RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Does anybody know what debate there has been, if any, at IRB level about squad size? Presumably, squads went from 30 to 31 with the requirement for three front rowers on the bench. I'd suggest that the extra caution thrown rightly into the concussion protocols ought to be accompanied by pushing up the squad size to 35.

What is the counter-argument? Any thoughts about smaller unions struggling to find that number cannot make sense. If a union can't find 35 it should not be at the RWC.

They can probably find that number but the quality may drop off faster than for larger nations. Also, money is an issue and considering some of the smaller nations plead poverty on training camps, transporting, housing, feeding, etc for 31, the cost would be higher still for 35.

I quite like the tight squad limits. It puts an extra pressure on and also means that getting into a RWC squad *means* something and also reduces the risk of players going and not playing.

Puja

I don't altogether disagree but I don't like the replacement rules. Rugby's approach to injuries is still a bit draconian, IMO. I think 4 extra players is reasonable. I also have an overall yearning for the best meaning the best. The final should feature the best fit players of the best two teams, not a compromise with players out of position etc.

I can’t imagine them openly suggesting you’re likely to need 4 extra players to account for all the brain damage they’ll likely receive over an 8 week period.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Does anybody know what debate there has been, if any, at IRB level about squad size? Presumably, squads went from 30 to 31 with the requirement for three front rowers on the bench. I'd suggest that the extra caution thrown rightly into the concussion protocols ought to be accompanied by pushing up the squad size to 35.

What is the counter-argument? Any thoughts about smaller unions struggling to find that number cannot make sense. If a union can't find 35 it should not be at the RWC.

They can probably find that number but the quality may drop off faster than for larger nations. Also, money is an issue and considering some of the smaller nations plead poverty on training camps, transporting, housing, feeding, etc for 31, the cost would be higher still for 35.

I quite like the tight squad limits. It puts an extra pressure on and also means that getting into a RWC squad *means* something and also reduces the risk of players going and not playing.

Puja

And it better suits those nations with more depth if we can take larger squads and rotate more. No way do the likes of England need an extra boost over tier 2 nations, or tier 1 nations like Argentina and Scotland with limited domestic rugby.

If anything I'd more happily make a case for shrinking RWC squads down to 27/28, if one had to shift away from the current allowance

27/28 players is too few for a 20 team tournament. A couple of injuries and teams would be screwed.

34 or 35 is far better aligned to the demands of modern rugby.

27/28 is plenty. You'd need a long lead time mind as teams would have to prepare to take player who covered 2 if not 3 roles. And I'd probably only drop squad numbers by 1 going 1 World Cup at a time if I was going to make a change, not that I'm that fussed about making a change, beyond no way should the big nations get any further advantages

27/28 is nuts unless you're going to stretch the tournament over three months. It completely ignores player welfare in the modern game. Strong emphasis on 'the modern game' as I suspect you're overlooking that element.

Danno wrote:27/28 is nuts unless you're going to stretch the tournament over three months. It completely ignores player welfare in the modern game. Strong emphasis on 'the modern game' as I suspect you're overlooking that element.

At risk of Puja calling me out I'll self-quote anyway

Hypothetical squad

Matchday:

Mako
George
Sinckler
Itoje
Kruis
Wilson
Curry
Billy
Youngs
Ford (this is my hypothetical squad, Farrell Fappers)
Manu
Joseph
May
Daly
Watson

Marler
LCD
Cole
Launch
Underhill
Heinz
Farrell
Coka

Reserves:
Genge
Singleton
Lawes
Francis
Slade

Seven International games in five weeks is a helluva toll on the pack and half backs. From our perspective we'd expect Mako, the whole back row bar maybe Wilson, at least one SH (we're in this position anyway but I live in hope), Manu and one back three player to break. I don't see how you can keep the intensity of international rugby and reduce the squads

Danno wrote:27/28 is nuts unless you're going to stretch the tournament over three months. It completely ignores player welfare in the modern game. Strong emphasis on 'the modern game' as I suspect you're overlooking that element.

Meh, with 4-6 years notice they can get players to cover more roles. How many minutes are you expecting that extra 4-5 players will make during the tournament, and why can't that be covered by the next 10 along all playing an extra 30-40 minutes each?

Digby wrote:

Danno wrote:27/28 is nuts unless you're going to stretch the tournament over three months. It completely ignores player welfare in the modern game. Strong emphasis on 'the modern game' as I suspect you're overlooking that element.

Meh, with 4-6 years notice they can get players to cover more roles. How many minutes are you expecting that extra 4-5 players will make during the tournament, and why can't that be covered by the next 10 along all playing an extra 30-40 minutes each?

The clubs have no limits outside the salary cap and therefore limited motivation to develop players in this way

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:

Danno wrote:27/28 is nuts unless you're going to stretch the tournament over three months. It completely ignores player welfare in the modern game. Strong emphasis on 'the modern game' as I suspect you're overlooking that element.

Meh, with 4-6 years notice they can get players to cover more roles. How many minutes are you expecting that extra 4-5 players will make during the tournament, and why can't that be covered by the next 10 along all playing an extra 30-40 minutes each?

The clubs have no limits outside the salary cap and therefore limited motivation to develop players in this way

If only the thought of playing test rugby was an incentive to the players, ah well, that's that idea done. Though again I see no particular reason to try and push down numbers, I'd only opt for such option if we had to move as upward benefits the larger nations more and they already have plenty of advantages

But why would the coaches go along with everyone asking to be played in all these different positions, where they likely aren't as effective, so that they can then leave and play for their country?

Why would reducing squad sizes benefit the smaller nations any more?

They’d be just as likely to pick up injuries, possibly even more so depending on how professional their S&C set-ups are.

Also in most cases, I would have thought most of their squads have a small number of obvious picks and then a raft of players who are roughly around the same level of ability/experience.

The best ways to help Tier 2 countries are pretty straightforward IMO.

- Give them more tests against Tier 1 opposition and split the revenue fairly
- Toughen rules on poaching
- Implement a stand-down period for players who have tied themselves to Tier 1 countries but haven’t played for 3yrs+ (e.g. Charlie Piutau)

Reducing squad sizes is a dumb idea.

Certainly wouldnt reduce the squad size. 31 is a stretch as it is. The game isnt going to get less physically demanding and there is a sound case for an extra player or two to be added. 33 seems about right to me.

Scrumhead wrote:Why would reducing squad sizes benefit the smaller nations any more?

They’d be just as likely to pick up injuries, possibly even more so depending on how professional their S&C set-ups are.

Also in most cases, I would have thought most of their squads have a small number of obvious picks and then a raft of players who are roughly around the same level of ability/experience.

The best ways to help Tier 2 countries are pretty straightforward IMO.

- Give them more tests against Tier 1 opposition and split the revenue fairly
- Toughen rules on poaching
- Implement a stand-down period for players who have tied themselves to Tier 1 countries but haven’t played for 3yrs+ (e.g. Charlie Piutau)

Reducing squad sizes is a dumb idea.

Or, and here's a radical idea, not have club rugby going on during the WC.

And what about if WR covers the costs for your squad in the WC, up to a certain amount. Taken out of the prize money.

When I began this by suggesting 35, I was thinking two full sets of 15, a 3rd front row, a 5th lock and a 3rd SH. Seems about right.

I’d work from a position of two players for each position plus an extra for each front row position. I’m surprised anyone would want to reduce squad sizes given the almost universal agreement that less games and more rest for players is essential.

Mellsblue wrote:I’d work from a position of two players for each position plus an extra for each front row position. I’m surprised anyone would want to reduce squad sizes given the almost universal agreement that less games and more rest for players is essential.

I think 32 would be perfect, but with 6 props mandated.

Which one of you is Robin Wills?

Dunno, but Heinz didn’t come on at half time......though he certainly wasn’t worthy of an 8.

Well it isn’t Banquo, no mention of JJ

p/d wrote:Well it isn’t Banquo, no mention of JJ

at least he's more current than Phil.