Doesn't that just spread any already small talent pool even further?

The easiest way to reduce the number of games played by players is to reduce the number of games. Ideally, we'd be filling the resulting free time with a solid, commercially viable international series, but I accept that we're a long way from that.

If we wnated to grow the international game, and also keep the elite players fresh why not have reduced fixtures, but with an international break weekends. All European international teams play each other, with the exception of England.

This way we get to see the european game get stronger, and players for england get a rest, or get a decent training camp. People wouldn't have had a game that week so would potentially go along, particularly if a game was included in everyones season ticket price, you wouldn't even see a drop in revenue. The world cup has shown that there is appetite for internationals and not just at the elite end.

Restricting the number of games doesn't address what I feel the real problem of the longer season: the short off-season. The off-season is the only time players will make worthwhile gains in strength and speed.

So effectively a 22 game regular season - 25 games maximum?

Yes. That is the right product for me.

With the CC however, that would still be up to 30 games.

The off-season for international players is little over two months. Some of that is effectively in-season due to what kind of training needs to be done close to games.

International players represent a tiny proportion of the players in SL. So is five months not sufficient to build up strength and speed or would you suggest they have more time building up strength and speed than they do actually using them. It isn't as if they are starting from a zero position they are already very fit athletes.

You would potentially have as long an off season as the season itself, that is OK for the likes of cricket where the weather dictates not sure RL could financially stand that.

I think the issue with how many games our international players play becomes relevant if their international opponents play significantly fewer.

I recall a recent example in soccerball in Euro 2012, when we played Italy. Having had 2 (relatively old) central midfielders play virtually the whole tournament, they came up against Italy, who had more options, their players had less game time (and in many cases had played less over the season). People p!ssed and moaned that the English players should be fit enough to play. Which of course they were. The fatigue level was not such that they literally ground to a halt. But all that matters in that situation is the level of fatigue relative to your opponent.

In that particular situation it was a minor sub-plot, because England were garbage and Italy were much better anyway, but the example, I think, stands.

If (and I have no idea what the NRL workload is) our players played a longer season than their antipodean counterparts, that could well have a detrimental effect when they play them in the autumn. And it isn't as if we need any more mountains to climb is it?

At the moment, our top players (the ones who might well play all the play-offs, most rounds of the Challenge Cup and then some internationals) get a tiny off-season and play far too much rugby.

On top of that, a combination of the professional era producing bigger, stronger athletes and the 5 yard separation of old being raised to 10 have, over time, allowed the collisions involved in top-flight RL to be like hundreds of minor car crashes per game. Which is not healthy. More games equals more crashes, and I think the sport as a whole, in every country, needs to think hard about player welfare with that in mind.

Aren't those the exact players we want to have the strength and speed they get shown up to be lacking? Aren't those the most important ones to develop?

For the others, there isn't five months of work available. They'll lose 2-3 weeks for an end of season break, which is just as necessary. Pre-season conditioning would start 8-12 weeks out from the first game. That leaves 5-10 weeks available for non-international players and no time at all for international players.

Yep, I worked out for the World Cup how many games on average each squad for England, NZ and Australia had played in 2013 before the tournament started. I wish I could find the post again! But the England squad was the highest by a decent margin.
IIRC a SL player could play currently play 36 club games. 27 rounds, 4 playoffs, 5 cup games & 1 WCC. (Potentially 38 in new system). Compared to 31 for NRL players. 24 rounds, 4 playoffs & 3 State of Origin.
Over one season it's not much difference, but in my opinion it's the cumulative effect of regularly playing 10-20% more games per year.

It's not the only reason, not having reserves, having weaker squads etc play an important role in this too but the number of games is an issue in my opinion.

Not at all - you want strength and speed of all the players to be improved.

So teams finish end September - they come back into training last week in October so they have two months of conditioning from an already high base - no skills just solid conditioning, they then have a month of combined conditioning and skills surely that is sufficient.

The international players will have specific programs - we are only talking about 25 players some of whom are from the NRL - but surely whilst they are in camp they are working on their conditioning as well as their skills.

Ive always been a fan of promotion and relagation but im not sure yet about theis convoluted plan.
I think our main emphasis should be on the re-negotiation of the Sky Funding in the next couple of years.
I belive this is our best opportunity yet to finally catapult our beloved sport into the limelight and make it the top sport we all believe it is.
Sky are under enormous pressure now after losinga big chunk of Premiership football, Champions League football and some Rugby Union to BT Sports who are now apparently sniffing around Rugby League too. I think doubling of the Sky funding should be the absolute minimum and some serious funding for the 2nd tier level (currently the Championship)
Watching the mess our RL Administrators have got us in and the debacle over the Stobart funding I have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to ensure the best funding is acquired when the new deal is up for renewal.
Although licensing is soon to finish, some procedures with harsh penalties need to be put in place for over spending on salary caps with certainly more adequate accounting and checking procedures which have been woeful lately.

Sky Sport has had its day. A huge money loser designed merely to sell their technology - a strategy BT has only recently begun to ape. We'll probably get another deal from them - maybe even improved - but it'll consign us to what will by then be very much a second-rate sports channel.