Too many matches in the Northern Hemisphere?

First topic message reminder :

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!

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

Fair comment and that is why I used the term 'visionary'. It will take a special individual to not only comprehend the potential that is there but has the ability to persuade the decision makers and deliver the required changes.

I know Rugby Union in the UK and Europe is not structurally similar to the NFL, but there are similarities in that Union has to compete with other sports, primarily with Association Football and the NFL with Baseball and Basketball amongst others. But the point is, and it is a point the Southern hemisphere Union's have made by and large every year that I can remember, and it is this - LESS IS MORE!

The NFL proves this across the board, most pointedly by its astonishing commercial success.

Of course we can say these are just empty words, but if a dumb bum like me on a fan site can see the future then greater abilities than ours will catch the wind and times will change.

I thought financially the RFU were the richest union? And our clubs can afford more in wages than our southern brethren?

Could it be not a case of too many games but too many teams in the NH. We all know that rugby is about combinations of players more than individuals.

I'm sure Peter Redman's heart is in the right place, but the article apart from not being well written is amateurish waffle.

He points out that the NH sides have never held good records against the SH teams but postulates the reason for failure is the current number of games - seriously?

Perhaps someone should whisper to him that the gulf is more likely to be because the SH sides have... er... better players?

The Great Aukster wrote:I'm sure Peter Redman's heart is in the right place, but the article apart from not being well written is amateurish waffle.

He points out that the NH sides have never held good records against the SH teams but postulates the reason for failure is the current number of games - seriously?

Perhaps someone should whisper to him that the gulf is more likely to be because the SH sides have... er... better players?

The rfu should enter a squad into the S15 - Job done!