English Player Exhaustion

[Puja]

This is not a problem that can be solved by players offering to cut their salaries for fewer games or clubs having larger squads and being encouraged to rotate. Sport is competitive - clubs will always want to play their best XV when the league is as tight as it is and players aren't going to want to lose their places to their rivals. And it's a fine idea in theory to say that a player should swap money for rest time, but it's a short career that could end very suddenly and it's a brave man who'll look to the long term and turn down money when they could be the next Sam Jones.

All of that is tinkering with the symptoms and not the problem - there are too many games in the calendar. And it's not just the Lions, cause it
is a slog every single year. Reduce the size of the Premiership and have it as two divisions of 10 and that frees up 4 weeks. Its the only way that we can even start to balance the problem. The issue is, as always - fewer games means less money and, while we're all very sad about players burning out, as it turns out, we do like money...

Puja

[Oakboy]

This is not a problem that can be solved by players offering to cut their salaries for fewer games or clubs having larger squads and being encouraged to rotate. Sport is competitive - clubs will always want to play their best XV when the league is as tight as it is and players aren't going to want to lose their places to their rivals. And it's a fine idea in theory to say that a player should swap money for rest time, but it's a short career that could end very suddenly and it's a brave man who'll look to the long term and turn down money when they could be the next Sam Jones.

All of that is tinkering with the symptoms and not the problem - there are too many games in the calendar. And it's not just the Lions, cause it
is a slog every single year. Reduce the size of the Premiership and have it as two divisions of 10 and that frees up 4 weeks. Its the only way that we can even start to balance the problem. The issue is, as always - fewer games means less money and, while we're all very sad about players burning out, as it turns out, we do like
Puja

Puja, what is your opinion of the salary cap as currently applied? Might, for example, scrapping it with the proviso of maximum appearances/rest periods achieve the same situation as applied to Irish players? There are more EQ players but how do we exploit that advantage? What is so wrong with Leicester, or whoever, paying more to give more players game time? I accept it is unfair club to club but would the overall effect not benefit England? Especially innthe SH search I can see advantages.

[Spiffy]

Can't help thinking that part of this exhaustion problem is down to Eddie Jones and his coaching team. If the England squad players are physically fit going into training camp, which you would have to assume is likely, since they are all professionals playing for top clubs, then there is no point in flogging them to death in camp with excessive fitness drills. From all that one reads, this is what happens, and Jones seems to take a pride in it. Far better to use that time in camp keeping out of the gym, working on tactics, playing with the ball, getting adequate rest, having some relaxing bonding time etc... and not humping heavy weights up and down the sand dunes. The message was loud and clear (from Jones himself) before the three England 6N defeats that the squad was being worked very hard. Not good coaching.

[Oakboy]

Can't help thinking that part of this exhaustion problem is down to Eddie Jones and his coaching team. If the England squad players are physically fit going into training camp, which you would have to assume is likely, since they are all professionals playing for top clubs, then there is no point in flogging them to death in camp with excessive fitness drills. From all that one reads, this is what happens, and Jones seems to take a pride in it. Far better to use that time in camp keeping out of the gym, working on tactics, playing with the ball, getting adequate rest, having some relaxing bonding time etc... and not humping heavy weights up and down the sand dunes. The message was loud and clear (from Jones himself) before the three England 6N defeats that the squad was being worked very hard. Not good coaching.

Agreed. At this point, my faith in Jones is plummeting. He has nothing for me except, previously, the ability to produce wins, sometimes in tight matches. Losing, he offers nothing. The defeats are his fault. He is purely a results-merchant. For no single game this 6N, did he get a 95%+ perfomance, probably for the reasons you describe.

[Raggs]

If he's doing it to improve for the rwc and not to win 6n games, then the results of those games don't make a difference. He wasn't trying all out to win them.

Smaller league or conferences is worse than pay reduction for less games i feel. Since it also means less income for the clubs.

[Mellsblue]

Yep, I'm not sure how you'll convince loss making clubs to agree to less games and therefore less income.

[Oakboy]

If he's doing it to improve for the rwc and not to win 6n games, then the results of those games don't make a difference. He wasn't trying all out to win them.

Smaller league or conferences is worse than pay reduction for less games i feel. Since it also means less income for the clubs.

Raggs, why do you say he was not trying flat out to win the 6N games? That is a concept I simply fail to understand. Surely, all competitive matches are there for the sole purpose of winning them unless there were clear developmental aims eg. bed in new SH. In contrast to that there was Wigglesworth.

[twitchy]

Blaming it on jones is pointless. We have all noted constantly throughout the club season how knackered the english teams and players were. Injuries left right and centre. Lethargic performances in europe.

The lions benefits the southern hemisphere the most all the way down the to the english players at the bottom of the pile. Was it really worth scuppering a whole season for england club and country. All for what eking out a draw against NZ?

[Banquo]

This is not a problem that can be solved by players offering to cut their salaries for fewer games or clubs having larger squads and being encouraged to rotate. Sport is competitive - clubs will always want to play their best XV when the league is as tight as it is and players aren't going to want to lose their places to their rivals. And it's a fine idea in theory to say that a player should swap money for rest time, but it's a short career that could end very suddenly and it's a brave man who'll look to the long term and turn down money when they could be the next Sam Jones.

All of that is tinkering with the symptoms and not the problem - there are too many games in the calendar. And it's not just the Lions, cause it
is a slog every single year. Reduce the size of the Premiership and have it as two divisions of 10 and that frees up 4 weeks. Its the only way that we can even start to balance the problem. The issue is, as always - fewer games means less money and, while we're all very sad about players burning out, as it turns out, we do like money...

Puja

Too many games is also a symptom imo....

[Puja]

This is not a problem that can be solved by players offering to cut their salaries for fewer games or clubs having larger squads and being encouraged to rotate. Sport is competitive - clubs will always want to play their best XV when the league is as tight as it is and players aren't going to want to lose their places to their rivals. And it's a fine idea in theory to say that a player should swap money for rest time, but it's a short career that could end very suddenly and it's a brave man who'll look to the long term and turn down money when they could be the next Sam Jones.

All of that is tinkering with the symptoms and not the problem - there are too many games in the calendar. And it's not just the Lions, cause it
is a slog every single year. Reduce the size of the Premiership and have it as two divisions of 10 and that frees up 4 weeks. Its the only way that we can even start to balance the problem. The issue is, as always - fewer games means less money and, while we're all very sad about players burning out, as it turns out, we do like
Puja

Puja, what is your opinion of the salary cap as currently applied? Might, for example, scrapping it with the proviso of maximum appearances/rest periods achieve the same situation as applied to Irish players? There are more EQ players but how do we exploit that advantage? What is so wrong with Leicester, or whoever, paying more to give more players game time? I accept it is unfair club to club but would the overall effect not benefit England? Especially innthe SH search I can see advantages.

I can see several things I dislike about that plan. The first is that it devalues the Prem - there's going to be a smaller percentage of games where the stars are appearing and beyond a certain point casual fans are going to view it like the cricket county championship and ask what the point of going is if they're never going to see the players they've heard of. It also runs the risk of a French situation, where clubs basically throw away games by playing the 2nds, further devaluing the league.

Plus I'm not sure I have faith that it would work. Every time the salary cap rises, there's talk about having deeper squads and more rotation, and every time, it goes on getting a better quality/more expensive first XV.

Smaller league or conferences is worse than pay reduction for less games i feel. Since it also means less income for the clubs.

Yep, I'm not sure how you'll convince loss making clubs to agree to less games and therefore less income.

But it's the actual problem - there's too many games. I can understand that the clubs might not want to, but the alternative is just carrying on like everything's fine and letting the players pay for it, with the long-term consequences for the game that that entails.

I think there might be more appetite for it than you think though. The clubs want the Prem games out of international periods because it's more lucrative to play the first XV. Less top clubs mean a bigger splut of central funding, which would go a long way to replacing two lost home games, especially if they don't have to play in the internationals and have smaller crowds anymore. Get two leagues of 10 and ringfence below and you can strengthen the Championship to a level where relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. And worse case, a fourth AI could fund any gap that was left.

Puja

[Raggs]

If he's doing it to improve for the rwc and not to win 6n games, then the results of those games don't make a difference. He wasn't trying all out to win them.

Smaller league or conferences is worse than pay reduction for less games i feel. Since it also means less income for the clubs.

Raggs, why do you say he was not trying flat out to win the 6N games? That is a concept I simply fail to understand. Surely, all competitive matches are there for the sole purpose of winning them unless there were clear developmental aims eg. bed in new SH. In contrast to that there was Wigglesworth.

From my understanding a typical pre-season is training the players hard, to raise their level of conditioning to as high a point as possible, once the season starts, you cannot keep training at that intensity, since the players will be fatigued in games, the objective once the season starts, is simply to maintain that fitness.

Reports suggest that Eddie was training the players like it was a pre-season, with the objective of increasing their conditioning, rather than maintaining and peaking for each individual game. The idea being he's raising their conditioning over a far larger period of time, with the end objective of the world cup, this would tie in with what the head of sports science at the RFU said, when asked if the desired improvement in the England players fitness would come from the pre-rwc camp, or over the next 18 months, and he replied it would be a continuous thing over the next 18 months. The only way that happens if the players are worked extremely hard every time Eddie gets his hands on them.

Eddie was brought in with 1 objective, the world cup. He's also already won a grand slam, so that trophy is already sat on the mantelpiece, the only thing missing from his head coach resume, is the world cup I believe.

I'm sure Eddie and his team were analysing opposition, and trying to win those games, but not at the expense of improving conditioning for the rwc, and potentially placing other restrictions on his squad selection, to try and emulate world cup conditions (hence Lawes at 6, when we had multiple backrow injuries, rather than bringing in someone new).

[Banquo]

Blaming it on jones is pointless. We have all noted constantly throughout the club season how knackered the english teams and players were. Injuries left right and centre. Lethargic performances in europe.

The lions benefits the southern hemisphere the most all the way down the to the english players at the bottom of the pile. Was it really worth scuppering a whole season for england club and country. All for what eking out a draw against NZ?

We had less injuries to cope with than (say) Wales and Ireland, and with our alleged strength in depth that should be easier to cope with; I do accept the mental and physical tiredness element (some of which is apparently down to being flogged in training), and some have it that had they not been knackered, the issues with the breakdown/back-row balance/midfield/discipline/odd defence would not have been there....even though they were last season to a lesser degree, when we snatched some wins- and don't knock that, but don't pretend there weren't issues either. Blaming Eddie isn't pointless, he is the accountable one, but the players of course have to take responsibility too- discipline for one.

That said, of course there are, and were, a lot of problems to resolve that Eddie can't do much about, and frankly they are the same ones that have been kicking around for a long time. They start with what has priority- national side, or club game; then how clubs behave and players are developed follows from there. The rest has been discussed ad infinitum. The other elephant in the room is the ecnomics of rugby as a professional sport, with players salaries as they are.

[Banquo]

This is not a problem that can be solved by players offering to cut their salaries for fewer games or clubs having larger squads and being encouraged to rotate. Sport is competitive - clubs will always want to play their best XV when the league is as tight as it is and players aren't going to want to lose their places to their rivals. And it's a fine idea in theory to say that a player should swap money for rest time, but it's a short career that could end very suddenly and it's a brave man who'll look to the long term and turn down money when they could be the next Sam Jones.

All of that is tinkering with the symptoms and not the problem - there are too many games in the calendar. And it's not just the Lions, cause it
is a slog every single year. Reduce the size of the Premiership and have it as two divisions of 10 and that frees up 4 weeks. Its the only way that we can even start to balance the problem. The issue is, as always - fewer games means less money and, while we're all very sad about players burning out, as it turns out, we do like
Puja

Puja, what is your opinion of the salary cap as currently applied? Might, for example, scrapping it with the proviso of maximum appearances/rest periods achieve the same situation as applied to Irish players? There are more EQ players but how do we exploit that advantage? What is so wrong with Leicester, or whoever, paying more to give more players game time? I accept it is unfair club to club but would the overall effect not benefit England? Especially innthe SH search I can see advantages.

I can see several things I dislike about that plan. The first is that it devalues the Prem - there's going to be a smaller percentage of games where the stars are appearing and beyond a certain point casual fans are going to view it like the cricket county championship and ask what the point of going is if they're never going to see the players they've heard of. It also runs the risk of a French situation, where clubs basically throw away games by playing the 2nds, further devaluing the league.

Plus I'm not sure I have faith that it would work. Every time the salary cap rises, there's talk about having deeper squads and more rotation, and every time, it goes on getting a better quality/more expensive first XV.

Smaller league or conferences is worse than pay reduction for less games i feel. Since it also means less income for the clubs.

Yep, I'm not sure how you'll convince loss making clubs to agree to less games and therefore less income.

But it's the actual problem - there's too many games. I can understand that the clubs might not want to, but the alternative is just carrying on like everything's fine and letting the players pay for it, with the long-term consequences for the game that that entails.

I think there might be more appetite for it than you think though. The clubs want the Prem games out of international periods because it's more lucrative to play the first XV. Less top clubs mean a bigger splut of central funding, which would go a long way to replacing two lost home games, especially if they don't have to play in the internationals and have smaller crowds anymore. Get two leagues of 10 and ringfence below and you can strengthen the Championship to a level where relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. And worse case, a fourth AI could fund any gap that was left.

Puja

No, the actual problem is money.

[fivepointer]

It is money and you have to wonder just how viable is the pro game in England, at least in its current form.
How many clubs turn any kind of profit, and would any of them be able to survive without RFU support?
If the RFU have to prop up the game - and the international game is where the big money is - then isnt it right that they can dictate terms to a far greater degree than they currently do?

[Digby]

It is money and you have to wonder just how viable is the pro game in England, at least in its current form.
How many clubs turn any kind of profit, and would any of them be able to survive without RFU support?
If the RFU have to prop up the game - and the international game is where the big money is - then isnt it right that they can dictate terms to a far greater degree than they currently do?

It's a very skewed way to look at it. Yes the RFU helps prop up the club game, but equally the club game helps prop up the international game. It's not an either/or scenario and they need a direction forward which suits both

[Puja]

It is money and you have to wonder just how viable is the pro game in England, at least in its current form.
How many clubs turn any kind of profit, and would any of them be able to survive without RFU support?
If the RFU have to prop up the game - and the international game is where the big money is - then isnt it right that they can dictate terms to a far greater degree than they currently do?

In theory, but they signed away their power 18 months ago with an 8 year agreement with the clubs to get EPS concessions, etc. So they'll have no leverage for 6.5 years unless everyone wants to change the agreement.

Puja

[Banquo]

It is money and you have to wonder just how viable is the pro game in England, at least in its current form.
How many clubs turn any kind of profit, and would any of them be able to survive without RFU support?
If the RFU have to prop up the game - and the international game is where the big money is - then isnt it right that they can dictate terms to a far greater degree than they currently do?

It's a very skewed way to look at it. Yes the RFU helps prop up the club game, but equally the club game helps prop up the international game. It's not an either/or scenario and they need a direction forward which suits both

The first para is 'on the money' though. Your point is about negotiation stance.

[Banquo]

It is money and you have to wonder just how viable is the pro game in England, at least in its current form.
How many clubs turn any kind of profit, and would any of them be able to survive without RFU support?
If the RFU have to prop up the game - and the international game is where the big money is - then isnt it right that they can dictate terms to a far greater degree than they currently do?

In theory, but they signed away their power 18 months ago with an 8 year agreement with the clubs to get EPS concessions, etc. So they'll have no leverage for 6.5 years unless everyone wants to change the agreement.

Puja

Depends what the break clauses are, and whether the clubs are happy with the status quo or susceptible to more bribery- but its moot at the moment as Brown doesnt believe there is a problem, at least publically.

[Digby]

It is money and you have to wonder just how viable is the pro game in England, at least in its current form.
How many clubs turn any kind of profit, and would any of them be able to survive without RFU support?
If the RFU have to prop up the game - and the international game is where the big money is - then isnt it right that they can dictate terms to a far greater degree than they currently do?

It's a very skewed way to look at it. Yes the RFU helps prop up the club game, but equally the club game helps prop up the international game. It's not an either/or scenario and they need a direction forward which suits both

The first para is 'on the money' though. Your point is about negotiation stance.

If either the RFU or the clubs take their money and go home the other side has a problem, on which basis I don't see sense in on side saying the other needs to change, they need a model that's symbiotic, or maybe even probiotic given all else these days seems to be probiotic

[Puja]

Puja, what is your opinion of the salary cap as currently applied? Might, for example, scrapping it with the proviso of maximum appearances/rest periods achieve the same situation as applied to Irish players? There are more EQ players but how do we exploit that advantage? What is so wrong with Leicester, or whoever, paying more to give more players game time? I accept it is unfair club to club but would the overall effect not benefit England? Especially innthe SH search I can see advantages.

I can see several things I dislike about that plan. The first is that it devalues the Prem - there's going to be a smaller percentage of games where the stars are appearing and beyond a certain point casual fans are going to view it like the cricket county championship and ask what the point of going is if they're never going to see the players they've heard of. It also runs the risk of a French situation, where clubs basically throw away games by playing the 2nds, further devaluing the league.

Plus I'm not sure I have faith that it would work. Every time the salary cap rises, there's talk about having deeper squads and more rotation, and every time, it goes on getting a better quality/more expensive first XV.

Smaller league or conferences is worse than pay reduction for less games i feel. Since it also means less income for the clubs.

Yep, I'm not sure how you'll convince loss making clubs to agree to less games and therefore less income.

But it's the actual problem - there's too many games. I can understand that the clubs might not want to, but the alternative is just carrying on like everything's fine and letting the players pay for it, with the long-term consequences for the game that that entails.

I think there might be more appetite for it than you think though. The clubs want the Prem games out of international periods because it's more lucrative to play the first XV. Less top clubs mean a bigger splut of central funding, which would go a long way to replacing two lost home games, especially if they don't have to play in the internationals and have smaller crowds anymore. Get two leagues of 10 and ringfence below and you can strengthen the Championship to a level where relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. And worse case, a fourth AI could fund any gap that was left.

Puja

No, the actual problem is money.

That's just moving sideways on the same issue. Too many games are grinding players into the ground and those games were organised because of money, so you're technically right, but more money won't automatically make those games go away. It's the structure of the competitions as much as anything else.

Puja

[Banquo]

It's a very skewed way to look at it. Yes the RFU helps prop up the club game, but equally the club game helps prop up the international game. It's not an either/or scenario and they need a direction forward which suits both

The first para is 'on the money' though. Your point is about negotiation stance.

If either the RFU or the clubs take their money and go home the other side has a problem, on which basis I don't see sense in on side saying the other needs to change, they need a model that's symbiotic, or maybe even probiotic given all else these days seems to be probiotic

as I said, its a negotiation position. But with the clubs bleeding money still- an assumption- you'd think there was incentive on both sides to come to new deal.

[Puja]

It is money and you have to wonder just how viable is the pro game in England, at least in its current form.
How many clubs turn any kind of profit, and would any of them be able to survive without RFU support?
If the RFU have to prop up the game - and the international game is where the big money is - then isnt it right that they can dictate terms to a far greater degree than they currently do?

In theory, but they signed away their power 18 months ago with an 8 year agreement with the clubs to get EPS concessions, etc. So they'll have no leverage for 6.5 years unless everyone wants to change the agreement.

Puja

Depends what the break clauses are, and whether the clubs are happy with the status quo or susceptible to more bribery- but its moot at the moment as Brown doesnt believe there is a problem, at least publically.

I suspect bribery will always be on the table with the clubs. The RFU has to make sure that any latest round actually makes a change, rather than fluffing up their Kiwi-shopping fund.

Puja

[Puja]

The first para is 'on the money' though. Your point is about negotiation stance.

If either the RFU or the clubs take their money and go home the other side has a problem, on which basis I don't see sense in on side saying the other needs to change, they need a model that's symbiotic, or maybe even probiotic given all else these days seems to be probiotic

as I said, its a negotiation position. But with the clubs bleeding money still- an assumption- you'd think there was incentive on both sides to come to new deal.

For Worcester and Irish, maybe. Saracens, Bristol, Bath, Newcastle, Sale all have rich owners and Leicester, Exeter, Saints, Wasps, Quins and Gloucester all either break even or have an ambition to do so shortly. The majority aren't in financial trouble, so they've got no incentive to deal.

Puja

[Raggs]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

[fivepointer]

The clubs would go for ringfencing in a big way. Its what most of them want and would, i'm sure, guarantee a very different attitude to promoting young players and assisting the national side to a greater degree.