You know what.
I agree with Dally.
Yes they play too many games, but reducing teams is a BIG step backwards for an expanding game and i'd like to see a reduction in games..on current money though, cant be done.

If you dont like it Jamie, take a rest, its not like the Leeds team doesnt have enough good young forwards to step up. Let Burgess have a hit out.

I started watching RL in the 60s.Teams then had 30 league games,challenge cup ties,county cup matches and then the flloodlit cup and John Player cup were introduced.
My team Salford would play Blackpool on Good Friday,Swinton on the Saturday and then Wigan on Easter Monday.These players were part-timers,and all had other jobs.
Whilst I realise we cannot go back to those days and that the game has got faster and probably more intense I do believe that certain players don't realise how lucky they are.
It seems to me that the more professional they become,the less they want to play.Cricketers are another group that spring to mind who want to have their cake and eat it.As others have said,if you want to play less,then take a cut in salary.

Youll have to remind me of those quotes,you know, just to prove you havent made it up.

leon pryce was one, and from memory and wilkin the other

one was before the 2nd SL GF loss to leeds.

Instead of bleating to the press, why doesn’t he go to his employer, didn’t they vote to keep it at fourteen clubs? – Allegedly

Who wouldn’t want the same pay for less work?!

I get the impression from the article that this is Peacocks own thoughts on the matter. Other players will no doubt agree, but perhaps they are the ones who are playing international Rugby League, where as the others who are not quite good enough to reach that level are more the happy with how things are, particularly if the players were to take a reduction in wages to reflect the change in workload.

Personally, having seen a lot of interviews with Peacock - I think the man should stick to what he's good at and try not to think about the ins and outs of running a league.

While I don't mean to sound disrespectful to players of that day.. It's not the same.
One simple thing that makes the modern day game impossible to back up three times over a weekend is the HUGE differences in impact between muscle on muscle and fat on fat, people talk about the differences in speed but for me that's the single biggest reason.

Last season, Eddie asked Stevo during a game how his generation of players coped with the schedule and he replied 'we were playing for fun'. He probably didn't quite mean it as it sounds, but his point was that there wasn't the intensity to matches that we see these days.

More lardy pies, not fewer games.

I wonder if players would take less cash for fewer games? I'd take a 20% pay cut for a 4 day week.

Perhaps individual players should be limited to 20 regular season SL games, each season. Coaches would have to manage their squads carefully, it'd give kids more chances and even out the injury curse variable a bit.
The fear would be that fans would pay full whack, and not feel they were getting their money's worth. And coaches sacrificing games they thought they'd lose anyway - Leeds (or whoever happens to be strong at the time) might spend half their season playing virtual reserve teams.

who? when? links to quotes??

i mentioned the players

im not going to waste time with links.

im guessing you just forgot the comments in the wake of leeds beating you in the GF.

Graham, Wilkin and Cunningham wasn't it?
And my god didn't they moan, the argument has real credibility but there's just nothing they can do other than be well rested by the coach.

jeeze thats twice in 24 hours youve agreed with me.