Rep footy & NRL format should change from 2007

[The Observer]

The timing of City/Country and State of Origin matches should be changed, because it puts undue burden on NRL premiership players.

• SOO increases the workload on rep players over 6 rounds of the NRL – players repeatedly switch between high intensity NRL and rep games, having to back up in 48 hours without enough rest. Elite players get injured and burned out, and their careers are shorter.
• SOO is NOT the sole OR major trial for test selection, because tests are played two months later in the representative season. It should be.
• The introduction of split rounds, free weekends or a summer makes the club season even more chaotic. It gives some clubs a more favourable fixture list than others depending on when the byes come and what games follow.

When the new TV rights deal begins in 2007-2008, the ARL/NRL will get more money from TV grants. This should allow them to reduce the number of competition rounds yet compensate the clubs for loss of gate takings. The NRL Partnership Committee and the clubs should be able to reduce the number of competition rounds from 26 to 22, as we had for many years.

If the NRL shortened the comp, then they could make the best move & switch City/Country and State of Origin Matches[font=&quot] from mid season to AFTER THE NRL GF. [/font]

 

[The Observer]

With Origin AFTER the GF, the season would become more challenging by step (aside from ANZAC Day Test): Club -> Finals -> Region -> State -> Country. This progression is more straightforward than the current setup:

1st week March – 1st week Aug – NRL rounds 1-22
(Bye week for clubs before/after ANZAC Day Test, World Sevens played on bye weekend)

2nd week Aug – 1st week Sep – NRL finals
2nd week Sept – 1st week Oct – City Country, State of Origin series

There are many potential benefits to Origin post GF:

• Players play one tournament at a time.
• Increasingly difficult levels of football over the whole season
• Logical progression to Test level
• Rep selectors will pick in-form players far more easily. Most of the best players would participate in the finals.
• Clubs only have to release players during season for one weekend (ANZAC Day/World 7s)
• Clubs would be more likely to release foreign internationals for other
  tournaments, which could run at the same time as Origin. As a result, other comps (such as the proposed NZ Origin series, Pacific Cup & Mediterranean Cup) would be better standard and get more publicity.
• Grand Final players could still have their Victory celebrations or Mad Monday in the week after the GF by being rested from the City/Country game.

[font=&quot]The anti tampering deadline could be pushed after Round 22, after 1st week August; this would mean that 8 teams would have finished their club season and could start trading for the next season.

Do you agree?
[/font]

 

[Ari Gold]

no way...

Funnily enough, you're actually going to kill off International RL that way. Can you imagine how gelled and match-hardened the Aussies would be after playing SOO?

they'd kill the Kiwi's and GB.

And why would you move SOO when it has been operating so succesfully under its current format?

 

[The Observer]

Can you imagine how gelled and match-hardened the Aussies would be after playing SOO

they'd kill the Kiwi's and GB.

Since the Kiwis would be able to have their own North/South Origin series, they'd be much better too. Also, the Poms would hopefully get the message and bring back their County of Origin series from 2 years ago (Lancashire vs Yorkshire) and they'd also be more match hardened.

The Aussies improvement would be cancelled out.

And why would you move SOO when it has been operating so succesfully under its current format?

Because its burning out the players - look at how flat the rep players are post Origin in June July, especially Lockyer and the Broncos every year. Also, so many players sign up for post season ops as a result of the mid season Origin.

The mid season Origin may sell out the big stadia and get good ratings, but its crippling the players.

 

[griff]

I definitely agree with a 22 round NRL, but I thought they had (bizaarely) announced there would be a 24-game 25-round season in 2007?

Realistically there is no chance of Origin getting moved to the post-season, but even if there was I think what this would do is (as others have said) make Australia even more unbeatable - Yorks/Lancs and Auckland/the rest are not going to be anywhere near Origin in quality. And it certainly makes more business sense to leave it where it is.

I don't agree mid season Origin would be crippling to the players if combined with a 22 round season and split rounds. Split rounds would allow the Origin players a week off, and would also provide the lesser clubs with rare FTA TV exposure on that weekend. While Lockyer lost form after Origin, Johns certainly didn't, so I don't think we can say that it makes our rep players flat.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

There is something special about Origin on a Wednesday night. I would hate to see it at the end of the season. In 2007 they are going to have a 25-round season with 24 games each.

This would be like playing the English Premier League until March, then playing the FA Cup at the end of the season.

To decrease player burnout the top players should be rested from NRL games when they need a break. You don't see many players in the English Premier League play all 38 games, plus FA Cup, plus Champions' League, plus League Cup etc.

If top players had a rest midseason they would hopefully be in better condition at the end of the season.

Maybe put in a cap on how mnay games a player can play in, I don't know.

 

[The Observer]

I definitely agree with a 22 round NRL, but I thought they had (bizaarely) announced there would be a 24-game 25-round season in 2007?

True - the Gold Coast will be filling in half the byes.

Realistically there is no chance of Origin getting moved to the post-season,

Probably true.

but even if there was I think what this would do is (as others have said) make Australia even more unbeatable - Yorks/Lancs and Auckland/the rest are not going to be anywhere near Origin in quality.

I disagree that Aus would be more unbeatable - Origin took time to develop into the intense game that it is now, and the comps would also increase in intensity as time goes on.

Also, NZ would be stronger because many more Kiwi eligible players (players like Carroll, Thorn, Hunt, Sam Harris, Covell, etc etc) could want to play in an NZ Origin- it would be a better incentive to vy for Kiwi selection.

And it certainly makes more business sense to leave it where it is.

Short term yes, but there are many more factors that affect the game than business sense, and RL often makes decisions that fly in the face of business sense anyway.

In any event, I think the series could still maintain commercial and viewer interest given all the benefits.

I don't agree mid season Origin would be crippling to the players if combined with a 22 round season and split rounds. Split rounds would allow the Origin players a week off,

This format has already has been detrimental to the players and will be again. The continual shifting between club and rep team causes a mental drain on players that causes burnout just as much as the number of games.

Consider RU - the IRB and member countries like ARU have conducted indepth studies on player burnout. The ARU (as well as NZ and SA) doesn't allow its top players to play anymore than 30 first class games a season. England and Ireland have a 32 game limit, and are pushing for a 28 games limit. Meanwhile, in RL, our players are involved in up to 41 games in Australia, up to 44 in the UK. Our game is significantly more physically demanding than Union, to the point that energy company Powergen (sponsor of both codes in England) did a quantitative study that showed that RL players expend more energy in kJ per match than RU players.

So, what's the point? Split rounds will not ease the burden significantly given that burnout is both a physical AND psychological phenomenon. Mid season SOO affectsboth.

and would also provide the lesser clubs with rare FTA TV exposure on that weekend.

In the big picture of how Origin affects the season, its a pretty small benefit.

[quoteWhile Lockyer lost form after Origin, Johns certainly didn't, so I don't think we can say that it makes our rep players flat.[/quote]

You're forgetting the fact that over the last three seasons, Lockyer has played almost 100 first class games, whereas Johns has suffered three series injuries (neck, cruciate ligament, jaw) and has barely played 20 games. It's no surprise whatsoever that Johns was fit and Lockyer jaded.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

41 games?
How?
24 NRL games
1 City V Country
3 SOO
4 Final series
6 Internationals

That's 38. And that would be a very rare case. If SOO was moved to the end of the season that would only reduce to 36, so it's not going to make a HUGE difference is it?

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Some teams have 3-4 pre season games

Shhh we they don't count.

 

[The Observer]

41 games?
How?
24 NRL games
1 City V Country
3 SOO
4 Final series
6 Internationals

That's 38. And that would be a very rare case.

As ParraEelsNRL said, you get min. 2 preseason trials, then there's the World Club Challenge. In addition, there can be 7 or 8 international matches.
* 1 ANZAC Test (April)
* 4 pool games in Tri Series (2 vs GB, 2 vs NZ)
* 1 Tri Series final
* 1 test vs France
* 1 international friendly (eg recent games against PNG, USA, ANZAC selection vs Cumbria)

There's your 41 games.

If SOO was moved to the end of the season that would only reduce to 36, so it's not going to make a HUGE difference is it?

In my previous posts in thread, I talked about how it would relieve the burden on players.

 

[ozboy]

Delusional.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

No offence, but this is a stupid idea. It will never happen and wouldn't make much of a difference anyway.

 

[Big Bunny]

Delusional.

I have to agree with the general feeling so far expressed on the forum, you really are just as stupid as nospam49, only less original in your ignorant musings and that's not saying a lot.

 

[The Observer]

No offence, but this is a stupid idea. It will never happen and wouldn't make much of a difference anyway.

1. The Roos just lost the Tri Nations, played shakily and were thumped by NZ in the final.
2. Many fans and commentators complained that the Roos team was picked on past form or reputation rather than current form.

A post season Origin would have allowed selectors to pick on late season form AND Origin form.

 

[screeny]

Observer, I won't comment on the antipodean side of your thoughts, but any notion of bringing back British 'origin' should be forgotten about immediately.

It was, and will be, an embarrassing failure. On the one hand RL here is trying to make out it's a national sport, then on the other we present a Yorkshire v Lancashire county match as our rep trial match.

Also, the British game has much more intense rivalries - the HNs. Everyone hates the English in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and by investing in the ENC as a tournament we're serving the code much more effectively, by broadening the player and fan base and also providing the three HN RL bodies invaluable experience to operate their own affairs.

British Origin is a non starter.

 

[hutch]

i agree with screeny, county of origin would be holding the game back in the uk. isnt london and wales the 2 biggest growth areas in the whole of the uk at the moment? a proper home nations is a must.

as for origin, it will never be moved, nor should it be.

nz origin would be good, without aussies trying to play because of the parent or grandparent rule, lets have genuine new zealanders. nz v png, pacific islands would be better. or maybe all 3 of them at the same time as origin games.

 

[The Observer]

Observer, I won't comment on the antipodean side of your thoughts, but any notion of bringing back British 'origin' should be forgotten about immediately.

It was, and will be, an embarrassing failure.

How did County of Origin fail? Its crowds hovered around 9,000, bigger than that of the average SL club match, about ten times the average of a HN match, bigger than crowds for recent England games (eg the 2005 matches vs NZ and France) and bigger than crowd for GB matches against NZ A and France.

Its success was hampered by extremely poor scheduling a) mid season, b) mid week - the second match in 2002 was held on a Tuesday night at 8pm, when many Northern fans find it hard to attend! The crowds were brilliant given those two factors. The scheduling was guaranteed to annoy the clubs, who then put pressure on players to withdraw. The SL clubs pounced on one lopsided game in 2003, held on a Wednesday at 7:45 in Bradford, to cancel it because the mid season timing affected them and their players.

If the games were held post SL, and on a weekend, the clubs and fans might have supported it better.

On the one hand RL here is trying to make out it's a national sport, then on the other we present a Yorkshire v Lancashire county match as our rep trial match.

1. The second fact does not negate the first.
2. You can have both county and HN games - its like in Aus having City Country and State of Origin. The county games would currently provide more intense competition than HN, and thats what GB needs right now.

Also, the British game has much more intense rivalries - the HNs. Everyone hates the English in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and by investing in the ENC as a tournament we're serving the code much more effectively, by broadening the player and fan base and also providing the three HN RL bodies invaluable experience to operate their own affairs.

British Origin is a non starter.

The ENC is a good development tool ATM. Long term, it could be the main rep level underneath the GB team once the player base starts to build to a significant level in the Celtic HNs (i.e. higher than a couple of hundred), and County of Origin could prepare players for England.

ATM in a full ENC, a full England team did (last year) and would again give the other HNs the mother of all hidings.

 

[Paul Condon]

I think origin should stay where it is as it becomes a good distraction mid season, as does the ANZAC test (which will have more significance next year). The regular season does need to be a few games shorter. International teams like NZ, Australia and GB don't need large amounts of time together before playing since all 3 play right up to Tri Nations in their own competitions. Players not involved in in the finals are told to keep training when in line for selection.

One good idea would be to have a trial game for players not involved in finals footy play a serious trial, for close selection calls and give some match fitness, at about the time of the respective grand finals.

Player burnout can best be addressed by shortening the nrl, esl seasons by a few games, not by changing the schedule.

 

[Charge]

i agree with screeny, county of origin would be holding the game back in the uk. isnt london and wales the 2 biggest growth areas in the whole of the uk at the moment? a proper home nations is a must.

Exactly what I think, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England should play each other once over a three week period with the season moving to 24 games at the most instead of the current 28.

 

[screeny]

Observer,

RL in GB is trying to promote itself as a national sport very far from its M62 corridor image. By playing Lancs v Yorks we're perpetuating the northern stereotype. It just has to be a strategic decision never to play Yorks v Lancs again for no other reason than the one I've stated.

Also, did you see the matches? They were crap...GB trial my arse. A total farce. Watching SKY promote it was cringingly embarrassing, too.