The Global Season is it really achievable.

[FrenchFan]

We don't; but the Aussies and Kiwis think it'd be more convenient for them for some reason.

Sounds like a Kiwi agenda all right.

- - - Updated - - -

Player welfare has been a big talking point for years now, and a global season with streamlined competitions could be the solution. The amount of rugby being played needs a serious investigation.

But players welfare can be addressed without the need for a global season.

 

[Which Tyler]

Player welfare has been a big talking point for years now, and a global season with streamlined competitions could be the solution. The amount of rugby being played needs a serious investigation.

What does a global season have to do with player welfare or the number of matches?
The only time it makes any difference at all is for anyone playing in both hemispheres in one season (Louw, and anyone moving clubs and hemispheres) this is a small enough number to be looked after locally, and a WR regulation on down time (eg, every player gets at least 1 block of at least 10 weeks per callendar year not playing rugby)

Sounds like a Kiwi agenda all right.

I think the basic arguments by country are:
NZ - we're great, everyone should do what we say because we obviouslky know best. We don't like HAVING to have a break in Super rugby to allow for June Internationals; even though we don't have to, but want to.
Aus - we're screwed, everyone should do what we say, because otherwise we're REALLY screwed. We don't like HAVING to have a break in Super rugby to allow for June Internationals; even though we don't have to, but want to.
RSA - Louw's a bit tired. We don't like HAVING to have a break in Super rugby to allow for June Internationals; even though we don't have to, but want to.

Some people - NH rugby has poor skills because they play in wind, rain and cold (let's just ignore the Kiwis who also play in wind, rain and cold)
Others - SH couldn't possible switch to summer rugby; just imagine the hard, drought wracked pitches in Aus or SA (let's just ignore the exact same problem in Southern France, Italy, Spaim Romania etc)
Yet others - most people have better things to do during the summer than go to the rugby

 

[TheOvalBall]

But players welfare can be addressed without the need for a global season.

What does a global season have to do with player welfare or the number of matches?
The only time it makes any difference at all is for anyone playing in both hemispheres in one season (Louw, and anyone moving clubs and hemispheres) this is a small enough number to be looked after locally, and a WR regulation on down time (eg, every player gets at least 1 block of at least 10 weeks per callendar year not playing rugby)

Streamlining competitions could mean less games. The NH teams don't like playing the June tours, and the SH teams don't like playing the November tours. Also, the amount of games in competitions could also be reduced.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yes

What's that got to do with a global season?

 

[Every Time Ref]

Yes

What's that got to do with a global season?

Same question from me. It seems to be one of the main arguments used for the global season, but it's almost irrelevant.

 

[SuisseKiwi]

The Super Rugby competition is 20 weeks long and just silly now. There are so many bad teams in the competition that it's a waste of time. Why can't they divide it into two and cut the amount of games slightly so the schedule and traveling isn't so demanding.

I mean these guys travel from NZ, to Argentina, SA and vice versa, some even going to Japan. This is the most contact physical sport in the world and players are traveling that much distant, that frequently and playing so often, it's pretty rough.

 

[Peat]

I want to see arm wrestles all the time as much as I want to see basketball rugby all the time i.e I don't. What I do want to see is rugby played in different ways in different conditions asking different questions of the players and it remaining a game for all shapes and sizes.

As for the conditions determining playing style, that's largely a red herring and far more to do with mindset in the era of pro players, better surfaces and grippier balls. Apparently it rains in NZ and the sun comes out in RSA....

See, I just want to be entertained. I don''t find arm wrestles entertaining. But that's besides the point.

The point is that while teams don't *have* to stop playing rugby the moment winter comes, a lot of NH teams use it as an excuse to do so. I think it will be difficult to move our game on while the excuse exists.

Also what me, thee and everyone else wants is somewhat immaterial to the moneymen. They want something that brings new fans in. Now - I could be wrong - but arm wrestles are unlikely to be the way forwards for them.

Of course, neither is breaking the habits of their fanbase likely to be the way forwards. We will see what happens.

 

[j'nuh]

The point is that while teams don't *have* to stop playing rugby the moment winter comes, a lot of NH teams use it as an excuse to do so. I think it will be difficult to move our game on while the excuse exists.

I don't necessarily think it's an excuse. If positive rugby was more effective than negative rugby, teams would do it in the rain. I think it's just the difference in handling skills between the NH and the SH. NZ are skillful enough to play heads up rugby in the rain so they do it, whereas NH teams are unable to. We need a culture change towards improving handling skills at a younger age (mandatory sevens/touch for age-grade players may be a good start), and skillful play in the rain will follow suit. That being said, I'm still in favour of a move to summer rugby.

Also what me, thee and everyone else wants is somewhat immaterial to the moneymen. They want something that brings new fans in. Now - I could be wrong - but arm wrestles are unlikely to be the way forwards for them.

Also a move into the summer stops rugby competing with football. I suspect there are tens of thousands of people who would pick up rugby if it was on when football wasn't.

 

[die_mole]

a global calendar and regulations about amount of games is needed not a global season
basically:
these weekends are reserved for international tests
these weekends are reserved for club rugby
these weekends are for international tournaments
players are required to have these many weeks between seasons

we don't need to all convert to one schedule

 

[dullonien]

This is the closest I can come up with. This isn't a global season, it's my ideal NH season. Ideally, the an ideal SH season could be stitched in to include similar breaks for international windows.

Includes the following:

- Condensed domestic leagues, with 18 regular games + grand final between top two finishers. How the leagues would be condensed, I don't know, but they are simply too long atm imo, especially the Top14. if they could be reduced to less than 18 games, great. Imo less games would result in more intensity every game, and a better overall product. Removing the SF playoff reduces their length by 1 week also.
- Reduce the number of pools in European Cups to 4 would allow the knockout stages to jump straight to SF (winner of each pool), again reducing them by a week. Introduce a third tear if/when required to include all teams.
- Go back to a 5 nations tournament, thus reducing the need for a mid tournament break. Introduce a second tier with promotion/relegation. Also run similar A-team + U20 tournaments concurrently. 6 Nations is the culmination of the NH season, so it really ends on a bang, and best prepares us for the WC in WC years. Moving the 6 nations to the end of the season = better weather and better rugby.
- Short breaks between important domestic/European games (playoffs/knockout/mid Europe group break), and before/after international windows.

What it doesn't include:

- None of the tournaments overlap, but there's also not enough preparation time before the international windows which national coaches want/require.
- Still limited rest time/pre-season time for those players involved with Summer tours.
- A slot for the potentially interesting/exciting/lucrative world club challenge style game.
- The domestic league final isn't at an ideal time, right in the depths of winter.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

This is the closest I can come up with. Includes the following:

- Condensed domestic leagues, with 18 regular games + grand final between top two finishers. How the leagues would be condensed, I don't know, but they are simply too long atm imo, especially the Top14. Removing the SF playoff reduces their length by 1 week
- Reduce the number of pools in European Cups to 4 would allow the knockout stages to jump straight to SF (winner of each pool), again reducing them by a week. Introduce a third tear if/when required to include all teams.
- Go back to a 5 nations tournament, thus reducing the need for a mid tournament break. Introduce a second tier with promotion/relegation. Also run similar A-team + U20 tournaments concurrently. 6 Nations is the culmination of the NH season, so it really ends on a bang, and best prepares us for the WC in WC years. Moving the 6 nations to the end of the season = better weather and better rugby.
- Short breaks between important domestic/European games (playoffs/knockout/mid Europe group break), and before/after international windows.

What it doesn't include:

- None of the tournaments overlap, but there's also not enough preparation time before the international windows which national coaches want/require.
- Still limited rest time/pre-season time for those players involved with Summer tours.
- A slot for the potentially interesting/exciting/lucrative world club challenge style game.

I don't see how the AP could condense, esp to 18 games would mean getting rid of 2 teams from the AP which will def be a big no no. Pro 12 would be easy enough to do something like that if it expands, It's massively unrealistic to even plan for that.
similarly the 6N's won't agree to making it 5 nations with relegation/promotion.

 

[Brigantine]

Brigantine - you may want to look at your very first "if", because the NH answer to that already a clear "no, we don't"

Actually, you're right.

The LV Cup doesn't belong in that list in the first place, because it's not elite. So cross-border is 9 weeks not 15.

As far as the player welfare / rest weeks thing goes, I've heard it mentioned on this forum plenty, but still none the wiser as to *who* is claiming it's important, what their basis for that is, and ultimately whether '12 weeks' is actually their requirement or some sort of initial negotiating position and they'd settle for 6 or 8 weeks.

AFAIK Pre-seasons / warm up matches are basically a SH phenomenon, so not very relevant.

So you're actually only overcommitted by about 2 weeks each season (ignoring France), and that's including SF rounds where only a fraction of the teams are involved.


The only questions left now are:
1: What is actually the deal with this player welfare argument? And then depending on that answer...
2: The calendar

Re Q1 - anyone have links/sources to direct me to?


EDIT: Scratch that, I'm thinking of the British and Irish Cup, not the LV Cup. Back to my original opinion.

 

[smartcooky]

We don't; but the Aussies and Kiwis think it'd be more convenient for them for some reason.

Sounds like a Kiwi agenda all right.

Really?

You clearly either haven't given your comments much thought, or you don't understand how rugby works here in the South... or both

You see, we have our seasons stitched up a treat. We have a clear gap between Super Rugby and the June Internationals, and another clear gap between the end of the Rugby Championship and the EOYT; and in both cases, plenty of lead in time for the International coaches to get their players together. The only place we have an overlap is with the NPC, where the the NZRU chooses to run it in parallel with the Rugby Championship. They do this for a few very good reasons.

1. All Blacks generally do not play in the NPC, so nothing lost
2. Non-playing members of the All Black squad can be given game time , like this coming weekend
3. Players on the fringe of AB selection can be kept "ticking over" and match fit in case they need to be called up, e.g. Anton Lienert Brown.
4. All Black selectors keep an eye on players who might be bolters for the EOYT, like Nehe Milner Skudder a couple of years back

So, from a competition and organisational perspective, we actually have very little to gain from the introduction of a Global Season. In fact we could have to make some awkward compromises that would disturb our very convenient set-up if it the NH ever wakes up to their current position, and that brings me to this...that in actual fact, it is the NH Unions who need a Global Season a lot more than we do.

The NH season resembles a pig's breakfast at the moment;

6N matches and domestic matches on the same weekends;
Ditto for EOYT matches;
Domestic competition matches one weekend, European Cup matches the next;
NH unions coaches complaining about not having enough prep time
Clubs and PRL complaining about losing players to International Rugby
Everyone complaining about player welfare (with the PRL using player welfare as a lever against the Unions).


Its a mess!

 

[dullonien]

I don't see how the AP could condense, esp to 18 games would mean getting rid of 2 teams from the AP which will def be a big no no. Pro 12 would be easy enough to do something like that if it expands, It's massively unrealistic to even plan for that.
similarly the 6N's won't agree to making it 5 nations with relegation/promotion.

I think something will have to give eventually. There is simply too much rugby to squeeze into a season atm. Either domestic & european rugby is combined into one big European league, or the individual domestic leagues need to condense.

I don't see where we can condense the international game massively. A couple of games here and there (no 4th AI is an obvious one). I'd like to see the 6 nations expanded, and this seems an obvious approach, while also condensing the quality of the premier tournament.

Ultimately no-one wants to change anything if it's working. But I think they need to look at the bigger picture and realise that if the season ran in a more logical way, with defined starts and ends to each portion (domestic, europe, 5/6 nations), then quality would improve due to no overlaps, the product would be more appealing to fans (both those attending the games live, and those watching on tv), and potentially increase revenue further still from tv rights etc.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Really?

You clearly either haven't given your comments much thought, or you don't understand how rugby works here in the South... or both

You see, we have our seasons stitched up a treat. We have a clear gap between Super Rugby and the June Internationals, and another clear gap between the end of the Rugby Championship and the EOYT; and in both cases, plenty of lead in time for the International coaches to get their players together. The only place we have an overlap is with the NPC, where the the NZRU chooses to run it in parallel with the Rugby Championship. They do this for a few very good reasons.

1. All Blacks generally do not play in the NPC, so nothing lost
2. Non-playing members of the All Black squad can be given game time , like this coming weekend
3. Players on the fringe of AB selection can be kept "ticking over" and match fit in case they need to be called up, e.g. Anton Lienert Brown.
4. All Black selectors keep an eye on players who might be bolters for the EOYT, like Nehe Milner Skudder a couple of years back

So, from a competition and organisational perspective, we actually have very little to gain from the introduction of a Global Season. In fact we could have to make some awkward compromises that would disturb our very convenient set-up if it the NH ever wakes up to their current position, and that brings me to this...that in actual fact, it is the NH Unions who need a Global Season a lot more than we do.

The NH season resembles a pig's breakfast at the moment;

6N matches and domestic matches on the same weekends;
Ditto for EOYT matches;
Domestic competition matches one weekend, European Cup matches the next;
NH unions coaches complaining about not having enough prep time
Clubs and PRL complaining about losing players to International Rugby
Everyone complaining about player welfare (with the PRL using player welfare as a lever against the Unions).


Its a mess!

This!

It's not that us SH members think our system is the greatest, but we think that it's more beneficial than the system in the NH. Player welfare has to be a part of the equation, as it increases the quality of rugby at top level.

From a South African perspective, I don't really care how the calendar is structured, as long as it's beneficial for all and take the player welfare into consideration. As we have discussed the issue in another thread, we also have to take climate and weather into consideration. It will be near impossible for the players to play in a tournament in South Africa from November to January. Between the extreme heat that can go past 40 degrees celsius where rugby pitches become concrete. as well as the torrential rains and flooding, it will be just impossible to host games in South Africa. And that's why we are of the opinion of having the season from February to November.

The way the 2 hemispheres are structured now, it prevents the SH teams to play their best players. Due to their club commitments, the players in the NH are either injured, unavailable or out of form by the time the international window opens.

The NH international teams won't have an idea of this frustration as your players hardly travel to SH and those who do, are usually not up for international selection anyways.

 

[Which Tyler]

So if the SH unions don't want anything to change - why are they always and only the unions talking about changing everything to suit them better?

Bare in mind - I'm not saying that the NH schedule is anything but a mess; or that it doesn't need sorting/tinkering with. But that there's no need for a global season; and that only in the SH do you find proponents of a global season (barring the odd NH journalist looking for a story; or who things that our poor skill levels could be mitigated by playing in sunnier weather with fewer fans)

 

[TRF_heineken]

So if the SH unions don't want anything to change - why are they always and only the unions talking about changing everything to suit them better?

Bare in mind - I'm not saying that the NH schedule is anything but a mess; or that it doesn't need sorting/tinkering with. But that there's no need for a global season; and that only in the SH do you find proponents of a global season (barring the odd NH journalist looking for a story)

Because we are struggling financially. NZ, Aus and SA can't compete with the NH. And then when it's the June internationals (well at least in the past), the NH teams send a second string team and that leads to less bums on the seats, which results to less income...

It's a ripple effect.

The NH have the luxury to have a better currency to attract our top players, is it really too much for the NH to meet us halfway?

 

[TheOvalBall]

Yes

What's that got to do with a global season?

Same question from me. It seems to be one of the main arguments used for the global season, but it's almost irrelevant.

Well as far as i understand it's to get more teams playing each other on a regular basis, across both hemispheres. So, top 14 teams for example could play SH teams etc. Would be really difficult for the NZ and Aussie teams because of the travel factor, but for SA it wouldn't be that troublesome.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

When has the NH teams ever sent a second team to SH tours at least of Aus, NZ and Eng tours?

Sometimes we are missing the final players for the first test which is easy to fix.

But to say that we send second choice teams is BS.

NZ doesn't exactly sellout all its rugby championship games not even in the smaller stads at times.

 

[Which Tyler]

Because we are struggling financially. NZ, Aus and SA can't compete with the NH. And then when it's the June internationals (well at least in the past), the NH teams send a second string team and that leads to less bums on the seats, which results to less income...

It's a ripple effect.

The NH have the luxury to have a better currency to attract our top players, is it really too much for the NH to meet us halfway?

Well that's a bull**** reason then; and admits to actively wanting to sabotage the health of NH rugby.
As for second string teams - that's not only a bull**** argument, but based on bull**** "facts".
The last time I can think of when there was even a clash between the tests and the club finalists (excepting France where international rugby is a distant 3rd in priority) was the Eng tour of NZ in 2014 (IIRC) - where the NZRU insisted on a different definition of the word "Weekend" to the normally accepted, and refused to budge - meaning the first test was a week earlier than anyone had anticipated. The only other times when weakened teams are sent down are during a Lions tour, or when players are injured.

Well as far as i understand it's to get more teams playing each other on a regular basis, across both hemispheres. So, top 14 teams for example could play SH teams etc. Would be really difficult for the NZ and Aussie teams because of the travel factor, but for SA it wouldn't be that troublesome.

Another bull**** reason then; and nothing at all to do with player welfare etc. It's also a reason I don't think I've seen suggested before.
As far as it goes - I'm not convinced there'd be much interest in cross-hemisphere club matches beyond the odd one here or there (such as SuperRugby winner vs EPRC winner - which would be no less of a nightmare to organise, and actively work against player welfare regardless).