Too many matches in the Northern Hemisphere?

This comes from Peter Redman's blog but does make some interesting points about the extra matches and the longer seasons the Northern Hemisphere players endure versus their Southern Hemisphere colleagues. Do you think it makes a huge difference?

Link to blog...https://redmanpe.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/playing-time/

He puts forward two theories for the NHs poor RWC performance.

"The two theories I’ve seen banded around are:

   1. NH play too much rugby
   2. The style of rugby played in the NH suits only the NH and is not conducive to winning on the world stage.

I’m going to look at point 1 first, because, well, 1 comes before 2.

NB: This excludes RWC and matches between SH/NH teams in June/July and Oct/Nov, where the number of games played, and conditions played in, is similar

SH players for Super Rugby + Internationals:

2015 – Feb to July, July to August – 7 months, max 22 matches

2016 – Feb to July, August to October – 7 months, max 24 matches

From August 2014 to October 2016 – 53 matches (26 months)

NH players for Domestic League, Europe + Internationals:

2014/15

England – September to May – 9 months, max 33 matches (6N games clash with club matches, so can’t play both!)
Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy – September to May – 9 months, max 33 matches
France – August to June – 10 months, max 38 matches

2015/16

England – October to May – less than 8 months, max 33 matches
Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy – September to May – 9 months, max 33 matches
France – August to June – 10 months, max 38 matches

From August/September 2014 to May/June 2016 – 66-76 matches (23 months)

Before I started this, I didn’t have an expectation. I suspected the European matches would add more games but what I didn’t factor was the playing time, the length of the seasons.

In the Southern Hemisphere, the season is much more condensed, breaks are taken from Super Rugby for Internationals and the offseason is August to February, with the exception of the month of games in Europe. That is a solid 5 months break, with a month-long tour in the middle. Of course, there is training and pre-season, but that break is pretty significant. Let’s also not overlook the shortening of the Rugby Championship in 2015 to give their teams more time to prepare.

In contrast, the northern hemisphere seasons are much more spread out. The home nations usually have a 3 month break, of which one is spent in the Southern Hemisphere on tour. France is even worse with around 2-2 ½ months between one season ending and another starting, with the same tour in between.

On top of this, over a similar two year cycle, NH teams might play anywhere from 13 extra matches, up to as many as 23, fitness, injuries and form permitting, compared to their southern counterparts.

From the first to the last at this World Cup, the North has looked off the pace compared to the South. You’d be hard pressed to think that the above doesn’t have an effect – both the number of matches and the length of off-seasons.

Let’s also not overlook the amount of injuries at the World Cup. There have been significantly more muscular injuries than impact injuries, which is indicative of pushing the body to the limits (and some bad luck, of course).

Like many others, I’ve presented a problem without coming up with a solution. It’s easy to pick bones, but is it easy to correct?

Far from it, but when I answer question 2 next week, I’ll put forward some suggestions, too!

Good work hugehandoff.

Question

Are the NH club sides not contracting much bigger numbers?

Biltong...are you thinking bigger squad sizes than SH clubs and that therefore actual playing time per player might not be that different between the two hemispheres? I have no idea, but it might be worth asking the blogger so he can do all the research!

Thanks for this information handoff - this is very interesting. It is mental when you consider the amount of games that the French teams in particular play. I do suspect that the club game is the pinnacle for them and the national team will never be put first at the expense of the Top 14. This could be a big factor in their current demise.

The Club V Country debate is getting more like football. With clubs privately owned and desperate to retain premiership, or T14, status the pressure is on the players to keep playing. The Pro 12 does have an advantage in this area.

But clearly the reduced off season and increase in matches negates the overall quality. I await the bloggers solution as that is not easy.

hugehandoff wrote:Biltong...are you thinking bigger squad sizes than SH clubs and that therefore actual playing time per player might not be that different between the two hemispheres? I have no idea, but it might be worth asking the blogger so he can do all the research!

Yep, I remember listening to a interview with one of the SA players and he explained the player management system. Can't remember who it was though.

That was a great write-up.  It is doubtless there is too much Rugby played in the Northermn Hemisphere.  If the NFL is an analog for Rugby, and they play a regular season of 16 games with a possibility of 4 more for teams getting to the Super Bowl, what does that say about the amount of Rugby our lads are playing?   And their Player's Association rubbished the notion of adding two more games per season, despite the proportional increase in revenue and salary. Ridiculous.  

It's my job to fix people when they break.  Sports has been good for my bank accounts.  If I was back home in UK, I would be wealthier than the Queen, just fixing Rugby players (except maybe players from Bath, whose owner we have agreed is spawn of the devil).

less games per player means a shorter club season which means less income for the clubs which means the RFU having to make up the financial shortfall? The international matches can also be reduced with I think just 3 AIs and no summer tours post the RWC. But as a 4th AI is invariably a full house that equates to a lot of money and the flip side is we then need to return the favour and play summer fixtures. But the Southern hemisphere do it so we can as well. Just needs a far sighted doer in the RFU to lead the way.....

hugehandoff wrote:less games per player means a shorter club season which means less income for the clubs which means the RFU having to make up the financial shortfall? The international matches can also be reduced with I think just 3 AIs and no summer tours post the RWC. But as a 4th AI is invariably a full house that equates to a lot of money and the flip side is we then need to return the favour and play summer fixtures. But the Southern hemisphere do it so we can as well. Just needs a far sighted doer in the RFU to lead the way.....

I disagree.I think it's quality of the product that generates income. None of the European leagues are production $$ wise given the length of their seasons. They can be more efficient and effect, i.e. profitable, if they cut down their club season. There are plenty of precedents out there.

As far as changing the AI tours, Norther clubs already have an exemption prior to the world cup. They could swap them. If NH teams want to cut down games, they should be cutting home internationals, not overseas tour games. This would give SH teams an option of touring non 6 nations sides, which could be good for tier 2 nations.

To me the crux of the problem is a disjointed management between clubs and international rugby, particularly in France and England. At the end of the day, if NH teams want to achieve their potential they have to look at change. It seems to me the 6 nations and the various domestic championships are holdovers from the amateur era. If you were starting from scratch you wouldn't do either.

ANother option I think would help immensly would be revenue sharing. Where, irrespective of the game, the TV, gate profits are sharted between the teams competing. It would make tier 2 nations more competitive. At the moment even NZ, Australia and South Africa are effectively subsidizing European clubs to take their players.

I do not think the formats of the competitions in the NH will ever change, the only way that I can see player welfare and competition with the SH being improved is with greater rest and rotation of players within all squads.

yappysnap wrote:I do not think the formats of the competitions in the NH will ever change, the only way that I can see player welfare and competition with the SH being improved is with greater rest and rotation of players within all squads.

Your probably right. It just means settling for second best, both in terms of club and national teams and competitions. The scary thing is if other nations come forward and chose another model, it could be third best in both, etc. I think that's reality. They are essentially looking to lower everyone to their level to be competitive.

Having read through the article a couple of times. I'd probably make a couple of points.

2015 isn't a good year for comparison. I think you'd a 4 year vision. The reason for this is that the Rugby Championship was truncated instead of playing 6 games they played 3. The additional game wasn't included in the assessment. Generally 6 is a comparison.

The assessment doesn't include the Currie Cup, the ITM cup or the Australian club championship. AB's and Springboks do play in these competitions. It's a bit like ignoring the Premiership and only looking at European club competition. OK, actually it isn't because, it's a very short, and some players aren't involved.

I don't doubt that the European players play more games. But the actual way to do it would be to look at the number of the games players actually play, and the length of their layoffs.

Lastly, I think it's beholden on European rugby to look within for changes. They face long term issues if they try and impose changes on the rest of the world. They need to find a club/national model that suits them. But that tinkering needs to be internal.

Everyone moans about the number of club matches - but in the time I have been involved with rugby it is international rugby that has grown far more than club. In fact clubs like mine play less matches in a season now than they did 30 years ago.

In the 1980s England played 61 matches (Ireland just 53)

So far this decade (almost 6 years) England have played 70 matches (Ireland 69)

The difference is even more marked when you look at Aus and NZ 84 & 80 matches so far this decade vs 66 & 57) in the 80s.


Player management needs to be at the forefront of the game's development - but it is facile to blame the club game for all the woes.

Is it even true ?

SH - Rugby Championship 6 matches, Super 15 16 matches, Currie Cup/ITM/NRC - 9 or 10 matches = 32/33 matches
NH - 6N 5 matches, Europe 6 matches, Aviva/Pro12 - 22 matches = 33 matches

+International friendlies and Playoff matches

geoff999rugby wrote:Is it even true ?

SH - Rugby Championship 6 matches, Super 15 16 matches, Currie Cup/ITM/NRC - 9 or 10 matches = 32/33 matches
NH - 6N 5 matches, Europe 6 matches, Aviva/Pro12 - 22 matches = 33 matches

+International friendlies and Playoff matches

One would expect a first choice test player to play every test he is available

Then One would expect your test player to play every match possible in the European comp and Super rugby.

The question is then how many "domestic" matches , ie. Aviva, Currie Cup do they actually play.

In a normal year outside world cup years you will find the Currie Cup runs for the most part concurrently with the Rugby Championship.

So your trst players are in for 12 tests per year
Maximum 19 Super Rugby matches
Unlikely but possible Currie Cup finals 2 matches.

So at most top SA players (locally) will play 33 matches

Not sure about other countries.

Can anyone tell me what happens on the inbetween weekends of the six nations?

Do players go back to play for their clubs?

Biltong wrote:Can anyone tell me what happens on the inbetween weekends of the six nations?

Do players go back to play for their clubs?

England players do not - unless the coach wants them to get game time. So someone who has had 20 minutes from the bench in 3 matches will probably be asked to play for their club.

6Ns players in the AP from other countries may well be asked to play in off weekends.

Thanks LT

Ok I have established the following looking at England players.

Of the maximum 24 weeks for the Aviva, test players are available for 19 of them, plus 12 tests, plus the European championship Which is a potential max of 9 matches.

So you are talking 40 matches max, if guy returns to his club in between six nation off weekends etc.

BC, when is the last time McCaw played an ITM or NPC game?

from the data I saw (not sure how accurate it is btw), Richie played 25 games in 14-15 and 20 in 13-14 (all including 10-11 Internationals per season)

If I look at the french captain who plays at a similar position (Dusautoir), I get 31 games in 14-15 and 23 in 13-14

before that the difference was even higher as between 2005 and 2009 Dusautoir was on an average of 33.5 games per seaswhile McCaw was on 24 games per season. interesting to note that the Irish captain POC was on 21 games per season over the same period while Bortwick was around 31 when he was England captain apparently .  
Nowadays french internationals cannot play more than 35 games per season but what is also important as BC pointed out is the off season players get which is quite limited over here (usually 4-5 weeks in july)

Whocares, McCaw is likely not the best example, he has had regular injuries in the last few years

whocares wrote:BC, when is the last time McCaw played an ITM or NPC game?

from the data I saw (not sure how accurate it is btw), Richie played 25 games in 14-15 and 20 in 13-14 (all including 10-11 Internationals per season)

If I look at the french captain who plays at a similar position (Dusautoir), I get 31 games in 14-15 and 23 in 13-14

before that the difference was even higher as between 2005 and 2009 Dusautoir was on an average of 33.5 games per seaswhile McCaw was on 24 games per season. interesting to note that the Irish captain POC was on 21 games per season over the same period while Bortwick was around 31 when he was England captain apparently .  
Nowadays french internationals cannot play more than 35 games per season but what is also important as BC pointed out is the off season players get which is quite limited over here (usually 4-5 weeks in july)

Point taken about the ITM cup. I said it wasn't really comparable. Because players are managed collaboratively in NZ with the AB's having priority, someone like Richie doesn't play ITM cup and often starts the Super rugby late. Rest periods are factored into the year for some players. Without doubt I think European players play too much rugby. The stickler for me is they have international commitments. If there is a club issue they need to wortkl it out with the clubs. That may mean they miss some club and international commitments. However, they should minimize the effect on other nations. In my opinion if they want to miss internationals they should do it during the 6 nations. It's a European issue, sort it out in European contests. The great thing about this approach is both sides have something to lose and therefore are more likely to compromise.

I get your point BC and can only agree. However European internationals are very unlikely to miss the 6N. French (and perhaps Engish as well) ones are probably likely to miss the june tours in the SH though (very likely for the ones involved in both european cup and top 14 finals for instance).

Additional point to consider -

Climate - A lot of the rugby is played in the Northern Hemisphere winter. Wet weather games, soft uneven ground suit a direct style. Not a massive problem at Twickenham or other grounds where drainage is installed but a lot of the pitches are mud baths come December.

LondonTiger wrote:Everyone moans about the number of club matches - but in the time I have been involved with rugby it is international rugby that has grown far more than club. In fact clubs like mine play less matches in a season now than they did 30 years ago.

In the 1980s England played 61 matches (Ireland just 53)

So far this decade (almost 6 years) England have played 70 matches (Ireland 69)

The difference is even more marked when you look at Aus and NZ 84 & 80 matches so far this decade vs 66 & 57) in the 80s.

Player management needs to be at the forefront of the game's development - but it is facile to blame the club game for all the woes.

Agree completely.  Any time we have discussed this point, it always comes down to no rational season and no true consideration of player welfare.  In france and England there needs to be a partnership between the clubs and national unions.   This does not mean we need to prioritize one over the other, but a partnership in which both can thrive.   There is room for that, but compromises will need to be made.  Yes, much of this is about money, but that is very short term.  The long term is the key.  

Outside of us, where are the visionaries?

Lots of excellent and valid points being made so many thanks for all the contributions. Without doing all the research to compare excatly how many matches England players played versus Aussie or NZ or SA I am assuming that it is more, but maybe not by a huge margin. 5/6 extra matches or 10 in a worst case scenario. But the more truncated season and reduced off-season is also a major factor.

If we strive for quality over quantity then this needs to be addressed.

And it is certainly not just the clubs fault, but needs the whole rugby season to be properly structured. How annoying is it for fans to move from European to premiership to LV and back again whilst players are lost to internationals. No logical flow at all and sometimes no home games for clubs for several weeks. I would be in favour of having the premiership over a shortened period of fixed time. Fewer matches but with heightened excitement and quality. For the popular clubs they will no doubt lose revenue as I am sure all their home games are sold out anyway (Tigers, Saints etc), but maybe for some others they won't as they will be able to increase their attendances (Wasps, London Irish). The RFU would need to provide finance to make this happen.

I would also be in favour of shaking up the 6Ns. Make it 8Ns with Romania and Georgia with 2 groups of 4, semis and final. Means you won't play the old rivals necessarily every year, but would add excitement and help grow the game. I would also support the Rugby Championship doing this by adding Japan, Tonga, Fiji and Samoa.

Rugby is gaining popularity and our whole structure needs a re-think. Player welfare is key and currently that is not prioritised high enough in the NH. Just my rambling thoughts.

Not too many, too many of low grade rugby, too few of high grade rugby.

SH

Min 16 matches in super rugby per year with a potential further 3 in KO stages. SA players may play a further 3-5 in Currie Cup and internationals will be bring a further 12 games. All in all about 30 matches split over 8-9 months.

NH

Min 6 matches in champions cup per year with a further 3 in KO stages. 22 games in the AP, 22 in Rabo, 26 in Top14.

In France, talent is spread over 14 sides, England 12 sides... compared to 6 in SA, 5 in NZ. Means teams will be of lesser strength and domestic opposition will also be of lesser strength.

The time period is probably similar and the number of games the elite players play is probably the same... but the quality of the opposition is not.

Biltong wrote:Ok I have established the following looking at England players.

Of the maximum 24 weeks for the Aviva, test players are available for 19 of them, plus 12 tests, plus the European championship Which is a potential max of 9 matches.

So you are talking 40 matches max, if guy returns to his club in between six nation off weekends etc.

During the normal season (ignoring the summer internationals in the off season) the English players are missing for the AI (5 games, 4 games in a Lions year), the 6 Nations (8 games) and 2 rest periods (one weekend out of three, twice a year) for a total of 15 weekends. As far as I'm aware the A-W cup has been entirely within the International window and consists of maximum 6 weekends. So the English players are only available for (24-9) 13-15 Premiership games. Add in 6-9 European games and (4+5+3) 12 internationals we have 31-36 games if they play in every game their 'available' for (assuming every international and all rest periods are activated).


I think

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:Ok I have established the following looking at England players.

Of the maximum 24 weeks for the Aviva, test players are available for 19 of them, plus 12 tests, plus the European championship Which is a potential max of 9 matches.

So you are talking 40 matches max, if guy returns to his club in between six nation off weekends etc.

During the normal season (ignoring the summer internationals in the off season) the English players are missing for the AI (5 games, 4 games in a Lions year), the 6 Nations (8 games) and 2 rest periods (one weekend out of three, twice a year) for a total of 15 weekends.  As far as I'm aware the A-W cup has been entirely within the International window and consists of maximum 6 weekends. So the English players are only available for (24-9) 13-15 Premiership games.  Add in 6-9 European games and (4+5+3) 12 internationals we have 31-36 games if they play in every game their 'available' for (assuming every international and all rest periods are activated).


I think

For a starting player that sounds about right. Bench and squad players will have less tests but more club games.

Jordan Crane had the highest number of appearances (incl bench) for tigers last season with 29. No england squad member made Tigers top 10 appearances last season.

Biltong wrote:Can anyone tell me what happens on the inbetween weekends of the six nations?

Do players go back to play for their clubs?

The France based Welsh players do, mostly.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Biltong wrote:Can anyone tell me what happens on the inbetween weekends of the six nations?

Do players go back to play for their clubs?

The France based Welsh players do, mostly.

As do the English based ones though North doesn't have to.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Biltong wrote:Can anyone tell me what happens on the inbetween weekends of the six nations?

Do players go back to play for their clubs?

The France based Welsh players do, mostly.

As do the English based ones though North doesn't have to.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Biltong wrote:Can anyone tell me what happens on the inbetween weekends of the six nations?

Do players go back to play for their clubs?

The France based Welsh players do, mostly.

As do the English based ones though North doesn't have to.

Wish Wales would adhere to the window. No aggro then.

Yes far too many

What is Peter Redman trying to say?

He outlines the performance of NH v SH teams over the history of the RWC and two things stand out:
1. The balance hasn't markedly changed over the years
2. The sample size is far too small on which to base any conclusion

In short there is no evidence to show whether the NH teams play too much, just right, or too few games to achieve optimum performance.

Take Ireland for example, they qualified for the quarter finals as they often do, but have never gone further, yet they have centrally contracted players that have their playing time managed. They also failed to qualify in 2007 for the knockout stages when the provincial teams were playing fewer games than now.

Mr Redman seems to assume that the NH teams would be the equal of their SH counterparts if some tweaking were done to the number of games, but the difference could be far more fundamental than that. Japan didn't qualify for the quarter finals either so is it fair to say they are playing too much rugby?

The Great Aukster wrote:What is Peter Redman trying to say?

He outlines the performance of NH v SH teams over the history of the RWC and two things stand out:
1. The balance hasn't markedly changed over the years
2. The sample size is far too small on which to base any conclusion

In short there is no evidence to show whether the NH teams play too much, just right, or too few games to achieve optimum performance.

Take Ireland for example, they qualified for the quarter finals as they often do, but have never gone further, yet they have centrally contracted players that have their playing time managed. They also failed to qualify in 2007 for the knockout stages when the provincial teams were playing fewer games than now.

Mr Redman seems to assume that the NH teams would be the equal of their SH counterparts if some tweaking were done to the number of games, but the difference could be far more fundamental than that. Japan didn't qualify for the quarter finals either so is it fair to say they are playing too much rugby?

I can agree it is arguable whether too much Rugby is the root cause of the imbalance in results between the big teams in the two hemispheres.  At some level I think we all know there is more to it than that. But I cannot fathom how anyone can think the number of games played might be too few or the right amount to achieve optimum performance.  We beat the hell out of our boys.

lo

doctor_grey wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:What is Peter Redman trying to say?

He outlines the performance of NH v SH teams over the history of the RWC and two things stand out:
1. The balance hasn't markedly changed over the years
2. The sample size is far too small on which to base any conclusion

In short there is no evidence to show whether the NH teams play too much, just right, or too few games to achieve optimum performance.

Take Ireland for example, they qualified for the quarter finals as they often do, but have never gone further, yet they have centrally contracted players that have their playing time managed. They also failed to qualify in 2007 for the knockout stages when the provincial teams were playing fewer games than now.

Mr Redman seems to assume that the NH teams would be the equal of their SH counterparts if some tweaking were done to the number of games, but the difference could be far more fundamental than that. Japan didn't qualify for the quarter finals either so is it fair to say they are playing too much rugby?

I can agree it is arguable whether too much Rugby is the root cause of the imbalance in results between the big teams in the two hemispheres.  At some level I think we all know there is more to it than that.  But I cannot fathom how anyone can think the number of games played might be too few or the right amount to achieve optimum performance.  We beat the hell out of our boys.

I with you doctor. I think any solution involves accepting change and being willing to do it themselves without imposing on others. They key issue with changing June tours is that essentially it's cost on the SH and there's no real cost to the NH. SH teams wont tour Europe in that instance. They have in the recent past threatened to pull out of November tours if understrength sides were sent south in June. Additionally, the political fallout would make it difficult for world cups to be held in Britain/Ireland again.

I can see a solution that sees some teams touring down under and others up north in November (or June) and only one tour window, but I doubt this would happen without a change in the revenue sharing.

The big picture problems do seem somewhat easy to see, eh mate?

The ultimate problem, it seems to me, is still the money and serious short-terminism.  Each organisation, whether a club, national team, or union, wants more revenue to drive growth and increase competitiveness with the other clubs, national teams, unions.  Any change to the Rugby calendar, and in fact, to the entire structure of Rugby globally, will have to include some rebalancing of revenue to make whatever change is agreed lucritive to each stakeholder.  

Of course, to write that is easy.  To develop a plan agreeable to the majority is nigh on impossible.  But is probably what Rugby needs.  Each club, national team, and union will ultimately lose some semblance of control over thier own destinies.  And that will end up the sticking point.  And will be endlessly complex.

I somethings wonder on top of the number of matches, how much the conditions those matches are played in matter?

Once winter closes in (basically from 2 weeks back through to the end of the 6Ns) the likes of the sportsground in Galway isn't a place for high speed, long passing, expansive rugby. If the the ball is slippery and the ground is soft, all teams end up keeping things tighter.

Would an NH player end up having 20 out of 33 games in these conditions (drop out 4 games to start a season and 9 to end a season in good weather)?

How would that compare to SH?

Players like burgess go back to rugby league

I am of the belief that there are 'too many matches in the NH', and this being the case it is most detrimental in France and England who exhibit the club model of ownership.

I think by now we all understand the history and so how we came to be at this point, however I am unsure if we all would agree that there needs to be further change?

I am adamant that if we ever expect to seriously and consistently challenge on the international stage then real domestic calendar and fixture change is required.

And so looking only at England, do I realistically believe any change will take place? Well no not at the promotion of either the clubs or the union who are only willing to manage the short term agenda. Therefore realistically, unless there was ever a players strike, nothing is going to change which I think is very sad and a disastrous waste of this amazing opportunity that we are all so lucky to be witnessing(the global continued expansion of the game).

That said, what could be the options for change?

Accepting that the motive for fewer games would be the opportunity for improved National performance, then it would be expected that the Union would need to bare the cost or at least structure the added financial reward to compensate the Clubs for the significant changes they would be required to make.

I think the most sensible though structurally difficult change would be to reduce the national league format from home and away fixtures to single encounters each season. By doing this we could actually increase the League size to 15 (Bristol, Leeds an another) and play all games consecutively to conclusion. There would be no end of season final meaning that league position would determine the winner and who plays in that seasons European competitions.

This league format would take place from 3rd week September to 3rd week December. There would be a Christmas & New Year break followed by the 8 Nations (including Romania and Georgia) which intern would by followed by the European competitions, leagues and finals.

All of this would reduce number of club games by 6+ and gives consecutive meaning to each competition. I accept there will be 2 more international fixtures but player rotation and opportunity selection could be used to counter this.

Ultimately however I do believe to a large part there will need to be Union investment in the international squad, and further club compensation, whereby players are removed from Club games to protect them from fatigue and consequent injury.

However you reorganize the fixture schedule there will be to many games for players to be abused by.

Scrap the play offs

fa0019 wrote:Not too many, too many of low grade rugby, too few of high grade rugby.

SH

Min 16 matches in super rugby per year with a potential further 3 in KO stages. SA players may play a further 3-5 in Currie Cup and internationals will be bring a further 12 games. All in all about 30 matches split over 8-9 months.

NH

Min 6 matches in champions cup per year with a further 3 in KO stages. 22 games in the AP, 22 in Rabo, 26 in Top14.

In France, talent is spread over 14 sides, England 12 sides... compared to 6 in SA, 5 in NZ. Means teams will be of lesser strength and domestic opposition will also be of lesser strength.

The time period is probably similar and the number of games the elite players play is probably the same... but the quality of the opposition is not.

I agree with this completely.

Basically, a southern hemisphere player who is any good or might be any good will play 16 super rugby games. Then, if they make it, they'll play 11 Internationals, if they don't they'll play 11 domestic games and have a long rest.

A northern hemisphere player's bread and butter is the domestic league with up to 22 games, but these are the lowest quality. The player may then play 6-9 decent European games (equivalent-ish to Super Rugby) or 6-9 average European games (at a par or sometimes below domestic quality). And the player may play 11 Internationals.

Too much third-grade rugby and not enough order in the Northern Hemisphere season for me.

Ok having said a lot before and made only some sense, I've now completely sussed the season structure/fixtures, as follows............that said, the Union will still need to coff up big time to limit the maximum number of games played by the top 25 odd players to no more than approximately 25 games in all.

And here it is (English Clubs only);

15 Team league remains (the rfu buys Wigan to play along side the promoted Leeds and Bristol, ok no they don't and London Welsh play out of Oxford or the like etc.) and again only One off encounters, No home and away fixtures, thereby nailing the first 14 weeks of the season.

Then as before NO Play Offs just an outright winner and depending on league position, qualification into the immediately proceeding European competition Pool games - Bosh there's another 6 weekends taking you to the end of January, but no Finals matches yet.

Next we change tack to INTERNATIONAL competition and the hugely heralded 8 NATIONS (1 week break either side of 4 week blocks)

(whilst the 8 NATIONS takes place the clubs perform a limited B level cup competition)

And finally, the European Club competition Finals, quarters, semi's and final Final's! Giving a proper end of season conclusion and at the same time limiting the overall player impact to only those players at the very top end before any summer tours commence. It might well be either none or all of our teams reach the finals.

Getting the French to buy in will be impossible of course and England should no longer participate as a Union in the Lions shindig though individual players could play if selected and they wish too.

There is something else but I've forgotten it! No I've remembered it now and the answer is we drop promotion and relegation from the premiership. I know I know but it had to happen. Killing ourselves over relegation scraps might be in our DNA but if we want to see the bigger picture and win the damn World Cup let alone promote our great game through out the universe then the bullet has to be bitten!

The club game can't be weakened too much as that's what is the bread and butter for everyone. Not sure I'd be a fan of a league which didn't allow us to see who was best over the season (you'd want the Newcastle away everyday of the week as home advantage wouldn't be as important).

No 7&1/2 wrote:The club game can't be weakened too much as that's what is the bread and butter for everyone. Not sure I'd be a fan of a league which didn't allow us to see who was best over the season (you'd want the Newcastle away everyday of the week as home advantage wouldn't be as important).

'Not sure I'd be a fan of a league which didn't allow us to see who was best over the season'

The thing is does the current elongated season really allow us to judge who is best? I know removing the home/away fixtures creates a level of imbalance but surely this is counteracted by the fact that the games are batched together in a 14 week stretch delivering a clear winner. Added to this the clubs are challenging for the most advantageous European competition/pool that will immediately deliver against their league success.

We have to see the bigger picture and reappraise how we are going to create a structure that will deliver both our clubs and national side and game as a whole the best opportunity to realize consistent success.

All that said realistically the clubs are only losing 6 to 8 games if you include the play off's. And by separating the various competitions, club or country, you remove the need for the 'balancing' requirement (when clubs are disadvantaged losing their best players to the 6 nations) supposedly provided by the 'money for old rope' league play offs.

The only possible way in my eyes would be to limit the amount of games each player is allowed to appear but any solution is pie in the sky as clubs aren't going to vote for it and unions aren't going to cut tests. We just have to trust coaches and wider staff to look after players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The only possible way in my eyes would be to limit the amount of games each player is allowed to appear but any solution is pie in the sky as clubs aren't going to vote for it and unions aren't going to cut tests. We just have to trust coaches and wider staff to look after players.

I don't doubt it will take a visionary (i'm over here) to bring change to our game, but they do appear from time to time (SCW) and we should never underestimate the fact that change is the only constant. We just have to be patient.

I agree the most obvious and deliverable change would be to the club/country agreement as you say reducing the number of games each player plays. However I do believe that the clubs can be bought off by the union on this - compensation payment for players selected to the national squad is already in existence.

The thing is change will and has to come. If you just take a step back and look at the player welfare perspective and consider the NFL type players who are now becoming the 'new normal', then you soon realise that at some stage the players are going to say enough's enough. And realistically the NFL is our best guide to how the professional game will evolve and they play a 5 month season.

It's not about sitting down and devising an idea for new formats etc, but about attaining acceptance from the people in power. Why would the clubs accept a weakening on the domestic game for this? Money? But that would lead to a weaker club game and associated losses ie crowds buying merchandise food etc. If the RFU have the money to fully subsidise the game ok, but would they really want this anyway? I just don't think there's appetite for it.

kingelderfield wrote:
The thing is change will and has to come. If you just take a step back and look at the player welfare perspective and consider the NFL type players who are now becoming the 'new normal', then you soon realise that at some stage the players are going to say enough's enough. And realistically the NFL is our best guide to how the professional game will evolve and they play a 5 month season.

I do really hope that is the case, because I'm struggling to see meaningful change otherwise. The only other solution I can see (without a full on club/country war) is for the international players to be separated completely and only be internationals. Not sure how that is best done though without then having the opposite problem, with the players getting insufficient game time.