RugbyRebels

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/latest- ... oby-booth/

Booth told The Rugby Paper: “Across a five-year period we’ve been monitoring different aspects of the game and from 2013 to the current season there’s been a 44 per cent increase in contacts.

“Our average number of contacts per game last season was 600-650, with the highest being 806, but this year we’ve been over 800 six times and against Exeter we had 1,042 contacts, so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out there will be more injuries.

“Our ball-in-play time has been up as high as 49 minutes and averages around 46 minutes, whereas five years ago we were at 33 minutes, so that’s a rise of over 30 per cent with the laws around the breakdown meaning the trend is moving more towards attack.

“Concussions now account for 40 per cent of injuries and while we’ve worked hard on reducing our soft tissue injuries, there’s been an increasing profile of contact injuries.

“We’re not the only club in this position and the question is where we’re going with all this?”

Assuming that Booth is correct in fact and detail (why would he not be?), will an enlightened approach occur to Jones for international preparations? 'Minimal contact training' as mentioned by Booth seems poles apart from what we hear reported from England camps.

Is this a deliberate extension of previous conflict between Bath and England or reasoned justification for the club's viewpoint?

A move in the right direction - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... mes-season

Play less, rest more, have a good off season break and keep contact work in training to a bare minimum.
Larger squads and more rotation are key in this.

fivepointer wrote:A move in the right direction - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... mes-season

Play less, rest more, have a good off season break and keep contact work in training to a bare minimum.
Larger squads and more rotation are key in this.

Good news

Good news, indeed. The Cole example always makes my head shake in bewilderment.
The Lions is a conundrum. I suppose the answer is that England don’t have AI’s/play 2nd or 3rd tier teams without the Lions players and are compensated by the Lions - I doubt the no AIs option is financially viable - or the players are stood down from domestic duties for a good chunk of time and the clubs are compensated - by players and the Lions.

Mellsblue wrote:Good news, indeed. The Cole example always makes my head shake in bewilderment.
The Lions is a conundrum. I suppose the answer is that England don’t have AI’s/play 2nd or 3rd tier teams without the Lions players and are compensated by the Lions - I doubt the no AIs option is financially viable - or the players are stood down from domestic duties for a good chunk of time and the clubs are compensated - by players and the Lions.

Maybe the clubs will rebel against the Lions. The RFU can make some sort of case for continuing the tradition but what's in it for the clubs?