't reduce size it would at least create more gaps near the end of games or throughout games as the fatties couldn't put in as big an effort.


Vunipola might be lasting 80 min but other players might be doing the grunt work for him. If those other players needed to last longer then Vunipola would need to get fitter. It's all about getting the balance right.

Getting the weighing scales right you mean ...

SecretFly wrote:Getting the weighing scales right you mean ...

More Shane Williams, less Alex Cuthbert

profitius wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Getting the weighing scales right you mean ...

More Shane Williams, less Alex Cuthbert

That was actually one of my suggestions a few years back. That a team should be forced to be a certain weight in total - like a boxer before a fight. So the overall teams would come in roughly the same weight. That way you had a choice.... yes, I can have my 22 stone piledriver 13 if I want one but then I have to cut back on the lard in the forwards department somewhere and I'm going to have to ask Ross to go into the sweatbox for a week or four.

Nonsense suggestion at the time of course but with a high degree of truth in how it might force compromise and a new degree of coaching dynamics into the pie (hmmm, bad use of allusion there)

I think Ireland already apply that strategy with Devin Toner at 6ft 10 and weighing 7st 11lbs

God, that lad is tall and not so small, Ruby.  He was once a lamp post sure but I was standing right next to his elbow once (having a chat with it) and you realize what a fecking load of him there is.

His elbow agrees with me about Kearney btw...just for folks that think I'm talking through my ass (incidently another part of him I had a chat with when he turned around.)

Yeah Toner reminds of Charteris a bit, both have their merits but perhaps lack the grunt of a Brad thorn or a Bakkies Botha