Six Nations rest weekends are unnecessary and spoil the tournament - discuss

[Ravenglass]

1. Rest weekends mean the tournament loses all momentum just when it’s hitting peak intensity. Incredibly disruptive, deflating and drawn-out.
2. They mean players are away from clubs for an unnecessarily long period.
3. They are unnecessary because if it’s all about the 22 and not the 15, then we should be reconciled to injuries keeping players out of the 22 as well as the 15. If you can't recover in a week, well it's hard lines.
4. If you must have some sort of rest system, then have three matches on the first and last weekends, with two matches on every weekend in between. At least then the tournament doesn’t die for a fortnight. Twice.

 

[Which Tyler]

I like rest weekends as they allow teams and coaches to regroup and rethink. Player welfare is also important to me.
I'm much less fond of there being 2 rest weekends, with only 1 match between them; so I'd happily experiment with doing away with the first one; so a bout of 3 matches, a rest, then the final 2. It's certainly an experiment that makes more sense than bonus points.

 

[mosfeldt]

I agree that a week off, 1 week of games, then another week off is too much. Though I say that as a spectator. I understand player welfare and it must be grueling to be training week in and week out, in addition to getting battered in front of 70,000 people. The week off also allows, as mentioned, for coaches and players to regroup and re-assess themselves and also just grab a general breather. I am in favour of a 1 week break. I mean, the WC is week after week, so surely having less breaks in our European tournament only conditions the teams to withstand the intensity of the WC?

 

[McTallshort]

You need them for the players sake and they should continue for that reason alone.

 

[Ravenglass]

But player welfare need not be put at risk - you just accept that many players will not play every game, an approach that has already gained traction anyway.
You do I suppose run the risk of players self-certifying their fitness to play, when they aren't, but surely in the modern age of highly professional fitness, physio and medical staff that's v improbable?

 

[Goodey]

I'm not going to make the players have an even more intense schedule than they currently have, but do agree that it kills the momentum of the tournament.

Having two games each week is an interesting idea. Then there's always some rugby to follow and players if anything get more time off. The problem is that it's a bit unfair to have your rests at the ends of the championship if other teams get them in the middle.

Example tournament

Week 1: Scotland v Ireland, England v France

Week 2: Italy v Wales, France v Scotland

Week 3: Wales v England, Italy v Ireland

Week 4: Ireland v France, England v Italy

Week 5: Scotland v Wales, Italy v France

Week 6: England v Scotland, Wales v Ireland

Week 7: Scotland v Italy, France v Wales, Ireland v England

So using the order of this years' draw, Italy would play 4 weeks in a row with breaks in week 1 and 6, while England would have breaks in weeks 2 and 5 and so have a happy 2 back to back fixtures at most.

 

[Ravenglass]

The problem is that it's a bit unfair to have your rests at the ends of the championship if other teams get them in the middle.

Yes agreed not perfect, but not a terrible idea? If I remember correctly did there used to be - at one time - no break in the Five Nations, because one team got a break each weekend anyway?

For me possibly the biggest downside of my devil's advocate 'no break' option, is that it will widen the pool of players too far: you end up diluting a teams' identity and cohesion cos the personnel is constantly changing and unsettled.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Asking any side to play three tier 1 internationals in 15 days is too much just look at the AI's, Aus and SA were awful in their third and foirth games even by their standards and NZ weren't up to the standard they expect against France. This would make luck of the draw an even bigger factor than it already is.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I'm not going to make the players have an even more intense schedule than they currently have, but do agree that it kills the momentum of the tournament.

Having two games each week is an interesting idea. Then there's always some rugby to follow and players if anything get more time off. The problem is that it's a bit unfair to have your rests at the ends of the championship if other teams get them in the middle.

Example tournament

Week 1: Scotland v Ireland, England v France

Week 2: Italy v Wales, France v Scotland

Week 3: Wales v England, Italy v Ireland

Week 4: Ireland v France, England v Italy

Week 5: Scotland v Wales, Italy v France

Week 6: England v Scotland, Wales v Ireland

Week 7: Scotland v Italy, France v Wales, Ireland v England

So using the order of this years' draw, Italy would play 4 weeks in a row with breaks in week 1 and 6, while England would have breaks in weeks 2 and 5 and so have a happy 2 back to back fixtures at most.

Of course the old 5 Nations games used to be every fortnight. I didn't mind that, it's the uneven rhythm of the current tournament I don't like.

Really like Goodey's suggestion of 2 matches per week for 6 weeks followed by 3 on the last week.

If you played over 5 consecutive weeks would player welfare really be that much of an issue? Its an intense period for sure, that's why they call them test matches, but provided player's workloads are controlled over longer periods, then why not? 2/3rds of the players in any match day squad are either going to be subs or likely to be subbed, so won't be playing whole games. And wouldn't playing consecutively mean far less emphasis on the physical during training? And is playing on 5 consecutive weekends really so bad anyway for top professionals with access to the very best medics and facilities?

 

[Car]

Wouldn't it make more sense to give them some rest before and after the tournament?

 

[Which Tyler]

But player welfare need not be put at risk - you just accept that many players will not play every game, an approach that has already gained traction anyway.
You do I suppose run the risk of players self-certifying their fitness to play, when they aren't, but surely in the modern age of highly professional fitness, physio and medical staff that's v improbable?

Errr... what? so you want ever larger squads, giving ever more advantage to England (and France) over the others? Quite apart from that; you'd be simply wrong if you're expecting coaches to rest a player because they're tired - what you'd actually see, is the same players playing the same number of games, carrying injury and tiredness, with the rugby becoming a competition of who can stay on their feet the longest (or have enough depth to actually replace the knackered - which is only England and France).

As for your improbable statement - I can only assume that you haven't been following rugby for long. Players self-certifying as fit when they're not is a problem spanning the last several decades; and the professionalism of medical staff is completely irrelevant to the situation; especially if they're being lied to by players who don't want someone else taking their place (and appearance money) from them.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Asking any side to play three tier 1 internationals in 15 days is too much just look at the AI's, Aus and SA were awful in their third and foirth games even by their standards and NZ weren't up to the standard they expect against France. This would make luck of the draw an even bigger factor than it already is.

Isn't that more to do with the AIs being at the fag end of the SH season when everyone's knackered and meaningless in the context of a competition? Players generally seem to do OK in RWCs where the games come thick and fast. It's just that they've prepared properly for them.