Quote: ThePrinter "Would devalue the league imo. We already have complaints that we lack 'big names'. If I'm tuning to watch Saints or Warrington I want to watch the likes of Roby, Clark and Hill play.....not sat on the sidelines because of some number of games played quota.'"
I agree it's not ideal, but none of the alternatives are either.
The alternatives are:
- As we are - England's top players continue to play 10-15% more games than Australia's (in the last 10 years Sinfield has played more than an entire season extra than Cameron Smith).
- A reduction in games - less money for clubs, less TV money, less money overall.
I understand the point and in a way agree with it. In an ideal world I'd want a straight 22-game season. But I don't think the clubs can manage on that.
A few comparisons of amount of home games:
- Say a straight 22-game season with top 6 playoff system and the Challenge Cup = min 11, max 15
- Current system = min 14, max 18
- Aviva Premiership clubs = min 16, max 21
- Premier League clubs = min 19, max 33