Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Player strike the only solution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BokMagic" data-source="post: 94462"><p>Well I for one actually believe Tony1974 is spot-on wrt central contracts- I also think that`s the way to go. In SA, we`ve had them for a few years now, but the Boks are only contracted for the international window, so the national team coaching staff has precious little say in what happens during the Currie Cup and Super 14, and this is definately to the detriment of the players. A classic example of this was during the S14 semi-final, when the Bulls played a clearly injured Bakkies Botha for 40mins- funnily enough his last rugby for 2006.</p><p></p><p>In New Zealand, they have the central contracts issue sorted, the result is that the top All Blacks play only approx. 28 matches per year. Not surprising that they are always fresh, and always the best of the SH tourers during November. I read somewhere that with international and club commitments, the top English players are playing approx. 40 games per year- a ridiculous situation, and one where a scenario of 17 out of the elite group of 40 identified for the AI`s are injured is quite likely.</p><p></p><p>Also fully endorse the view that rugby is in danger of going the football route where clubs takes precedence over country all too often- how many utterly meaningless "friendly" football matches are there every year?</p><p></p><p>A player strike might just be bit drastic, but the issue of club vs. country MUST be sorted 1st before England will make any progress again. Eng won the RWC with Clive Woodward having the final call on his top players. I fear that as long as the clubs( or in SA`s case, the provinces) calls the shots, the All Blacks will continue to move forward, while SA and England continue to just make up the numbers.</p><p></p><p>Also true, the clubs also have their grassroots supporters- I for one am an avid Western Province supporter, hence the sig. "Mountain Goat for life"' but shouldn`t the clubs/provinces actually be providing the up-and-coming youngsters, and prepare them for the biggest stage of all, ie the Test stage? In countries with huge player bases, like Eng and SA for that matter, the "loss" of internationals to the Test stage should actually be the grooming ground of the new, young talent- in this way, both the club/province and the country can move forward, to the benefit of the great game of Rugby.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BokMagic, post: 94462"] Well I for one actually believe Tony1974 is spot-on wrt central contracts- I also think that`s the way to go. In SA, we`ve had them for a few years now, but the Boks are only contracted for the international window, so the national team coaching staff has precious little say in what happens during the Currie Cup and Super 14, and this is definately to the detriment of the players. A classic example of this was during the S14 semi-final, when the Bulls played a clearly injured Bakkies Botha for 40mins- funnily enough his last rugby for 2006. In New Zealand, they have the central contracts issue sorted, the result is that the top All Blacks play only approx. 28 matches per year. Not surprising that they are always fresh, and always the best of the SH tourers during November. I read somewhere that with international and club commitments, the top English players are playing approx. 40 games per year- a ridiculous situation, and one where a scenario of 17 out of the elite group of 40 identified for the AI`s are injured is quite likely. Also fully endorse the view that rugby is in danger of going the football route where clubs takes precedence over country all too often- how many utterly meaningless "friendly" football matches are there every year? A player strike might just be bit drastic, but the issue of club vs. country MUST be sorted 1st before England will make any progress again. Eng won the RWC with Clive Woodward having the final call on his top players. I fear that as long as the clubs( or in SA`s case, the provinces) calls the shots, the All Blacks will continue to move forward, while SA and England continue to just make up the numbers. Also true, the clubs also have their grassroots supporters- I for one am an avid Western Province supporter, hence the sig. "Mountain Goat for life"' but shouldn`t the clubs/provinces actually be providing the up-and-coming youngsters, and prepare them for the biggest stage of all, ie the Test stage? In countries with huge player bases, like Eng and SA for that matter, the "loss" of internationals to the Test stage should actually be the grooming ground of the new, young talent- in this way, both the club/province and the country can move forward, to the benefit of the great game of Rugby. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Player strike the only solution
Top