Limit players to 20 round robin games?

[roopy]

Saw this proposed last year by someone.
The idea is that players should be able to play finals, SOO, test matches etc - but it's unrealistic to think players can play up to 40 games a year of top level RL.
The idea is that coaches would have to manage players so that all players only play a maximum of 20 games a year of regular season games.
This would reduce injuries, increase the number of professional players (squads would need a few more players) and make the big games, including internationals, more 'special'.
It would also prolong the playing life of many players by a year or two (less games per year and less playing with injuries).

There would be a slight drop in standard with maybe one or two players out each week who would otherwise play - but the other benefits well outweigh the small downside.

For international league, it means more guys get a run in NRL and ESL, and it means more guys will be fit and ready to play pre season and post season internationals without worrying about burnout.

 

[adamkungl]

maybe the players should ask for less money if they want to play less games. No players play 40 games and very few play above 30 (To play 40 games, a player would have to play every game in a season up to the Grand Final, 3 trials, and 9 internationals. A WC has a maximum of 6 games...) and the ones that do are well paid for it.

 

[Jankuloski]

It would mean even more trouble with the sallary cap. More ppl to share the pie that cannot grow larger.

Majority of players don't play Internationals or SOO - they would get an undeserved break.

RL is a game where injuries happen. I don't think that overload is the main cause for injury. I think the fact that they are basically blocks of concrete colliding would be the more predominant factor.

Basically, the NRL clubs live off the fact that people attend games week in, week out. In your plan you would have a clear signal of a game that's not important. Why would someone want to attend a game who doesn't field top players in their squad?

This would impact membership numbers as well. People will just want to come and see the big matches.

Star factor - why is the AFL gone after Folau? He hasn't played AFL they threw lots of money at him even if it's completely speculative how he'll go. He's a star. True fans are more immune to this, but this forum's members wouldn't fill any NRL stadium. You need to think of someone loosely following RL. They don't know the depth of a squad they're supporting. No stars - no casual supporters - no money.
The same logic you're applying might be applied to a plan saying we should cut the number of games in half - therefore ppl would be starved of RL and we would have an increase in attendance. The games would be more 'special'.

 

[Jankuloski]

double...

 

[roopy]

It would mean even more trouble with the sallary cap. More ppl to share the pie that cannot grow larger.

Majority of players don't play Internationals or SOO - they would get an undeserved break.

RL is a game where injuries happen. I don't think that overload is the main cause for injury. I think the fact that they are basically blocks of concrete colliding would be the more predominant factor.

Basically, the NRL clubs live off the fact that people attend games week in, week out. In your plan you would have a clear signal of a game that's not important. Why would someone want to attend a game who doesn't field top players in their squad?

This would impact membership numbers as well. People will just want to come and see the big matches.

Star factor - why is the AFL gone after Folau? He hasn't played AFL they threw lots of money at him even if it's completely speculative how he'll go. He's a star. True fans are more immune to this, but this forum's members wouldn't fill any NRL stadium. You need to think of someone loosely following RL. They don't know the depth of a squad they're supporting. No stars - no casual supporters - no money.
The same logic you're applying might be applied to a plan saying we should cut the number of games in half - therefore ppl would be starved of RL and we would have an increase in attendance. The games would be more 'special'.

The impact wouldn't be that great.
If you had 10 star players, 5 or 6 of them would miss enough games through injury alone, and of the others you would have maybe one or two out per week. You would sit them out when they were tired from SOO or had minor injuries, so the actual impact on the side would be minimal because that would be when they weren't up for a big game anyway.
I doubt most fans would notice really.

 

[bender]

Saw this proposed last year by someone.
The idea is that players should be able to play finals, SOO, test matches etc - but it's unrealistic to think players can play up to 40 games a year of top level RL.
The idea is that coaches would have to manage players so that all players only play a maximum of 20 games a year of regular season games.
This would reduce injuries, increase the number of professional players (squads would need a few more players) and make the big games, including internationals, more 'special'.
It would also prolong the playing life of many players by a year or two (less games per year and less playing with injuries).

There would be a slight drop in standard with maybe one or two players out each week who would otherwise play - but the other benefits well outweigh the small downside.

For international league, it means more guys get a run in NRL and ESL, and it means more guys will be fit and ready to play pre season and post season internationals without worrying about burnout.

I have supported this idea in the past for a long time now (good to see at least one person has finally given it some support ). It has always seemed to meet with the usual pessimism that all ideas that arent 99 per cent the same as what currently happens does.

But i think that it is one idea which would be great. It doesnt really make sense why soccer and baseball (two games which you could pretty much play 365 days a year most of the time, if you wanted) both have squad rotation policies, yet rugby league, the toughest physical game that I know of doesn't. The upside is obvious. You can schedule more representative games without compromising player safety. In fact, you could even schedule more NRL games (play everyone twice), if you really wanted to.

I agree with Roopy, it isnt going to have much of an affect on the player quality at all. one or two stars will be missing some weeks, but this will be balanced by lesser players getting more game time with the stars and therefore improving at a greater rate. It also allows fans and media to speculate about how different types of players might be better suited to playing against different types of teams, etc which adds another tactical element to discussions, which can only be a good thing.

 

[Jankuloski]

Lesser players will never be able to reach the greater players value on the field. If they could they wouldn't be lesser players, as it would be cheaper for the club to develop them instead of focusing on marquee players, coaches would see their potential.

Problem with RL representative matches is not that we are capped by players and their workload, but by the ammount of teams. Unless you want NZ v Aus 6 game series, when it can regularly barely fill 40k at Suncorp? GB, Aus, NZ .. there is only so many times they can play each other.

If it were true that some types of players are good against certain types of clubs, then the coaches would already exploit that. Fact is - against any club - good players are better then mediocre ones.

If you are arguing that the impact of your plan would be minimal to the team, than the impact would be minimal on their rest periods and all the benefits you state would also be minimal. You state that most of this resting already happens through injuries and sitting out players before and after SOO.

 

[Evil Homer]

Contrived ideas like this go away from what the game is all about. Why should teams not be allowed to play their best side every week? If you want an idea that promotes international league and reduces player burnout, then scrap State of Origin.

 

[adamkungl]

Contrived ideas like this go away from what the game is all about. Why should teams not be allowed to play their best side every week? If you want an idea that promotes international league and reduces player burnout, then scrap State of Origin.

Your hate of SOO has got you talking nonsense again.

SOO has no effect on player burnout, SOO players miss their club game the week before SOO.

And although I believe that SOO eligibility and Aus eligibility should not be tied, I very much doubt scrapping SOO would result in one sided internationals growing in popularity.

 

[Spitty]

I don't like it.

I think it have more negatives than just the slight lowering of standard and I think the standard would be lowered more significantly than your making out.

You disadvantage the players that don't play rep football (which is the majority of players). Why should they have to be rested for 4 games, especially if their team isn't in the running for the 8.

What about players that are on insentive contracts. Firstly if a guys playing well enough to cement a top grade spot on an insentive contract your robbing him of 4 pay cheques. On the flip side your probably offering players on insentive contracts more FG time, which eats into a clubs salary cap the following year.

So when do coaches rest the players? You'll find they'll identify 1 or 2 clubs as the weaker teams who all the clubs will rest their players against. So then if every team is resting their best players against the same 2 teams, what does that do to the home crowds of those teams and the ability of those teams to get on TV? I can imagine it, Brisbane are coming this week, but Lockyer, Hodges and Hannant aren't playing and in a fortnight Canberra are coming but Campese, Orford and Dugan aren't playing.

So if your halfback gets a season ending injury in round 1, you have to have 3 FG standard halfbacks in your squad? Your 1st choice injured halfback, the guy who going to replace your first choice halfback and the guy thats's going to replace your replacement while your replacement sits out a few games because of a useless rule. Especially stupid seeing your replacement isn't going to play rep football.

These are only a few negatives I can think of. I can list more but my post would go on forever.

Bottom line is, I think the suggestion that this is going to improve the International game has no basis and that it would negatively affect club football is certain. I don't see why you would definately reduce club football, so that you could possibly improve international football.

 

[Evil Homer]

Your hate of SOO has got you talking nonsense again.

SOO has no effect on player burnout, SOO players miss their club game the week before SOO.

And although I believe that SOO eligibility and Aus eligibility should not be tied, I very much doubt scrapping SOO would result in one sided internationals growing in popularity.

So do I, but it would probably have a more positive effect than the OP's idea on both counts. It wasn't a serious suggestion, but it's about as sensible as the idea at the start of the thread.

 

[roopy]

Problem with RL representative matches is not that we are capped by players and their workload, but by the ammount of teams.

That's simply not true now, and certainly won't be true in the future.

Administrators are careful not to schedule too many internationals because they know players are at their limits already, and even with the careful management of the number of rep games, we see players every year asking to be excused from rep selection.

If you went the other way and banned players from playing more than 30 games a year, the effect would be to take star players out of the top games - which just isn't viable.

 

[roopy]

You disadvantage the players that don't play rep football (which is the majority of players). Why should they have to be rested for 4 games, especially if their team isn't in the running for the 8.

Most players who are 'fringe' firstgraders will play with injuries to keep their spot now, but if they had to miss games anyway, they would be able to stick their hands up and miss a game when injured. The net effect of that would be better injury recovery and almost certainly longer careers.
I honestly think if you offered players a 10% payrise or the same pay for 4 less games for next season, they would take the 4 less games because it would be better for them longterm, with an opportunity to look after themselves better and play for a few more years.

 

[ride the tiger]

i could argue pro or con on this idea but as ive thought in the past that this could possibly offer some good i'll go with the pro.

firstly it has little to do with improving international footy as its sole purpose. i'd have this thread in the nrl section, talking about 20+ teams, home & away etc (which would be a big positive in its self) however it would help the international scene as that gets stronger too.

More teams + longer season = lot more tv money (hopefully). would be able to keep all our stars & buy union ones. I don't see squads having to be increased by too much, if at all. More stars in nrl = more stars in teams thus more chance at least one would be playing each week.
teams live off tv money & sponsorship not crowd attendance. besides im sure broncos have never had a zero attendance b/c of orgin stars out.

those crap teams that everyones keeps resting against(which aren't that far off the middle due to the salary cap anyway) would now have more chances of winning more games, thier fans would enjoy that more than being beaten by other teams playing thier stars.

then if it actually does extend a players career (which now im starting to doubt, you'd probably have to miss too many games for it have an affect on every player), that itself is a huge positive.

I'd be quite happy see benji rested x amount of games a year if i knew that his chances of playing for more years helping in the big games was largely increased.

they say one of the big problems these days is that we lose older players with all thier knowledge too early. imagine if all the greats stayed playing longer spreading thier knowledge to all those young kids coming through.

They say you improve skills by doing things against better people, so hopefully all those 2nd stringers & youngsters by getting good game time would eventually increase the overall depth of quality & thus the standard of the game.

Less injured players = better players. sure they get needled up but they may not train all week, weakening team cohesion & reducing player to player knowledge transferral (doing it is better than talking about it).

So if it significantly helped to increase money into the game and player longevity it really is a no brianer.
increased money would mean more junior development in more untapped areas meaning more players coming through plus older players staying around longer = huge squad depth & high standards.

 

[The Observer]

Saw this proposed last year by someone.
The idea is that players should be able to play finals, SOO, test matches etc - but it's unrealistic to think players can play up to 40 games a year of top level RL.
The idea is that coaches would have to manage players so that all players only play a maximum of 20 games a year of regular season games.
This would reduce injuries, increase the number of professional players (squads would need a few more players) and make the big games, including internationals, more 'special'.
It would also prolong the playing life of many players by a year or two (less games per year and less playing with injuries).

There would be a slight drop in standard with maybe one or two players out each week who would otherwise play - but the other benefits well outweigh the small downside.

For international league, it means more guys get a run in NRL and ESL, and it means more guys will be fit and ready to play pre season and post season internationals without worrying about burnout.

I like the idea of elite players being rested from certain matches in order to prevent injury and burnout, to prolong careers, and to increase the standard of international games. A high workload is most likely to affect senior representative players, especially of their club makes the finals, plays rep and international RL.

However, Spitty raised some fair concerns about the 20 game limit, particularly for non rep players, selection of matches, and Jankulowski about memberships. I would tweak your idea in the following way. Players should be allowed to rest from club duty for the club game representative game. So, for example, if a player participates in City Country or the ANZAC Test, then they don't play for their club that weekend. Furthermore, players should not have to back up after Origin. Backing up for a club 1, 2 or 3 days after a rep game is too soon.

Since players missing club football can have an effect on spectator and viewer interest in a club game, for every club game a player is rested from, the affected club could be compensated 1/24th the value of the player's contract (with a maximum compensation payment of $30K per game missed).

Consider an elite star like Darren Lockyer, who has played over 30 games a year for most seasons he has been involved in the game (he played 36 in 2006). Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Lockyer earns $500K p.a. through club, marquee and third-party deals. In season 2010, if Lockyer had been given the full rest after rep games, then he would have missed:
* Round 9 vs Melbourne (2 days after the NZ test match, he played 80 minutes in both)
* Round 12 vs Cronulla (3 days after Origin 1, he played 80 mins. Broncos had the bye before Origin 1)
* Round 14 vs Souths (before Origin 2, which he was withdrawn from for Origin camp)
* Round 15 vs Penrith (2 days after Origin 2, he played 80 mins)
* Round 17 vs Wests Tigers (before Origin 3, which he was withdrawn from for Origin camp)

The Broncos would be compensated $20,833.34 (1/24 of 500K) for the matches that Lockyer was withdrawn from for rep duty and resting. For those 5 games, they'd receive $104,166.67. However, Lockyer would be much better off for being afforded proper rest and recovery throughout the rep season, he'd be less likely to suffer injury during or after the rep period, and elite players like him could have a longer career, which would benefit the game as a whole.

One challenge is the cost of compensating NRL clubs for resting their Origin and rep players. As a rough guess, compensation could cost the game's admin up to $2.5 million per season. However, a streamlined administration under a new commission, and increased improved broadcast deals, could provide the money for it. Compensation for player release could also make up for the shortfall that clubs may experience when players are missing on rep duty.

The second is the effect on clubs' NRL campaign. If certain clubs lose a lot of players to rep duties, their NRL campaign could suffer, to the extent that they miss the finals. Increasing squad sizes would increase wage bills for clubs, increase salary cap pressure on the salary cap. I'm not sure the NRL would want to increase wage bills, given the reluctance to increase the cap. To create more parity for all clubs during rep football, a more radical solution could be to split the NRL into two separate competitions: a main NRL with 16 regular round games, and an NRL Challenge Cup with 8 regular round games that bookends the rep weekends (around the 3 Origins and City Country/ANZAC test).

 

[The Observer]

No players play 40 games

A number of English/British based players have played in 40 games or more in the last few years:

• Wigan/Kiwis half/hooker Thomas Leuluai played in 43 games in 2008.
• Leeds centre Keith Senior played in 41 games in 2006.
• Wigan's Sam Tomkins played in 41 games in 2010, his brother Joel played in 40.
• Thomas Leuluai and Wigan lock Sean O'Loughlin played in 40 games in 2007.
• O'Loughlin and St Helens fullback Paul Wellens played in 40 games in 2004.

As for NRL based players, we've had a few go close:
38 games - Willie Mason in 2004, and in the last game against the USA, he injured himself badly.
37 games - Brad Fittler in 2000 (not including pre-season games), Israel Folau in 2008.

and very few play above 30

In 2008, 9 of 24 RLWC Kangaroos played more than 30 games, as did 9 of 24 Kiwis. 16 of 24 England players did. In 2010, 10 of 24 4N Kangaroos did, 9 of 24 Kiwis, and at least 16 of 24 English. In 2006, 10 of 23 Kangaroos in 3N. In 2004, 11 of 22 Kangaroos in 3N did.

and the ones that do are well paid for it.

Their earnings don't alleviate the workload, or render them more equipped to deal with it. Furthermore, if faced with the choice of earning less money, they could be tempted to switch to Rugby Union where they could earn more money to play less football.