100% you expect that but if 1 guy goes down does he have to be unregistered to register new signing.
Equally factor in registration rules for Europe etc.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Squad Size Limits
- Thread starter stus768
- Start date
Equally factor in registration rules for Europe etc.
Well realistically you should have 9 front rowers. That leaves 26. Say another 10/11 players for backrowers.
Now you have 15/16 for backs. Not Ideal is it especially if you get 4 or 5 injuries that are middle of road.
And that is also before factoring in international players been rested etc.
Ah, I'd go for a completely different squad size limit.
No match day squad (23 players) can weigh more than 2250 kg. For every kg a squad is over it, they get a point deducted from their score before the match starts (so they could start on -15 for instance).
Might rebalance the game away from brute size, bulk and power.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 2,579
Cant wait to see the pitch size giant weighing scales, we can have a weighing before every match like boxing haha. And the gymnast level weight watching for the players
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 7,568
- Reaction score
- 5,280
Smaller players is not going to provide better rugby. Smaller players are fitter and faster. They got up off the deck faster, they fill gaps in the defence faster, they track back faster, etc. Defences would become even more bulletproof than they are already. Penalties/drop goals would become even more prevalent than they are now. Would be an absolute snooze fest.
Unlike of course, 130 kg men picking and going for 5 mins.
Aye... We'd need to get a few cattle weighing scales at the tunnel!Cant wait to see the pitch size giant weighing scales, we can have a weighing before every match like boxing haha. And the gymnast level weight watching for the players
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 7,568
- Reaction score
- 5,280
Your solution wouldn't fix that, though. If we impose a max weight limit and everyone becomes smaller then those smaller players are going to be just as effective at trucking it up against other players who have also become smaller. The only thing that will change is that they'll become fitter and better defenders.
The only way we'll see more expansive rugby being played is by increasing fatigue, not decreasing size. That means reducing number of subs and increasing ball-in-play time.
La Rochelle fielding only Uini Atonio and still starting 50pts down
Interested to get an idea on which players fans would free up for the squad space.
For example Leicester I would say
From the Senior squad
Dan Richardson (Loosehead)
Matt Rogerson (Flanker)
Joe Powell (Scrum Half)
Kirean Wilkinson (Fly Half)
Phil Cokanasiga (Centre)
Ben Woollett (Wing)
U24-U20
Joe Browning (Wing)
Considering Joe Powell would prob go somewhere like Aus.
I don't feel it would bump up the quality of the "Prem 2" by much either.
The big thing is that we would prob have to cut like 10 U20 players who wouldn't be ready for Prem or Championship level and on the cheapest amount.
The big issue would be when teams have big years of good Academy players coming up for example next season
Miell
Carnduff
J.Manz
Allen
Myall
All england U20's and suddenly you need to cut or promote 5 U24-U20 to make room. It just feels like it's rushing development.
For example Leicester I would say
From the Senior squad
Dan Richardson (Loosehead)
Matt Rogerson (Flanker)
Joe Powell (Scrum Half)
Kirean Wilkinson (Fly Half)
Phil Cokanasiga (Centre)
Ben Woollett (Wing)
U24-U20
Joe Browning (Wing)
Considering Joe Powell would prob go somewhere like Aus.
I don't feel it would bump up the quality of the "Prem 2" by much either.
The big thing is that we would prob have to cut like 10 U20 players who wouldn't be ready for Prem or Championship level and on the cheapest amount.
The big issue would be when teams have big years of good Academy players coming up for example next season
Miell
Carnduff
J.Manz
Allen
Myall
All england U20's and suddenly you need to cut or promote 5 U24-U20 to make room. It just feels like it's rushing development.
Last edited:
Yeah I was looking at our squad and other than Ellis and Veainu (neither of whom have played much, so are easily cuttable) we'd be binning young players making the transition - which feels harsh because it means if you're not senior ready as soon as you hit 20ish you could be out on your arse, and it's not like atm where if a club cuts someone they can get a second chance elsewhere because everyone will be having to trim
Players like McIntyre, Dugdale, Warr would've been out at that age if that were the case, and they're all flying now after getting more opportunities to grow
The more I think about the proposition the more I dislike it - hopefully it's put to a club vote because I can't see sides with strong academies agreeing to hamstring themselves by limiting player numbers on top of the academy cap
Injury prone players would also be a concern take Manu for example, I appreciate you may be able to bring in other talent if an injury is sustained, it will take time to get someone in with a skeleton squad this becomes a much harder exercise to plan for, it’s conceivable that players become more utility and less specialist which I am not a fan of especially in certain positions.
Out of interest, and because I'm apparently less lazy than a journalist who's job is to do this (took me about 15 minutes). And because Bath were used as the example of the grossly inflated squad size.
As of September 1st 2023, Bath squad had
27 players aged 24+
25 aged 20-23 (of whom 6 are match-day regulars, so not exactly "transition")
19 aged 18-19
Had these regulations been in place ahead of this season, then realistically, we wouldn't have picked up Faiva and Owens both from being unemployed, probably wouldn't have been able to sign Stooke.
Realistically then, to fit the senior squad into 35+12, we'd have had to lose 4-5 "senior" players (depending on Stooke) - who'd have ended up unemployed. I fail to see why losing players to the sport is for the good of the sport. I also fail to see how spending £6.4M on 47 players is more sustainable for the club than spending £6.4M on 52 players. The chances are, those 5 would have been recent graduates from the academy (or players still in the academy), and probably front row players, because they just take longer to mature, and are more unpredictable for success aged 19.
Then we'd have to cull 10 from the academy - to what benefit? where would they go to?
So any late bloomers - or even on-time bloomers, will basically be lost to the sport, for no benefit I've yet to see.
Oh, and before anyone brings up the "from their academy" bit of the "transition" group, we can hit a full 12 who are still IN the academy.
As of September 1st 2023, Bath squad had
27 players aged 24+
25 aged 20-23 (of whom 6 are match-day regulars, so not exactly "transition")
19 aged 18-19
Had these regulations been in place ahead of this season, then realistically, we wouldn't have picked up Faiva and Owens both from being unemployed, probably wouldn't have been able to sign Stooke.
Realistically then, to fit the senior squad into 35+12, we'd have had to lose 4-5 "senior" players (depending on Stooke) - who'd have ended up unemployed. I fail to see why losing players to the sport is for the good of the sport. I also fail to see how spending £6.4M on 47 players is more sustainable for the club than spending £6.4M on 52 players. The chances are, those 5 would have been recent graduates from the academy (or players still in the academy), and probably front row players, because they just take longer to mature, and are more unpredictable for success aged 19.
Then we'd have to cull 10 from the academy - to what benefit? where would they go to?
So any late bloomers - or even on-time bloomers, will basically be lost to the sport, for no benefit I've yet to see.
Oh, and before anyone brings up the "from their academy" bit of the "transition" group, we can hit a full 12 who are still IN the academy.
Last edited:
Just for the sake of comparison, from what I can see of the clubs' websites:
Bath have 44 senior and 30 academy (I've added Stooke myself)
Bristol have 47 and 37
Exeter have 81 total (they don't separate)
Gloucester have 36 and 22
Harlequins have 48 and 26
Leicester have 42 and 31
Newcastle have 43 and 16
Northampton have 56 total (they don't separate, and I think they exclude players they've loaned out*)
Sale have 55 and 11
Saracens have 43 and 15
So that's 4* clubs with <60 and 2 with >80
It's also 683 players, 80 of whom would have to be made unemployed (and there's only space for 17 of them in the other clubs, and even that depends on the age profiles of each squad)
Bath have 44 senior and 30 academy (I've added Stooke myself)
Bristol have 47 and 37
Exeter have 81 total (they don't separate)
Gloucester have 36 and 22
Harlequins have 48 and 26
Leicester have 42 and 31
Newcastle have 43 and 16
Northampton have 56 total (they don't separate, and I think they exclude players they've loaned out*)
Sale have 55 and 11
Saracens have 43 and 15
So that's 4* clubs with <60 and 2 with >80
It's also 683 players, 80 of whom would have to be made unemployed (and there's only space for 17 of them in the other clubs, and even that depends on the age profiles of each squad)
Our squad makeup on our website is so weird, I don't really trust it - for example there's no way Patreece Bell, who has just turned 19 and never played senior rugby, is in our senior squad
Unless that's how we keep under the academy cap: have a bunch of academy players on academy wages but a senior letterhead
Also, to be pedantic, ours is 54 as they've still got Joe Jones on there and he went to Scarlets a few weeks ago
Unless that's how we keep under the academy cap: have a bunch of academy players on academy wages but a senior letterhead
Also, to be pedantic, ours is 54 as they've still got Joe Jones on there and he went to Scarlets a few weeks ago
Some of those squad sizes are ridiculous, particularly Bath, Bristol and Exeter. Must be bus loads of kids on peanuts to stay under the cap.
Pretty sure academy players aren't in the cap anyway (but have a maximum per player IIRC).
Otherwise, you're saying that Bath (for example) are ridiculous to have 44 senior players, but Sarries have it right with 43.
Either way, you're saying that a full half of the league are being ridiculous. Which is an odd definition of "ridiculous" - more like a club bias of "my club does it this way, therefore this way is clearly and obviously the right way to do things, and anything else is ridiculous" - which is as ridiculous an argument as "Ex-professional player X likes player Y, therefore player Y is great and everyone else is wrong (including ex-professional player Z, who disagrees with X)"
This is the best I've got: https://premiershiprugby.com/conten...sly-vote-to-temporarily-reduce-the-salary-cap
So we're both right there - there's a £100k limit on imported academy talent, but otherwise, the limit is the per-player payment.
So we're both right there - there's a £100k limit on imported academy talent, but otherwise, the limit is the per-player payment.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 7,568
- Reaction score
- 5,280
Chiefs squad breakdown is 51 senior, 29 academy FWIW.
