SA players angry at excessive URC travel

First topic message reminder :

Oh dear:

Due mostly to financial considerations implicit in staging a competition that encompasses two hemispheres and entails so much regular inter-continental travel, the South African coaches and players aren’t experiencing what they thought they had signed up for. And increasingly, it is becoming a talking point among them and a source of frustration.

STORMERS TAKE MORE THAN 40 HOURS TO GET TO GLASGOW

The DHL Stormers left Cape Town on Monday night for Glasgow, where they play their next URC game on Sunday. At mid-morning on Wednesday, well over 40 hours after departure, they were still in transit at London’s Heathrow Airport waiting for a connecting flight to the Scottish city.

Apparently, some of the players, particularly the bigger ones who have been forced into cramped economy-class seats on the long journey from Cape Town via Johannesburg and Doha, were visibly angry and frustrated. For it wasn’t a once-off. It happens a couple of times in the space of a couple of weeks now.

Still, on the bright side, it looks like the Bulls will be sending a 2nd string side to Belfast to help Ulster out.

https://supersport.com/rugby/united-rugby-championship/news/84c26839-3294-4207-8354-651c603df8d9/opinion-a-resolution-is-needed-for-sa-s-european-travel-challenge

RugbyFan100 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
Whilst PhilBB gets off scot free with his insults when he continues to post falsehoods about Irish finances and they are pointed out to him, that latest being regarding Kitshoff salary.

Just to point out here that all that poster did, was repeat what figure was mentioned in the relevant article. There was no making up of any figures.

And secondly, no I don't like the URC. I believe it's a faux competition that is run extremely poorly to benefit Unions not clubs. I believe it directly hinders my club. That's the cub I have had a season ticket for, and have done for nearly 30 years. Even this fact was questioned by someone on here as I was accused of "supposedly supporting a side". Yes I put my money in my pocket and support a Welsh side. And yes I was sarcastic in this thread, apologies - that's something I've taken on board and will not be doing again. It would be nice if some posters recognised some facts though, instead of outright denial of them.

So just because some don't have to care about the precarious situation your club finds itself in every year, because you're club is bankrolled by a Union, it doesn't mean that others should stop commenting on what they believe in. I.e - the URC directly killing clubs that aren't owned by Unions as they don't have control over revenue streams. That's my opinion, and I will keep trotting it out because my club deserves to thrive not die. Life is alot easier once you realise some people have opinions that differ to yours.

Thanks

So are they facts or opinions? Ah no, you have some fair points here, I would love nothing more than for the Scarlets to thrive, they have a fantastic club and some of the best away fans in club rugby. The main problem I have is that you hold the league to impossible standards. For instance you genuinely believe that there isn't much rotation going on in the other leagues, which couldn't be further from the truth. As I alluded to earlier in the thread Exeter rotated their forwards in what should be a premium xmas fixture away to Saracens and it in turn, turned into a predictable runaway win for sarries given the teams named. That's just one of many examples of course. I don't think I even need to go into the Top14, one must only look at how long their season is.

You also put the premiership on this ridiculous pedestal, which leads me to believe that you aren't really following what's happening there, or anywhere else, so you have nothing to compare the URC to. Here is an example of a very recent thread on the Leicester forum https://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s103.htm?106,17288121. The prem is far from rosey at the minute. You can't honestly look at what the PRL have done to the prem and Heineken cup and think they are the savours of Welsh rugby. The URC is the strongest brand we've ever had, it needs to be given a proper shot now, especially if the HC continues it's downward tradjectory.

That article looks to me to be a disgruntled fan upset at his team getting beat by one of the lower clubs.

The rugby in the premiership is fantastic at the minute, I'm enjoying it more than I have done for years. Newcastle absolutely hammering the champions by a record score is actually a fine casing point for this. I don't agree with the rotation element either.....I would say sides 90% of the time go in with their strongest line-up, or at least what they can put out. I don's watch the URC, so I'm unable to comment on what's going on......but the Premiership is in a great state (at least on the pitch anyway.....).

Of course all teams rotate . It cannot be otherwise. Premiership has protocols about rest periods and so on does it not?

International players will play 3 or 4AIs, 5 6N matches 3 summer tour matches. European cup another 6 or so matches. Thats 17 matches at least without league games. Players cannot realistically play more than 25 or so matches per year so clearly they cannot play every club match. International players in the premiership don't play matches the week before internationals

Its probably true that URC teams rotate more. this can be seen as a good thing. International players in the URC don't get flogged so badly . Would AWJ have had such a long career if he had been in the premiership playing more matches total each season?

Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

Well I think you could apply that to URC players too - if they are fit and if they are available. Presumably if player management protocols dictate that a player should have a rest week or two even if they are fit/not injured, then they are not available.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

Fair comment. The recent change to an 18-game regular season illustrates this point. Some people thought with less games, and with more games being taken out of test windows, that senior/test-level players would appear in games more often. Except they don't. If they're limited to say 10 URC games a season, including knockouts, then it's 10 games whether that's out of 24, 22 or 18 total.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

So a team like say Saracens play their internationals in 90% (your stat) of games? I'll have a more in depth look later when I'm home but just a quick glance at Maro Itoje stats for last season, he played 10 regular season league prem games last season, Owen Farrell 8.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

So a team like say Saracens play their internationals in 90% (your stat) of games? I'll have a more in depth look later when I'm home but just a quick glance at Maro Itoje stats for last season, he played 10 regular season league prem games last season, Owen Farrell 8.

You're anti-Prem agenda is quite comical LF, I don't know why you get so hot and bothered about it.

90% was obviously a throw away number. I watch the Prem and sides generally try to put out their best side as it's a bloody competitive league. I'm not stating if that's a good or bad thing but it's a thing....you really shouldn't get so upset about it.

So, a quick check and Itoje played 12 Premiership games last season. I would hazard a guess at being unavailable for around 8 to 10 of those perhaps? Maybe injuries or knocks for the others. 12 is a decent return for a fully fledged Lions/England player.

Again....I'm not making this a Pro14 v Prem thing as have no idea what goes on in the Pro14. I'm just pointing out top players generally play most of the games when available in the Premiership.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

So a team like say Saracens play their internationals in 90% (your stat) of games? I'll have a more in depth look later when I'm home but just a quick glance at Maro Itoje stats for last season, he played 10 regular season league prem games last season, Owen Farrell 8.

sounds about right to give a total of 24 or so games a year

This looks roughly correct if you want to view which matches are played or not. Regular league looks to be 10, but then of course you add the play offs and Europe for him.

https://all.rugby/player/maro-itoje

Teams have a squad to try and achieve the best they can in a season. Who is to say other than the manager on achieving optimal levels on performances and results for the season as a whole. Can't exactly ban teams from picking a support player just because someone thinks there's a better option. If the manager picks weakened squads consistently and they don't achieve their target for the season his job is likely on the line. Given Saracens performances last season and this it's hardly a system that isn't working.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

So a team like say Saracens play their internationals in 90% (your stat) of games? I'll have a more in depth look later when I'm home but just a quick glance at Maro Itoje stats for last season, he played 10 regular season league prem games last season, Owen Farrell 8.

You're anti-Prem agenda is quite comical LF, I don't know why you get so hot and bothered about it.

90% was obviously a throw away number. I watch the Prem and sides generally try to put out their best side as it's a bloody competitive league. I'm not stating if that's a good or bad thing but it's a thing....you really shouldn't get so upset about it.

So, a quick check and Itoje played 12 Premiership games last season. I would hazard a guess at being unavailable for around 8 to 10 of those perhaps? Maybe injuries or knocks for the others. 12 is a decent return for a fully fledged Lions/England player.

Again....I'm not making this a Pro14 v Prem thing as have no idea what goes on in the Pro14. I'm just pointing out top players generally play most of the games when available in the Premiership.

Hot and bothered what? Are we not having a very tame and simple discussion here? What a bizarre response. I said regular season league games. The 12 you've mentioned includes the playoffs. This discussion isn't about pitting leagues against each other, it's to give perspective to certain posters on what is realistic when it comes to playing your internationals.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

So a team like say Saracens play their internationals in 90% (your stat) of games? I'll have a more in depth look later when I'm home but just a quick glance at Maro Itoje stats for last season, he played 10 regular season league prem games last season, Owen Farrell 8.

You're anti-Prem agenda is quite comical LF, I don't know why you get so hot and bothered about it.

90% was obviously a throw away number. I watch the Prem and sides generally try to put out their best side as it's a bloody competitive league. I'm not stating if that's a good or bad thing but it's a thing....you really shouldn't get so upset about it.

So, a quick check and Itoje played 12 Premiership games last season. I would hazard a guess at being unavailable for around 8 to 10 of those perhaps? Maybe injuries or knocks for the others. 12 is a decent return for a fully fledged Lions/England player.

Again....I'm not making this a Pro14 v Prem thing as have no idea what goes on in the Pro14. I'm just pointing out top players generally play most of the games when available in the Premiership.

Hot and bothered what? Are we not having a very tame and simple discussion here? What a bizarre response. I said regular season league games. The 12 you've mentioned includes the playoffs. This discussion isn't about pitting leagues against each other, it's to give perspective to certain posters on what is realistic when it comes to playing your internationals.

Surely you then use club games rather than regular league?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

So a team like say Saracens play their internationals in 90% (your stat) of games? I'll have a more in depth look later when I'm home but just a quick glance at Maro Itoje stats for last season, he played 10 regular season league prem games last season, Owen Farrell 8.

You're anti-Prem agenda is quite comical LF, I don't know why you get so hot and bothered about it.

90% was obviously a throw away number. I watch the Prem and sides generally try to put out their best side as it's a bloody competitive league. I'm not stating if that's a good or bad thing but it's a thing....you really shouldn't get so upset about it.

So, a quick check and Itoje played 12 Premiership games last season. I would hazard a guess at being unavailable for around 8 to 10 of those perhaps? Maybe injuries or knocks for the others. 12 is a decent return for a fully fledged Lions/England player.

Again....I'm not making this a Pro14 v Prem thing as have no idea what goes on in the Pro14. I'm just pointing out top players generally play most of the games when available in the Premiership.

Hot and bothered what? Are we not having a very tame and simple discussion here? What a bizarre response. I said regular season league games. The 12 you've mentioned includes the playoffs. This discussion isn't about pitting leagues against each other, it's to give perspective to certain posters on what is realistic when it comes to playing your internationals.

Surely you then use club games rather than regular league?

The original complaint was that teams were resting players in regular season league games. It's safe to assume every team goes all out when they get to semi finals/finals

Who complained?

I picked on your incorrect point that players are often rotated in the Premietship....which just isn't the case. I don't even know what/who you're arguing with now.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

I haven't mentioned the Pro14 as I don't watch it.....I was just picking up on the incorrect point that there's a lot of rotation in the Premiership when there isn't.

So a team like say Saracens play their internationals in 90% (your stat) of games? I'll have a more in depth look later when I'm home but just a quick glance at Maro Itoje stats for last season, he played 10 regular season league prem games last season, Owen Farrell 8.

You're anti-Prem agenda is quite comical LF, I don't know why you get so hot and bothered about it.

90% was obviously a throw away number. I watch the Prem and sides generally try to put out their best side as it's a bloody competitive league. I'm not stating if that's a good or bad thing but it's a thing....you really shouldn't get so upset about it.

So, a quick check and Itoje played 12 Premiership games last season. I would hazard a guess at being unavailable for around 8 to 10 of those perhaps? Maybe injuries or knocks for the others. 12 is a decent return for a fully fledged Lions/England player.

Again....I'm not making this a Pro14 v Prem thing as have no idea what goes on in the Pro14. I'm just pointing out top players generally play most of the games when available in the Premiership.

Hot and bothered what? Are we not having a very tame and simple discussion here? What a bizarre response. I said regular season league games. The 12 you've mentioned includes the playoffs. This discussion isn't about pitting leagues against each other, it's to give perspective to certain posters on what is realistic when it comes to playing your internationals.

Surely you then use club games rather than regular league?

The original complaint was that teams were resting players in regular season league games. It's safe to assume every team goes all out when they get to semi finals/finals

Just paints an incomplete picture though. Some players will be rested during Europe; or course when they do people moan that that comp is then diminished!

Question: How many URC games outside of Ireland, has Johnny Sexton played in the last 3 seasons?

Wow. According to that All.Rugby site, Johnny Sexton has played just ONE league match outside of Ireland since October 2016!!!!

https://all.rugby/player/jonathan-sexton

RugbyFan100 wrote:Question: How many URC games outside of Ireland, has Johnny Sexton played in the last 3 seasons?

If you're trying to make a comparison (I don't know why...it proves nothing)......picking a 37 injury prone fly half isn't exactly a level field.

With the Sexton thing, it again comes down to squad management. Leinster I think I'm right in saying have been quite good over the last few years. So to me at least, their squad seems good enough to not have to play Sexton every game.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Question: How many URC games outside of Ireland, has Johnny Sexton played in the last 3 seasons?

If you're trying to make a comparison (I don't know why...it proves nothing)......picking a 37 injury prone fly half isn't exactly a level field.

Well no, not really. There is no comaprison directly. It just highlights the cotton wool that some players are put in by their Union, and the absolute disingenuity the URC gives out when it says 'the best players will be playing more often'................... Ireland's test fly half hasn't played in the URC in Wales or Scotland for 7 years.

As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

I think Saracens rotate quite well still. Even with an actual salary cap.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Question: How many URC games outside of Ireland, has Johnny Sexton played in the last 3 seasons?

If you're trying to make a comparison (I don't know why...it proves nothing)......picking a 37 injury prone fly half isn't exactly a level field.

Exactly what I was thinking. The league is full of international players, yet they go to the most extreme example. This is what we are up against.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No, not at all.

It's because when I took my young son to see my team play Leinster, and he was excited to see a recent 'world player of the year' and mastermind of several all blacks defeats playing, I had to say to my son that he infact wasn't playing because his bosses have decided to save him for a bunch of other games in another tournament.

Last time we did this Sexton had played 8 league games. Same as Farrell

There may be a little less rotation in the premiership but its not vastly different and with that comes the risk of flogging the players

no league can have their internationals for every game. simply too many games per season. Every league rotates players

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No, not at all.

It's because when I took my young son to see my team play Leinster, and he was excited to see a recent 'world player of the year' and mastermind of several all blacks defeats playing, I had to say to my son that he infact wasn't playing because his bosses have decided to save him for a bunch of other games in another tournament.

And he understood the point I assume? You explained to him players can't play every game, told him about risks to injury and reassured him not to worry and that he can watch van der Flier with you in the 6Ns?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No, not at all.

It's because when I took my young son to see my team play Leinster, and he was excited to see a recent 'world player of the year' and mastermind of several all blacks defeats playing, I had to say to my son that he infact wasn't playing because his bosses have decided to save him for a bunch of other games in another tournament.

And he understood the point I assume? You explained to him players can't play every game, told him about risks to injury and reassured him not to worry and that he can watch van der Flier with you in the 6Ns?

Yes, I said he was unlikely to ever see him play.

TJ wrote:Last time we did this Sexton had played 8 league games.  Same as Farrell

There may be a little less rotation in the premiership but its not vastly different and with that comes the risk of flogging the players

no league can have their internationals for every game.  simply too many games per season.  Every league rotates players

Yup. And you prioritise based on your clubs own circumstances.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No, not at all.

It's because when I took my young son to see my team play Leinster, and he was excited to see a recent 'world player of the year' and mastermind of several all blacks defeats playing, I had to say to my son that he infact wasn't playing because his bosses have decided to save him for a bunch of other games in another tournament.

And he understood the point I assume? You explained to him players can't play every game, told him about risks to injury and reassured him not to worry and that he can watch van der Flier with you in the 6Ns?

Yes, I said he was unlikely to ever see him play.

What you even turn the tv off when Ireland play?! Do you not have the rights to watch the URC on tv?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No, not at all.

It's because when I took my young son to see my team play Leinster, and he was excited to see a recent 'world player of the year' and mastermind of several all blacks defeats playing, I had to say to my son that he infact wasn't playing because his bosses have decided to save him for a bunch of other games in another tournament.

And he understood the point I assume? You explained to him players can't play every game, told him about risks to injury and reassured him not to worry and that he can watch van der Flier with you in the 6Ns?

Yes, I said he was unlikely to ever see him play.

Van De Flier has already played in 6 league games this season. That's only two off the entire total of Farrell last season. Andrew Porter has played in 8. Stop using one extreme example to justify points that have already been disproven.

I watch Racing 92 games to watch Russell. He is often rotated and has been since he went there. same reasons. 17 international and euro cup games leaves not many games he can play in the league

I plead with people if they're taking youngster to any sporting event don't put them off either! Make it fun and get them back the next week! Spoken from someone who had to grin and bear a dreadful England footballs u18 match several years back.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No, not at all.

It's because when I took my young son to see my team play Leinster, and he was excited to see a recent 'world player of the year' and mastermind of several all blacks defeats playing, I had to say to my son that he infact wasn't playing because his bosses have decided to save him for a bunch of other games in another tournament.

Interesting. When was this? The most recent away game v Scarlets was on 28 Oct 2022, when Sexton would have been in Ireland camp preparing for test game against South Africa the following weekend - same as every other test player.

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hence the caveat "at least what they can put out". If a top player is fit and available, he generally plays in the Premiership.

That's the whole point. Every team puts "what they can out". Leinster have put their best available squad out every game this year, but the teams with the most internationals have to rotate the most due to player welfare and injuries. Leinster has provided up to 18 of the match day 23 in the Ireland team this year, to expect them to play first team squads in every game is fantasy land stuff. On the other hand a team like Connacht can play their first XV in the majority of league games. This isn't directed at you, but this is very obvious stuff and has been explained numerous times on here. We really should have moved past this discussion a long time ago.

Fair comment.   The recent change to an 18-game regular season illustrates this point.   Some people thought with less games, and with more games being taken out of test windows, that senior/test-level players would appear in games more often.    Except they don't.  If they're limited to say 10 URC games a season, including knockouts, then it's 10 games whether that's out of 24, 22 or 18 total.  

Dont think anyone thought they would play more often, but there are certainly less games without them, so a higher % of the leagues games feature internationals.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As 7.5 states... if Leinster don't need to put out their best side to beat other teams, why should they?

Surely it's up to other sides to be more competitive and force Leinsters hand?

Saracens need to put out their best side each week as they'll get beat if they don't.

Oh absolutely. There are no laws about it. Leinster can do what they want, such are their gigantic resources. Play him once a season if they want.

But it makes for a poorer league product. As the 'best' palyers are tucked up at home getting ready for Europe and the 6 Nations. This is what Unions do. Ruin the domestic product.

Aren't Leinster one of your best teams in the URC though consistently performing well in the league?

I believe so, yes.

So they're ruining your league just by being one of the better teams? Bit like when Saracens were ruining the Prem, Man U were ruining the football prem, Real Madrid ruin la liga etc.

No, not at all.

It's because when I took my young son to see my team play Leinster, and he was excited to see a recent 'world player of the year' and mastermind of several all blacks defeats playing, I had to say to my son that he infact wasn't playing because his bosses have decided to save him for a bunch of other games in another tournament.

And he understood the point I assume? You explained to him players can't play every game, told him about risks to injury and reassured him not to worry and that he can watch van der Flier with you in the 6Ns?

Yes, I said he was unlikely to ever see him play.

Van De Flier has already played in 6 league games this season. That's only two off the entire total of Farrell last season. Andrew Porter has played in 8. Stop using one extreme example to justify points that have already been disproven.

This figure of 8 for Farrell also needs context. For a start, he played 10 games......it was a Lions year so he wasn't immediately involved with Saracens. The biggest reason for the low number though was he had 2 ankle injuries....one in November and the other in January that required surgery.....keeping him out for approximately 5 months.

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/12578848/owen-farrells-injury-comeback-stalls-as-concussion-protocols-rule-england-captain-out-of-saracens-vs-sale-in-premiership

Without the injuries, Farrell would have played the majority of the Saracens games.

Without the injuries, Farrell would have played the majority of the Saracens games.

Really? so he would not be playing euro cup games and internationals then or would he have played more than 30 games a year increasing risk of injury and burnout

Its simply impossible for players in the modern era who are internationals to play the majority ( unless you really mean half plus one) without being flogged to death 11 or 12 international matches and (is it?) 6 euro cup games.

Premier ship players that play internationals are not allowed to play many club games due to the deal betweeen the PRL and RFU. Indeed last year we had the spectacle of England players in the premiership having a game off prior to each block of internationals and also a rest week in the middle of the 6N iirc whereas Scotland players playing in the premiership played those weeks

sorry dude - it just does not add up.

Regarding limits on player minutes on the pitch I think it's as follows, but it was due to be reviewed and not sure how covid impacted it:

Maximum 35 match involvements (>20 minutes) in any one season for all players

- Maximum 30 full game equivalents (reduced from 32) in any one season for all players

- Premiership Rugby Cup structure to provide rest weeks for players with the most match time

- England Senior EPS players to have a mandatory rest week if playing all international matches and more than 65% of total minutes (reduced from 80%) in the Quilter Internationals or Six Nations .


That's of course the minimum standard, and again it's referring to total games for the players, doesn't just ignore European games, or the Prem Cup if they're actually involved.

TJ wrote:

Without the injuries, Farrell would have played the majority of the Saracens games.

Really?  so he would not be playing euro cup games and internationals then or would he have played more than 30 games a year increasing risk of injury and burnout

Its simply impossible for players in the modern era who are internationals to play the majority ( unless you really mean half plus one) without being flogged to death 11 or 12 international matches and (is it?) 6 euro cup games.

Premier ship players that play internationals are not allowed to play many club games due to the deal betweeen the PRL and RFU. Indeed last year we had the spectacle of England players in the premiership having a game off prior to each block of internationals and also a rest week in the middle of the 6N iirc whereas Scotland players playing in the premiership played those weeks

sorry dude - it just does not add up.

Obviously not the games where he's playing for England......do I really need to add that?

The best players in the Premiership generally play most of the games they're available. There's obviously going to be the odd game here and there, but as a rule of thumb sides will go in strong.

I don't why this is so contentious.....I've been watching the Premiership for years (plus being a regular at Falcons when in the UK) and you see the best players week in week out. It's one of the reasons the league is so attritional and we see so many injuries when we come round to the International windows. For good or bad.....that's how it is.

The original topic of this thread appears to have been lost - perhaps it is an unpalatable truth that the travel is not sustainable and so fans don't want to talk about it.....

On the travel thing. If their stopping I’ve in Doha, is that something to do with Qatar Airways being a sponsor?

Yes.

Stopping in Doha is daft, done as pointed out above I'd imagine because of the sponsorship with Qatar Airwyas.

That I suppose is down to South Africa and it's clubs to decide if they want to fly direct or accept that extra money more.

As for travel in URC flying direct isn't any less sustainable than the old Super Rugby, the flight times from South Africa to Ireland and from South Africa to Australia or further to New Zealand are not that different if you do them direct. You also won't then have the same issues with time zones with Ireland only 1 hour difference where as Australia 8-9 hours difference and more for NZ.

The problem there is that they are booked into economy and flown via some weird way rather than direct.

Getting sponsored by Qatar Airways is one thing....but then having to travel economy is a bit of a joke.

I've done that journey (well Paris to Kilimanjaro) with Qatar.....thankfully on business class and it's long slog. I couldn't imagine having to play a game of rugby at the other side.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Getting sponsored by Qatar Airways is one thing....but then having to travel economy is a bit of a joke.

I've done that journey (well Paris to Kilimanjaro) with Qatar.....thankfully on business class and it's long slog. I couldn't imagine having to play a game of rugby at the other side.  

For athletes to travel 5000 miles in economy is ridiculous.  And to make it 7000 miles in economy to route through the middle east is without any shred of concern for the players.  And when some of the travelling teams under-perform and/or play second teamers and the games are not so good, people wonder why.  

Perhaps - and I know this is radical - how about looking for a partnership with an airline or airline alliance with airlines based, let's say, in Europe?  Rather than an out of the way stretch of beach?  Or even better, not partnering with theocratic dictatorships without even a shred of basic human decency?  

What this shows is the people leading Rugby in reality don't give a toss about their players and their well-being.  Or anything really.  A recurring theme in Rugby.