• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Warburton: 20 games a year for welsh players a year

irelandfan123

Bench Player
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
668
Country Flag
UK
Club or Nation
Ulster
Sam Warburton says welsh internationals should only play 20 games a year to reduce injurys.
It got me wondering on average how many games do internationals play for their nation a year and what the good people of the rugby forum have to say :)
So would you rather see your internationals play it safe or should they play for their Provinces/Regions/club
(didn't know if anybody has touched on this before or if the threads already up, if so feel free to ignore this :lol:)
Link for Warburton's opinion below :
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-in-wales/2012/04/12/sam-warburton-wants-20-game-limit-for-wales-players-per-season-91466-30740274/
 
Last edited:
Thats not many. Playing 38% of weekends in the year, or 27 hours a year actual game time :S

Bigger squads and more strategic selection by managers would be better, e.g. taking more players off after 50 mins.

Also perhaps less training. I think this is one of the biggest under-analyzed things in pro rugby. Especially strength training. There may be a point where some of these players should shed a bit of weight and bulk to stop themselves getting injured so much, and train far less in the week.
 
Last edited:
The international calendar in the NH is something like:

5 x Six Nations games.
2/3 x Autumn Internationals.
2/3 x Games on the Summer Tour.

Out of those, very few players would play every game. Some players won't play all 5 six nations games, although many of the Welsh players started every 6 nations game this season. In the Autumn there is often at least on weaker opposition where players would be rested, and depending on the location of the Summer tour, players may be rested in here as well.

Overall, I'd say most first team starters would play between 8-10 international games a season with the current structure, although with unions shoe-horning extra fixtures into the calendar that could be more. The WRU hosted a one off fixture against the Wallabies last year after an already gruelling WC, and a barbarian fixture is being squeezed in before the Summer tour.

If we say 9 as a rough average for the players who generally start if fit. This would allow them to play 11 regional games a season, which isn't many tbh. The HC would be the priority, so that's 3 pool matches at a minimum, but potentially up to 6 if a team reaches the final. So that would leave a maximum of 8 Pro12 appearances out of the 22 matches that makes up the pre-play-off season (with a potential 2 more games if the region reaches the final here).

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it tbh. If we look at Jamie Roberts, he's only made a handful of appearances for the Blues anyway this season (and been taken off injured in at least 2 of those). Injuries do seem to be taking their toll on certain players, especially those who are really putting their bodies on the line. Most of the collisions Roberts is involved in are staggeringly big, so it's little wonder that he's injured a lot of the time. Warburton is constantly putting himself into positions at the tackle area that make him a big target, so again injuries might just be part of the parcel for him. But I can't see any reason why some of the other players can't play a few more games than 20.

It needs to be decided on a player for player basis. But I will say one thing, the regions especially need to stop playing players that are either injured, or being rushed back too quickly from injury, because this isn't helping anyone. Sometimes it doesn't appear that the player is being given enough time to fully recover before being put back out onto the pitch only to pick up another injury and spend more time on the sidelines. This helps no-one! WC and Lions years are often followed by lots of injuries though, because players simply don't have any down-time to heal any ****les etc.
 
No. The international game is healthy enough in Wales, whereas clubs don't need even more of a beating. Clubs need their internationals to bring in spectators and compete in the Pro12/Heineken. Isn't club rugby in Wales already suffering from low attendance? Having internationals around to attract fans should be one of the key aims of the clubs.

What really needs to be done is to make the Pro12 more interesting again, which means that there needs to be more to play for than a top 4 playoff finish. The more the Pro12 is respected as a competition, the bigger crowds the regions will get in. (Which means more money for bigger squads and squad rotation.)

Also, how is this going to help keeping internationals in Wales? Even if they're reimbursed for it, clubs aren't going to want to pay to have players they can't use all the way through the season. It would be too disruptive to the team. They'll just buy foreign players = less disruption.

If we say 9 as a rough average for the players who generally start if fit. This would allow them to play 11 regional games a season, which isn't many tbh. The HC would be the priority, so that's 3 pool matches at a minimum, but potentially up to 6 if a team reaches the final. So that would leave a maximum of 8 Pro12 appearances out of the 22 matches that makes up the pre-play-off season (with a potential 2 more games if the region reaches the final here).
6 pool matches, since they play home and away!

I think Warburton meant that internationals should only play 20 club games anyway. I hope. If he means 20 games in total for club and country per season, he's got no chance of that happening - the Welsh clubs will quickly find themselves being hammered in the Pro12.
 
Last edited:
If this comes in to play then hopefully they'll take a pay cut as well, as they'd be ruled out for a part of the season.
Suppose the WRU would cover it (if contracting is coming in) but it shouldn't be down to the skint regions to pay them for doing nothing for part of the year.
 
Aren't most of them moving to France anyway? Where the squads are bigger, therefore most likely to play less game time?

As someone else said, I think squad rotation and strategic game time is more important than limiting the amount of games played in.

Also, they know the risks accompanied with playing rugby, they know the injuries that can occur...they choose to play rugby, they love to play rugby....so why the concern all of a sudden?

It may all be down to the fact this has been a world cup year....far more intense than a regular season, with very minimal rest from last season into this. Players are tired, are jaded, and some are suffering a downturn in form due to it....Ben Youngs a prime example, Chris Ashton another.
 
6 pool matches, since they play home and away!

Oops, how did I miss that.

I think Warburton meant that internationals should only play 20 club games anyway. I hope. If he means 20 games in total for club and country per season, he's got no chance of that happening - the Welsh clubs will quickly find themselves being hammered in the Pro12.

You're probably right. It would leave very little Pro12 games left to play otherwise. They could probably play around 12-14 Pro12 games, so just over half the season which sounds ok I suppose. Squad rotation should be able to cover the other fixtures, although ideally you'd have your crowd pulling internationals on display every game.

It just goes to show how important having a strong squad is in modern club rugby. Take the Ospreys for example. They've been pretty dire this season, but the strength and quality of their youngsters have still let them finish in the play-off places where other teams suffered with a lack of quality whilst the internationals were away at the WC etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm not surprised by the response to this thread but am slightly saddened.

How many of us express our sympathy and sorrow when players retire prematurely from injury? This is a chance to do something about that. The sheer size of players and impact of collisions has increased the rate of wear and tear on the body a lot. I don't think its realistic to expect rugby players to keep on undergoing that at the rates they currently do in some countries. Our choices are either to limit the amount of gametime, or encourage them to lose bulk. I don't believe the latter is realistic as if one team cuts the amount of strength training and the other one doesn't, you've got a fair inkling of who's going to win their next match.

If we want these players around to entertain us then we've got to take better care of them. Right now, the only union in the NH that seems to be doing that is Ireland, and lo and behold, they have one of the lowest injury rates around at a guess. It's also resulted in more success at Domestic and European level; international level, not so much, although they don't seem to have the radical boom-or-bust of Wales who've been consistently around 4th when not winning the 6N for quite a while. In fact, before this year, Wales haven't finished above 4th since 2007-08 when they last picked up the Grand Slam, which is the last time Ireland finished below 3rd as well. Part of the reason for Wales' dodgy performances have, imo, been paper-thin depth combined with heavy attrition from injury. The depth has improved but I still think they're only a couple of injuries away from stinking the place out again.

In short, limiting player gametime means less premature player retirements, and a higher level of performance when they do play. I don't see where the downside lies. I'd agree with Olyy that it does mean central contracting. 20 games overall would be too low; I'd suggest 20 club games, not including knock-out games, would be a reasonable amount for those involved heavily in the international set-up.
 
Irish fans are really great at turning out for their regions and get some decent attendance going, whereas the Welsh regions seems to be suffering in that respect. As a result, the Irish will have a lot more money to flesh out their squads and keep hold of their best players as well as get in some decent overseas players. (Would any of the Welsh regions really have the money to bring Thorn in? And how many Irish players have gone to France?) That's why they're doing well.

Why should the clubs be spending a decent amount of time resting their best players, only for these players to be thrown about in the international arena? Why should it be the clubs that exclusively take up the burden? There is another solution to limiting gametime for injury-prone players: turn down the international teams. It's only as silly as asking players not to play for their clubs is tbh.
 
3 grand slams in 7 years can hardly be seen as boom and bust. considering in 2009 and 2011 3 teams finished on 6 points and were only seperated by points diff.

As for the Irish regions they are already heavy with non Irish players, which could be given as the reason the regions are doing better than the International side.
 
Why should the clubs be spending a decent amount of time resting their best players, only for these players to be thrown about in the international arena? Why should it be the clubs that exclusively take up the burden? There is another solution to limiting gametime for injury-prone players: turn down the international teams. It's only as silly as asking players not to play for their clubs is tbh.

Well, for one thing, if the players rest their players during the season, then they will have fresher players for the all-important playoffs and HC knockout games at the end. See Leinster's defeat of Northampton and Saracens' Premiership win for examples.

For another, international rugby is still bankrolling domestic rugby. The vast majority of professional rugby clubs cannot afford to run themselves, or at least not at their current level, without union funds. Asking players to deliberately avoid international rugby would be a very risky undertaking as it could quite easily harm the clubs due to reduced funds coming in at international level, which means reduced funds to distribute. And, from the views of the players themselves, missing out on international games is likely to hurt more financially than missing domestic games, both in terms of missing game fees and reduced endorsements, and involves missing out of the chance of a higher and more prestigious level of rugby and trophy.

In short, its simply not practical for players to turn down international games, nor for their clubs to encourage them to do so; plus the clubs do reap rewards from resting players anyway. I'm sympathetic to any argument saying that clubs should receive more money from the unions for resting players, and that money should go directly to clubs rather than getting spread evenly; any argument that players should play less internationals needs to come with plans for increased funding from other sources attached.

Irish fans are really great at turning out for their regions and get some decent attendance going, whereas the Welsh regions seems to be suffering in that respect. As a result, the Irish will have a lot more money to flesh out their squads and keep hold of their best players as well as get in some decent overseas players. (Would any of the Welsh regions really have the money to bring Thorn in? And how many Irish players have gone to France?) That's why they're doing well.

You said clubs need internationals to bring the fans in; the Irish provinces do just fine even with their internationals missing about half of the Rabble Pro season.

And yes the money helps. There's a whole host of reasons why the Irish provinces are rocking along. But that doesn't change the fact they do it while missing all the centrally contracted players for about half the Rabble Pro season. And they manage to get past the disruption with only 6 NIQ players a season too. So, it's not the end of the world. Far from it. And frankly, I think the fact their players aren't played into the ground does have at least some part in their success.

p.s. The central contract is a big part in how Ireland have kept their best players at home incidentally i.e. direct money from the Union.
 
Last edited:
p.s. The central contract is a big part in how Ireland have kept their best players at home incidentally i.e. direct money from the Union.
Not to mention the big tax breaks they receive, something we cannot copy in Wales.
 
Well the All Blacks play about 12 tests per year. A super rugby teams plays 16 regular season games in the season. A top player will probably play ten test matches and that would leave them only with ten super rugby and NPC games every season. Seeing star players out for that long will just decrease the crowds and television revenue in those competition further. I think a player should be able to play 30 games every season as a minimum.
 
Well, for one thing, if the players rest their players during the season, then they will have fresher players for the all-important playoffs and HC knockout games at the end. See Leinster's defeat of Northampton and Saracens' Premiership win for examples.
True, but unlike the top Irish regions, most of the Welsh regions simply don't have the talent in their reserves to be able to rest players without losing points during the season. Leinster on the other hand have depth to the point that their second-team would give the Pro12 a decent go, so rotation comes easy. (Just look at the position they're in despite having missed O'Driscoll for as long as they have.) If the Welsh regions rotate, they lose quality and therefore points. It doesn't matter if you've got fresher players for the playoffs if you're not in them! :p

The rest I agree with. (My suggestion to not play internationals was a little tongue-in-cheek. :p) I just think that if players are picking up a wage from their region, they should be playing for their region when necessary.) The WRU need to remember that continued long-term success at international level depends on having successful regions. Given the attendances and interest in Wales for international matches, the WRU must have the money to be able to centrally contract the talent that would be otherwise moving out of Wales. The more talent that is kept in Wales, the more quality they'll have in the reserves to be able to rotate players. Given the amount of international fixtures, and how much of a resource the Welsh players are for the WRU, it seems right that the WRU would contract some players and take some of the burden off the regions.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that the Welsh regions are having a hard enough time as it is without having to fight to make their players actually play for them.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top