Its a huge improvement, they play 5 less league games!
Plus the international players dont tend to play in all the pre season games as they're still in r+r lastly any players in the GF dont play in the warm up test, so.. no. Adding to that the chances of any player playing in all playoff/final and CC games year after year is slim. Make no mistake, it's the 27 league games we need to cut down really.
Or just be smarter in your rotation which some coaches can do.

]

Why do you think that a restructuring of SL and the Challenge Cup, as recommended, is "just not going to happen"? Super League switched the elite game to summer in 1996. The Challenge Cup switched to summer in 2003. Both were enormous moves that would have been unthinkable. Nevertheless, they happened. If English Rugby Union could do it with the Anglo Welsh Cup (which runs on November test and Six Nations weekends, and thus has no access to test players), that provides even more precedent for the RFL.



It would still yield more fixtures than NRL players would be subjected to. In any event, the SL clubs need at least 13 fixtures at home to meet their financial obligations, so that's why they have not agreed before to reduce to 22 fixtures.



The club coaches will only rotate players if it benefits them or their club, or doesn't affect their chances of maximising their play-off place. So basically, if they are outright leaders in SL, they may consider it. A club coach won't do it for the test team's interest. So the responsibility for rotation would be left to the national team coach, which would not work - he can't rest any players against Aus or NZ.



Test players need to not be involved in 27 league games for their club. I have counted the large number of England/GB players whose season workload has approached or exceeded 40 games.

Australian, NZ, South African and Japan Rugby Union players all play a 13 game regular season in the SANZAR Super 14 and Japan Top League (features former RL players like Roosters/Souths/Kangaroo test utility Craig Wing plays, former Cronulla/Tonga back Fraser Anderson, and was to feature Benji Marshall in an off-season stint). Super Rugby will move to 16 regular round games in 2011 with the introduction of conferences. There is precedent in Rugby for a 16 round SL and 10 round Challenge Cup.

fact - the Tomkins brothers plus O'Loughlin all played for Wigan against Trinity 24 hours after the England v France match !

And the point being made is what?

have 16 teams and play 22 regular super league rounds with a 8 team playoff and use the nrl style playoff its simple, leave the challenge cup as it is,no trial games. we need more international games simple as, if we want domestic rugby league to improve then we need to concentrate on the international scence. if one day we can get to a point were the international game is strong has a good structure and nations are playing games all the time throughout the year then the reputation of the game will improve and our domestic comps will improve dramatically. at some time during the season june july time we need a 4week break were we have just international games for the 4 weeks all over the world. i would have the a tri nations against new zealand and austrlia and play as great brtain that way players like brough ect might just stick with there countries.also then this gives people the chance to see us play as great britain as some people prefer it as great britain.
at the same time we can have a european 5 nations of england,wales,france,scotland,ireand play eachother once and thats 4 weeks. also at the same time a pacific 5 nations comp of samoa,tonga,fiji,papa new guniea and the cooks,again thats 4 weeks with the team at top winning. i deffo think that this would work because for 4 weeks theres no super league,nrl or whatever its just international so theres no hassle about players missing super league games ect also for the fans its not about picking and chosing games like it has this week they would be no domestic games whatsoever so the tri nations and the 5 nations would well be supported with good marketing and ticket offers. i also think that players like brough if not selected for great britain then they would play for scotland same with all the pacific sides if not selected for aussie or new zealand they would play for the other countries in the pacific 5 nations. i also think that people would take to it as it would be competitive all the games and both 5 nations , the england side would be made up of young good talent.

no point whatsoever,just an observation
professionals constantly gripe they have to play too many matches in the season etc etc it doesn't stop them playing two games in two days does it ?
are we trying to make life easier for our SL players or not ? it seems incredulous that the club and the rfl allow them to play so soon after an international
can't see any point in england playing against the other home countries,unless it's the second team - potentially even more pointless encounters imo - remember the previous england v wales match ?
speaking of young good english talent - many good young Academy players on show against the french last week - the future IS bright so give them a chance to flourish in the SL at the expense of some of the overseas 'stars' maybe ?

I do not think it was any coincidence that Locky went off after 10 minutes and did not return yesterday with a quad strain.

The players, national coach and the RFL want the players to turn out for the national team. Presumably the clubs agree to release players yet ask that the players return to club duty immediately. Ideally, national team duty should take priority over club Rugby, which should include getting a proper. In reality, the opposite occurs. The clubs control the game, and feel that as they pay the players, they s.



Not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure to what depth the clubs or the RFL have considered the issue. I doubt they have analysed the issue to the extent that various Rugby Union authorities have. Jamie Peacock has called for a reduction in fixtures for elite players, his calls were rejected yet not really addressed.



It does seem incredulous, but players are currently primarily paid by the clubs, and want them on deck as much as possible in order to win as many Super League fixtures as possible. If the player is not obviously unable to play, then they would want him to play, and they would see it as their right to play him.

A major change in mindset is required that the competition structures need to be geared towards helping the national team win. However, the RFL may need to offer significant financial incentives to the clubs to produce players for the national team, and to compensate the clubs for giving them up for test duty.
rlRugby union

Quote: "The deal between the RFU and the clubs will mean elite-squad members spend four months of the year exclusively on international duty, with Premiership clubs financially compensated for each player they provide.

<snipped>

Twickenham will pay more than £175,000 a year to Guinness Premiership clubs for each player they provide to the 32-strong senior England squad under the terms of the new eight-year agreement. The international match fees players earn will also be paid directly to their clubs and they are worth more than £58,000 over a season. The deal, which took two years to thrash out and will run from July 1 next year until the summer of 2016, will cost the RFU more than £110m.

In return the England head coach will have unprecedented access to his players

<snipped>

Elite players will play a maximum of 32 matches a year, the total being calculated by the number of minutes they have been on the field divided by 80. They will have 11 weeks off in the close season

<snipped>

Release of senior squad players for autumn Test, Six Nations and summer tour periods, (2 weeks before the beginning of each window, mentioned elsewhere). August training camp in non-World Cup years'"

So what kind of debrief and video analysis session did England's players get to go over their performances on Saturday?

Presumably most of them will have been straight out of the changing rooms and off back to their clubs. Would it have been such a disaster if they had stayed together as a squad for another 24 hours to review the game and take on board any relevant points about their own and collective performances?

The French team is on a hiding to nothing in this mid-season fixture - Super League based players are worked into the grounds by the cumulative effects of a gruelling Super League schedule, season after season, as rlsenior figures like Jamie Peacock identifiedrl

The logic is the same for the French trying to compete with England. French test players (as well as England and Wales test players) should only be playing 16 Super League fixtures (rather than 27), with a maximum of 30 games over the course of a season, 32 at the absolute most. Unfortunately, in recent seasons, leading senior players are overworked and the effect on them is being blunted, ineffective and eventually breaking down with injury, e.g. these are the game workloads for leading French players, not including pre-season games

The precise recommendation for workload is at rlNoakes - Rotation will be keyrl



Furthermore, the FFR based players are also asked to play this game at the end of a long season, and these players would also be tired and jaded.

Agreed, a proper debrief would have been helpful, as would a proper rest, and not having to back up that weekend.

Don't change the season, just require that no player should play more than 90% of the League fixtures, pre playoffs. This would mean that all coaches would know that they have to rest all their players at least three times through the season, which means rotation and greater use of academy players - which is good for burnout and good for developing talent.

The problem is that clubs will either not agree to rotate players, or they might initially agree but backtrack from the agreement. Why would clubs want to? Resting international players from SL games might mean the difference between winning and losing games, making the finals or not, securing a home final or not, and ultimately a coach, coaching staff, players or administrators keeping their job or losing it. IMO the only time a club will consider resting players (if they are uninjured) is if they lead the competition and have no risk of losing the lead. So, as long as SL clubs are scheduled to play so many times against other SL clubs, they will want their stars on deck. Their other options would be to sign more overseas players to fill the gaps, and ask them to not play test matches, and to refuse release for international teams that aren't England. Neither option is good for RL.

They may consider resting star players against semi professional opposition.

I wasn't limiting this rule to internationals, make it a rule for all players. If you make this the rule, same for all, from pre-season, then coaches know that they have to play their academy players a minimum of 60 times through the season (based on a 20 man squad), more if there are injuries. This means the coach has to focus on bringing through talent and developing the academy players. It means that (say) Leeds would play more academy players against (say) Salford meaning closer games, as well as less player burnout and more time for developing academy players. The only difficulty is getting the clubs to agree, which is easy - just make it a condition of the next license agreement.
Oh, and this would only count for SL matches. Yes, International players would play more matches than non-internationals, such is life. You can't field your academy side in a CC match against a C1 side, drat. Yes, if your club do well in the Cup you play more matches. I bet most SOO players complain about the extra matches and ask for time off?