The Global Season is it really achievable.

[nickdnz]

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.

Bull****.

35,372 in attendance for the last game in Wellington.
17,500 in Christchurch last year (which is in their makeshift stadium)
49,500 in Auckland in 2014 (which at it's capacity is 50,000 - unless extra seating is installed).
21,329 in Napier in 2014 (2,000 above stadiums normal capacity)
35,747 in Wellington in 2014


etc, etc, etc. So don't talk total rubbish and hope that you're correct afterwards.

And yeah, obviously if a team is missing players due to them still competing in the finals (which has happened pretty consistently) then it's considered a second string team. Duh.

 

[Which Tyler]

And yeah, obviously if a team is missing players due to them still competing in the finals (which has happened pretty consistently) then it's considered a second string team. Duh.

So other than the England team when the NZRU were being arseholes (and accounted for 1 test in a 3 test series); and the French who don't really care about international rugby - name some.

If it happens consistently, then you should be able to take your pick from the last decade - at least one a year I'd have thought to be "consistent" across the other 5 nations.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

The

Bull****.

35,372 in attendance for the last game in Wellington.
17,500 in Christchurch last year (which is in their makeshift stadium)
49,500 in Auckland in 2014 (which at it's capacity is 50,000 - unless extra seating is installed).
21,329 in Napier in 2014 (2,000 above stadiums normal capacity)
35,747 in Wellington in 2014


etc, etc, etc. So don't talk total rubbish and hope that you're correct afterwards.

And yeah, obviously if a team is missing players due to them still competing in the finals (which has happened pretty consistently) then it's considered a second string team. Duh.

So you just proved my point they don't sellout every game.

And without the final players is at most one test and didn't happen last season.

 

[TheOvalBall]

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.


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).

Competitions could be reduced, or even fall away in favour of cross hemisphere competitions.

However, i'm just really thinking off the top of my head really.
The rugby bosses need to define what they mean by a global season and what their objectives are.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Competitions could be reduced, or even fall away in favour of cross hemisphere competitions.

However, i'm just really thinking off the top of my head really.
The rugby bosses need to define what they mean by a global season and what their objectives are.

Agree with that's point the only thing I have heard from it all is the wants and not the aims.

 

[nickdnz]

So other than the England team when the NZRU were being arseholes (and accounted for 1 test in a 3 test series); and the French who don't really care about international rugby - name some.

If it happens consistently, then you should be able to take your pick from the last decade - at least one a year I'd have thought to be "consistent" across the other 5 nations.

It's always hilarious the English's total lack of culpability for anything.

When there are two examples within the last five years, is there any point naming more.

The


So you just proved my point they don't sellout every game.
.

Huh? Care to explain that conclusion? I just listed the attendance figures for all of the game (which aren't ticket sales, they are attendance figures). So some of which would be corporate box tickets which were paid for but didn't have attendance, some would be cancellations etc...

So no I didn't prove your point, quite the opposite. It shows you talk ****.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Agree with that's point the only thing I have heard from it all is the wants and not the aims.

It's quite simple really.

The aim is to level the playing field in that all top level nations play an equal amount of games per year internationally, and to have a stipulated "off-period" for the players to rest.

That way, every team will have limited amount of injuries, be able to play and select any player eligible to play for the nation without any problems with club commitments such as finals or contractual issues.

But in order to reach this, a few wants have to be established in order to see if there is any feasibility to the suggestion.

 

[j'nuh]

We can definitely reduce the number of games we play in the domestic season without reducing the teams by making it so not everyone plays home and away. It makes the league slightly unbalanced, but teams that lose out one season gain in the next, so it should be okay.

• 3 pools of 5 teams. Maybe:
  • Bristol, Worcester, Gloucester, Bath, Exeter
  • Falcons, Leicester, Northampton, Sale, Yorkshire
  • Irish, Sarries, Quins, Wasps, Welsh
• 2 games with teams in your group, 1 with teams outside. (15 games)
• Top 2 from each group go through plus two more. Quarters, semis and finals. (3 games)
• 18 in total.

But I would also do something quite different as well. I'd split a year into the club season and the international season. I think players going backwards and forewords between club and country means having to insert gaps all over the season so that players can train and get to speed with the environment. It would be more practical to split the two out. Stealing dullonien's idea:

Even with all this, this is a 40-game season for an international. I would enforce rest periods in the Domestic season. e.g. you cannot play more than 5 games in a row without having a rest. This would mean an international would play a maximum of 35 games.

I also think that there should be some kind of domestic cup on whilst the internationals are away.

 

[FrenchFan]

It's quite simple really.

The aim is to level the playing field in that all top level nations play an equal amount of games per year internationally, and to have a stipulated "off-period" for the players to rest.

That way, every team will have limited amount of injuries, be able to play and select any player eligible to play for the nation without any problems with club commitments such as finals or contractual issues.

But in order to reach this, a few wants have to be established in order to see if there is any feasibility to the suggestion.

Got you.

This doesn't seem feasible IMO. Season structures are very different in both hemispheres. They are too many conflicting issues btw unions. Also cultural issues which are hard to overlook (club v union priority etc).

Also, contractual obligations and TV deals will dictate much more than many think.

We may have to live with what we have now which is not that bad and tinker here and there when needed.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

We can definitely reduce the number of games we play in the domestic season without reducing the teams by making it so not everyone plays home and away. It makes the league slightly unbalanced, but teams that lose out one season gain in the next, so it should be okay.

• 3 pools of 5 teams. Maybe:
  • Bristol, Worcester, Gloucester, Bath, Exeter
  • Falcons, Leicester, Northampton, Sale, Yorkshire
  • Irish, Sarries, Quins, Wasps, Welsh
• 2 games with teams in your group, 1 with teams outside. (15 games)
• Top 2 from each group go through plus two more. Quarters, semis and finals. (3 games)
• 18 in total.

But I would also do something quite different as well. I'd split a year into the club season and the international season. I think players going backwards and forewords between club and country means having to insert gaps all over the season so that players can train and get to speed with the environment. It would be more practical to split the two out. Stealing dullonien's idea:

Even with all this, this is a 40-game season for an international. I would enforce rest periods in the Domestic season. e.g. you cannot play more than 5 games in a row without having a rest. This would mean an international would play a maximum of 35 games.

I also think that there should be some kind of domestic cup on whilst the internationals are away.

I don't think a pool system would ever work here to unfair and to messy.

Could see the expanding to 16 teams and playing one game v each other (Rotaing home and away on a yearly basics) with no relegation basically similar to super rugby.

18 games (With playoffs) with a A league running alongside it playing the reverse ground for example Tigers V Saints @ Welford would mean the A league fixture would be @ the Gardens.

I agree with the splitting of the clubs and international fixtures IMO it makes more sense, Although would have the European final the very last game of the club season.

 

[ncurd]

Here's my plan

Season start - who cares not going to work for everyone pick a date.

13 week domestic rugby 1st half - do what you like go nuts I couldn't give a damn what format you have, this includes cross-border regional stuff like European Cup and Super Rugby
9 weeks international regional rugby tournament (ie 6 nations/rugby championship) - 2 of these weeks must be a break for players from training, 7 weeks to go nuts with your format you don't have to play every week. On those 7 weeks you can have a domestic tournament stuff if you like but it can't be the same ones in your dedicated domestic window.
13 week domestic rugby 2nd half
7 weeks international rugby tours - alternate years SH visiting NH and vice versa, must play 50% of the tier 1 nation's you're visiting (next time you tour you have to play those you didn't this time)and two tier 2 teams (at their home). If you're at home you have to play at least 2 different Tier 2 nation's 1 away(their home) and 1 at home. Spare weeks do what you like. As above you can have other domestic tournaments if you wish.
6 weeks proper break
4 weeks pre-season warm up(no games but players can train, 1 pre-season game at a push).

In world cup years the tours are replaced with the world cup 2 weeks of the 6 weeks proper break are moved for forming world cup training camps. The alternating tour's aren't skipped just moved into the next year.
In international windows clubs must release players to international sides.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Got you.

This doesn't seem feasible IMO. Season structures are very different in both hemispheres. They are too many conflicting issues btw unions. Also cultural issues which are hard to overlook (club v union priority etc).

Also, contractual obligations and TV deals will dictate much more than many think.

We may have to live with what we have now which is not that bad and tinker here and there when needed.

Of course a frenchy would say this. To you guys, club rugby is the most important of all and there is very little regard for international rugby. That's not new to us.

But you see here is the issue, if it's driven by the national rugby unions such as NZRU, SARU, ARU etc. then they can dictate to their clubs/franchises as to how the structure will work to be more beneficial for all involved.

I know there is a lot of differences between unions and the different cultures, and I'm not expecting a solution overnight, but all I'd like to see is everyone having a joint meeting/Summit and get everything on the table and start working from there.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Which Tyler]

Competitions could be reduced, or even fall away in favour of cross hemisphere competitions.

However, i'm just really thinking off the top of my head really.
The rugby bosses need to define what they mean by a global season and what their objectives are.

Yeah, the cross-hemisphere club rugby argument is still a new one on me; not one I've given much thought to, or personally see

It's always hilarious the English's total lack of culpability for anything.

When there are two examples within the last five years, is there any point naming more.

Not even slightly what I am saying, or have ever said - quite the opposite actually

What 2 examples? I've given 1 example for you (which, sorry, that was NZRU's fault - I still can't work out how the second Saturday of a month can fall on the 7th). Beyond that, I've exempted France from the discussion as they're simply not relevant to it (different culture, and it's not going to change just because anyone else doesn't like it)

1]The aim is to level the playing field in that all top level nations play an equal amount of games per year internationally, 2] and to have a stipulated "off-period" for the players to rest.

3]That way, every team will have limited amount of injuries, be able to play and select any player eligible to play for the nation without any problems with club commitments such as finals or contractual issues.

4] But in order to reach this, a few wants have to be established in order to see if there is any feasibility to the suggestion.

1A] Why is that desirable? what is wrong with different cultures being different?
1B] Why does that need a global season?

2] There already are these - they're different for each hemisphere, but that isn't a problem; and is easily addressed with a simple change - eg "every player must have 10 contiguous weeks of not-playing rugby per calendar year". No need for a global season.

3A] Errr... what? more down-time will certainly benefit players, andprobably reduce injuries; but only in an overall manner; not in a limiting way.
3B] Again, there are no issues about player eliigibility; and there are no problems (beyond the French) with club commitments clashing with internationals.

4] Yup; we've only really been given statements like "we need a global season because I said so" and "the NH should change, because our's is great" - nothing of enough substance to allow us to debate the details. The only detail we know is that a global season would necessitate summer rugby in the NH; because A] the SH do'nt want to change; and B] summer rugby isn't feasible in plenty of locations in Australia, South Africa, France, Italy, Spain or Romania (or anywhere else below the elite level); and no-one cares what the last 4, or amateur levels think.

Of course a frenchy would say this. To you guys, club rugby is the most important of all and there is very little regard for international rugby. That's not new to us.

But you see here is the issue, if it's driven by the national rugby unions such as NZRU, SARU, ARU etc. then they can dictate to their clubs/franchises as to how the structure will work to be more beneficial for all involved.

I know there is a lot of differences between unions and the different cultures, and I'm not expecting a solution overnight, but all I'd like to see is everyone having a joint meeting/Summit and get everything on the table and start working from there.

Is that too much to ask?

Unions that want this dictating to the clubs they own isn't a problem - unions dictating to seperate entities is a problem; not just a problem, but (almost certainly) illegal as well.
Different countries have different cultures - this is a good thing, not a bad thing that must be bulldozed over for no apparent benefit (there's still no apparent benefit right?).





Personally - what I want to see from the Pro-Global-Season brigade is a basic list of benefits for, say each of the QN and 6N nations. As simple as that.
What benefits would the NZRU; ARU, SARU, UAR, RFU, IRFU, WRU, SRU, FFR and IRF be looking for? Maybe a little more than just bullet points, otherwise we'll just get a list of "player welfare" " more money" or "summer rugby" thought to be self-evident, with no thought given to how a global season would change anything.

 

[TRF_heineken]

1A] Why is that desirable? what is wrong with different cultures being different?
1B] Why does that need a global season?

2] There already are these - they're different for each hemisphere, but that isn't a problem; and is easily addressed with a simple change - eg "every player must have 10 contiguous weeks of not-playing rugby per calendar year". No need for a global season.

3A] Errr... what? more down-time will certainly benefit players, andprobably reduce injuries; but only in an overall manner; not in a limiting way.
3B] Again, there are no issues about player eliigibility; and there are no problems (beyond the French) with club commitments clashing with internationals.

4] Yup; we've only really been given statements like "we need a global season because I said so" and "the NH should change, because our's is great" - nothing of enough substance to allow us to debate the details. The only detail we know is that a global season would necessitate summer rugby in the NH; because A] the SH do'nt want to change; and B] summer rugby isn't feasible in plenty of locations in Australia, South Africa, France, Italy, Spain or Romania (or anywhere else below the elite level); and no-one cares what the last 4, or amateur levels think.

1A] There's nothing wrong with different cultures. South Africa is rich with many different cultures, and see how well we get along.
1B] A global season would allow all nations and their clubs to adhere to the same standards. Again player welfare will be a consideration here, and this will prevent the following scenario:

Willie Le Roux plays Rugby World Cup 2015 for SA, then during the SH "off-season" (which is December to February) he goes to Japan and plays for The Canon Eagles, then returns to SA and plays for the Sharks. Then gets a lucrative offer in the NH and signs for London Wasps. And by the time the NH season ends, he has played non-stop for nearly 18 months, is terribly out of form and on the verge of burnout which will result in him not being able to play for either Nation or Club or Franchise as he sustained worse injuries due to not properly resting and overtraining.

2] True, but due to the difference in periods of when the 2 seasons are taking place, players don't use that mandatory period for that season, and instead go to the other hemisphere during that time to get more money.

3A] More downtime, will reduce the period in which a player is in a catabolic state, which will definitely result in less injuries. Why is it such a bad move to benefit the players??
3B] But there are problems. Maybe not for you as an England fan, as your best players are all in England, but for nations like Wales, South Africa, Australia and some of the tier 2 nations, it is a problem. Think globally, not narrowminded just to the benefit of England Rugby...

4] I'm trying to, but to get a healthy debate going on this forum is damn near impossible between the English fans and some NZ fans, that the rest of us in the middle are not considered due to the number of members from NZ and England.

I can't provide as much details because I don't work for SARU or any other Rugby nation/union/franchise. I'm merely a fan and trying to look at ways of getting this amazing sport on an even greater scale than it already is.

 

[dullonien]

3B] Again, there are no issues about player eliigibility; and there are no problems (beyond the French) with club commitments clashing with internationals.

How do you figure that one out.

Surely if a SA international player is playing in France for example, that player wouldn't be able to participate fully in club rugby and international, because ones occurring in at a different time of the year to the other, and therefore that player would have no rest period.

 

[Which Tyler]

1A] There's nothing wrong with different cultures. South Africa is rich with many different cultures, and see how well we get along.
1B] A global season would allow all nations and their clubs to adhere to the same standards. Again player welfare will be a consideration here, and this will prevent the following scenario:

Willie Le Roux plays Rugby World Cup 2015 for SA, then during the SH "off-season" (which is December to February) he goes to Japan and plays for The Canon Eagles, then returns to SA and plays for the Sharks. Then gets a lucrative offer in the NH and signs for London Wasps. And by the time the NH season ends, he has played non-stop for nearly 18 months, is terribly out of form and on the verge of burnout which will result in him not being able to play for either Nation or Club or Franchise as he sustained worse injuries due to not properly resting and overtraining.

2] True, but due to the difference in periods of when the 2 seasons are taking place, players don't use that mandatory period for that season, and instead go to the other hemisphere during that time to get more money.

3A] More downtime, will reduce the period in which a player is in a catabolic state, which will definitely result in less injuries. Why is it such a bad move to benefit the players??
3B] But there are problems. Maybe not for you as an England fan, as your best players are all in England, but for nations like Wales, South Africa, Australia and some of the tier 2 nations, it is a problem. Think globally, not narrowminded just to the benefit of England Rugby...

4] I'm trying to, but to get a healthy debate going on this forum is damn near impossible between the English fans and some NZ fans, that the rest of us in the middle are not considered due to the number of members from NZ and England.

I can't provide as much details because I don't work for SARU or any other Rugby nation/union/franchise. I'm merely a fan and trying to look at ways of getting this amazing sport on an even greater scale than it already is.

1A] Vive La Difference! But doesn't answer my question [1A] - why is it desireable that all international teams play the same amount of international rugby? If, for example, the NZRU can swing it, and find enough (paying) opponents, and they want to play 20 tests a year - why shouldn't they? If the issue is with getting more matches for the lower tiers, then I'm all on board; and can even see an argument for a global season there; though again, there's already regulations in place to allow it... just with no teeth to them - issue of enforcement, rather than a complete revamp of at least half the world's rugby players.
1B] So long as any differences are made to adhere to the same standards. My suggestion already solves the 1-off issues of the likes of Willie LeRoux; and those likehim taking up contracts to cross the hemispheres. It's bad for all players doing that, and indeed (within the UK) those crossing codes to or from League. It's easily sorted, though the clubs won't like it (particularly whichever club is recruiting the player). Basically - I agree that there is a problem here, but I don't see that a global season is even close to being the desireably answer.

2] See above. "every player must have 10 contiguous weeks of not-playing rugby per calendar year". No need for a global season.

3A] Depends on how it's organised; and is still an issue of more downtime, rather than of a global season.
3B] I'm still waiting for examples. I guess that you're thinking here of the odd individual here and there who's employed in France, but playing for a different international side - in which case, sorry, but that's market forces and who pays the piper calls the tune - which is a decision for the individual player - whether that's G North getting release outside of IRB9 into his club contract; or Aus wanting (and getting) Matt Giteau to play for them. Tests outside of IRB9 would still be outside of IRB9, whether or not we have a global season.

4A] Healthy debates are difficult on any online forum I'm afraid - people are generally more interested in hearing their own opinions repeated by others than in listening to opposing arguments and analysing those arguments on their own merits. However hard individuals may try to do the latter, we'll all fail on occassion; and have to wade through dozens of people not even trying. Personally I'm (almost) always open to having my mind changed; but it needs to be by rational debate rather than being told that I should.
4B] Same boat as the rest of us then.

 

[smartcooky]

The


So you just proved my point they don't sellout every game.

Yes, they do. A sellout means there are no more tickets available, and that has been the case for every RC/3N game for the last 10 years at least.

Nick has it slightly wrong. At the time of the 2014 match, the capacity was only 48,000 (and it still is when setup for rugby matches) and five days before the match, they were within 500 of a sellout...

https://allblacksopenforum.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/eden-park-close-to-being-sold-out/

Demand was so high that the NZRU put in some of the additional seating they used for RWC2011. By the day of the match (23/8) they had sold 49,500; that's 1,500 over the nominal capacity of the stadium.

And without the final players is at most one test and didn't happen last season.

You just haven't been around long enough to remember.

All of the following touring teams had many key players missing because they were "resting".

England to NZ in 2004 & 2008 and in 2014 missing finals players in the first test
Ireland to NZ in 2012
France to Australia in 2008
Wales to NZ in 2010
Wales to South Africa 2008
France to South Africa in 2010

 

[Which Tyler]

How do you figure that one out.

Surely if a SA international player is playing in France for example, that player wouldn't be able to participate fully in club rugby and international, because ones occurring in at a different time of the year to the other, and therefore that player would have no rest period.

Cross purposes I think - the initial post was about NH nations sending B-teams down south for the June internationals.
For the 3(?) South Africans, and now the odd Australian (yeah, OK, all Aussies are odd...) playing club rugby in the NH and being selected for their SH nationa team - yes, player welfare is an issue, but not elligibility; IRB article 9 is still in effect (even if the IRB have changed their name for no apparent reason). Players like Louw, Habana, Giteau won't be getting their full rest periods - but they should be, and it would be down to their principal employer (club) to provide it. Again, a simple rule such as the one I've (repeatedly) suggested would solve this issue.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Pointless input from me but I think in SA at least and I am sure in other SH countries (?) summer Rugby could work if managed correctly. Certainly you don't want the players to be playing midday mid summer (oh, man, as if those Bloem fields aren't concrete slabs at the best of times! and 10 drinks breaks will ruin the atmosphere) but its light enough for long enough for late evening games (floodlights ala summer cricket?). In fact this might make games more accessable for those who might have to work till 5 and then have a commute as well (and eat and get kids to bed ETC before they can 'tune in').

I think the NH climate is generally more difficult to work around and its the SH that should adapt (or who might be in a better position to do so)? I say this because its not just climate; the populations, investments etc etc are much less sizable/'limiting'/established and our formats are more easily changed 'down' here.

This is if we really need a global season in the first place.

I think Rugby in the summer can work for SA but SA Cricket won't like it one damned bit!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Pointless input from me but I think in SA at least and I am sure in other SH countries (?) summer Rugby could work if managed correctly. Certainly you don't want the players to be playing midday mid summer (oh, man, as if those Bloem fields aren't concrete slabs at the best of times!) but its light enough for long enough for late evening games. In fact this might make games more accessable for those who might have to work till 5 and then have a commute as well (and eat and get kids to bed ETC before they can 'tune in').

I think the NH climate is generally more difficult to work around and its the SH that should adapt (or who might be in a better position to do so)? I say this because its not just climate; the populations, investments etc etc are much less sizable/'limiting'/established and our formats are more easily changed 'down' here.

This is if we really need a global season in the first place.

We could always just play all our games away during the summer period. I think matches in PE and Cape Town will be feasable in December, but if we take December, the humidity is around 80% everyday, plus temperatures reaching over 35 degrees celsius.

Joburg, Pretoria and Bloemfontein has lightning storms during December and January. Plus concrete like pitches. The chance is there that games could be called off.

But yeah, I think we'll be open for change if there has to be a change. Our biggest concern is our players leaving our shores, make more money on short term contracts in the NH and then come back injured and unavailable when contracted to an SA team.

At the moment, we are losing all the way.