RugbyRebels

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport ... g-18789811
All sound eminently sensible, and a step in the right direction - even if I'd rather that step was sent a little further

"A player’s training load will be managed if they are selected in three match day squads in any given seven-day period"

What do they mean in a line like that. A players training load would be managed (by some descriptors) if they played every minute of every game. As so often there seems a laudable aim followed by some too often irrelevant words because they don't mean/specify anything

That, and should any player be involved in 3 match day squads over a 7 day period?

Its baby steps but at least its steps.

If clubs dont utilise their full squad over the rest of this season in particular, then they never will.

In the normal season, I suppose it is theoretically possible that a team could play on a Sunday afternoon and then the following Friday evening. That would mean only 4 clear days. I've not checked the records to see if it has actually happened. I think 4 clear days is too few under any circumstances, even the covid emergency. I'd like a '5 clear days' rule for any player who steps on to the pitch for longer than, say, 10 minutes. If matches have to be played on weekdays, so be it.

fivepointer wrote:That, and should any player be involved in 3 match day squads over a 7 day period?

Its baby steps but at least its steps.

If clubs dont utilise their full squad over the rest of this season in particular, then they never will.

I'm concerned that this season will be used as evidence that a 14-team Prem that extends the season out to 11 months is perfectly possible because clubs will have larger squads and will rotate and manage players' workloads.

Puja

Well Wasps (and I think Wuss) have gone for a completely different starting XV.

Raggs wrote:Well Wasps (and I think Wuss) have gone for a completely different starting XV.

And what's notable about that is that it isn't a particularly big game for either of them. Sale and Exeter, fighting at the top of the table, have made minimal changes. It's always the way it's gonna be - you will bring out your Grays, Hoggs, Tuilagis, and De Jagers when the pressure is on and you *need* to win and player welfare will go to hell.

Puja

Speaking of welfare, how can Jonny May possibly be fit to play tomorrow night, literally 6 days after being sparked out? Surely that’s against all of the protocols?

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:Well Wasps (and I think Wuss) have gone for a completely different starting XV.

And what's notable about that is that it isn't a particularly big game for either of them. Sale and Exeter, fighting at the top of the table, have made minimal changes. It's always the way it's gonna be - you will bring out your Grays, Hoggs, Tuilagis, and De Jagers when the pressure is on and you *need* to win and player welfare will go to hell.

Puja

It's a tougher one when there's a split between the sides though. A 1st XV from Worcs could hope to beat this Wasps side, whereas this makes it more of a coin toss, still not bad for Wuss I guess. Equally, Wasps may have been better off blitzing this one and not worrying as much about Sale.

Certainly makes it more interesting.

Scrumhead wrote:Speaking of welfare, how can Jonny May possibly be fit to play tomorrow night, literally 6 days after being sparked out? Surely that’s against all of the protocols?

Wait what?

I hadn't even spotted that on the team sheet - had seen Rees-Zammit was playing and had assumed it was in place of May. That is utterly ridiculous - it's clearly not just Jonny May that needs their head examining. I've no doubt that, if questioned, Glaws will claim that May never actually lost consciousness and was just in pain from a neck injury (which I could see as possible, as he did get a compression strike at the top of his head), but even if that is true, that hard of a strike directly to the head should be a mandatory standdown considering there is NO MEDICAL WAY TO DEFINITIVELY SIGN SOMEONE OFF AS NOT HAVING A CONCUSSION.

As someone who played through several concussions back in the days of less knowledge and who has memory issues, this is infuriating. Although, I guess it's fine - I won't remember being mad in a few minutes time, which is an advantage Mr May can look forward to because of an utterly vital game that he absolutely couldn't be replaced for.

Puja

I mean it’s not even that long ago that he got the head injury against Wales. I know that was more elbow to cheek, but it still rattled his brains enough for him to fail the HIA. Irresponsible to say the least.

Raggs wrote:Well Wasps (and I think Wuss) have gone for a completely different starting XV.

Did they both know about this in advance?

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:Well Wasps (and I think Wuss) have gone for a completely different starting XV.

Did they both know about this in advance?

That was my conjecture....

It definitely smacks of some kind of agreement behind closed doors.

Having said that, looking at the fixtures it’s sensible from both of them.

We (Quins) have Saracens (away) on Saturday and then play Worcester at Sixways on Weds.

I assume Worcester are banking on the fact that we’ll be going full bore against Saracens so will send a second string to play their first team midweek.

Similarly, Wasps were probably expecting Sale (who they play on Tues) to go full strength against Exeter at home and send a weaker side to the Ricoh.

In both cases, they can treat this fixtures as a bit of a 50/50 knowing they’ll have a good shot of beating weakened sides from Quins and Sale midweek.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:Well Wasps (and I think Wuss) have gone for a completely different starting XV.

Did they both know about this in advance?

That was my conjecture....

Would be against Prem rules, IIRC. Plus, I don't think collusion would go down well with their midweek opponents, especially since Sale don't appear to have been included in the memo about playing a weaker team this weekend to prepare for the midweek.

Puja

I don't think there's been collusion, all teams seem to be playing a smart game for their personal positions.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Did they both know about this in advance?

That was my conjecture....

Would be against Prem rules, IIRC. Plus, I don't think collusion would go down well with their midweek opponents, especially since Sale don't appear to have been included in the memo about playing a weaker team this weekend to prepare for the midweek.

Puja

Its a remarkable coincidence then

I'm happy to go with a remarkable coincidence given the situation. What it also might be is the start of some concern for the coaching staff, if they're having to constantly prep 2 teams on the bounce they're going to need some looking after, 'cause that's quite a workload

Raggs wrote:I don't think there's been collusion, all teams seem to be playing a smart game for their personal positions.

That’s what I was getting at. It’s not a huge leap of logic to think it’s legit. Equally, it does look a bit iffy when these two teams are the only ones with such extensive rotation.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: That was my conjecture....

Would be against Prem rules, IIRC. Plus, I don't think collusion would go down well with their midweek opponents, especially since Sale don't appear to have been included in the memo about playing a weaker team this weekend to prepare for the midweek.

Puja

Its a remarkable coincidence then

Not that remarkable really. There's a run of games where sides can either decide to field a half/two-thirds team 3 times or choose to throw one of the games and have their powder dry for the other two, and two teams have both decided to throw the same game. Statistically, it's not improbable.

Not impossible that they've had a sneaky conversation with each other, but it would be very much against the spirit.

Puja

Just looking, is there actually a team playing 3 games in a week?

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Would be against Prem rules, IIRC. Plus, I don't think collusion would go down well with their midweek opponents, especially since Sale don't appear to have been included in the memo about playing a weaker team this weekend to prepare for the midweek.

Puja

Its a remarkable coincidence then

Not that remarkable really. There's a run of games where sides can either decide to field a half/two-thirds team 3 times or choose to throw one of the games and have their powder dry for the other two, and two teams have both decided to throw the same game. Statistically, it's not improbable.

Not impossible that they've had a sneaky conversation with each other, but it would be very much against the spirit.

Puja

it is compared to other team announcements. But I'm not being wholly serious.

Is collusion to play changed XVs that bad for two mid-table clubs? No paying fans are being cheated.

Oakboy wrote:Is collusion to play changed XVs that bad for two mid-table clubs? No paying fans are being cheated.

Wasps are currently 4th.

Oakboy wrote:Is collusion to play changed XVs that bad for two mid-table clubs? No paying fans are being cheated.

And I'd imagine Sale would be kinda pissed off given that it's giving Wasps a free rotation ahead of their midweek game.

Puja