Whilst I don't agree with him on reducing, and I too get a little bit tired of hearing about it all the time. Have you ever thought that as the National captain, and the most respected player in the English game, that he is a voice for other players, rather than just himself?

Who wouldn’t want the same pay for less work?!

I get the impression from the article that this is Peacocks own thoughts on the matter. Other players will no doubt agree, but perhaps they are the ones who are playing international Rugby League, where as the others who are not quite good enough to reach that level are more the happy with how things are, particularly if the players were to take a reduction in wages to reflect the change in workload.

Personally, having seen a lot of interviews with Peacock - I think the man should stick to what he's good at and try not to think about the ins and outs of running a league.

While I don't mean to sound disrespectful to players of that day.. It's not the same.
One simple thing that makes the modern day game impossible to back up three times over a weekend is the HUGE differences in impact between muscle on muscle and fat on fat, people talk about the differences in speed but for me that's the single biggest reason.

Last season, Eddie asked Stevo during a game how his generation of players coped with the schedule and he replied 'we were playing for fun'. He probably didn't quite mean it as it sounds, but his point was that there wasn't the intensity to matches that we see these days.

More lardy pies, not fewer games.

I wonder if players would take less cash for fewer games? I'd take a 20% pay cut for a 4 day week.

Perhaps individual players should be limited to 20 regular season SL games, each season. Coaches would have to manage their squads carefully, it'd give kids more chances and even out the injury curse variable a bit.
The fear would be that fans would pay full whack, and not feel they were getting their money's worth. And coaches sacrificing games they thought they'd lose anyway - Leeds (or whoever happens to be strong at the time) might spend half their season playing virtual reserve teams.

who? when? links to quotes??

i mentioned the players

im not going to waste time with links.

im guessing you just forgot the comments in the wake of leeds beating you in the GF.

Graham, Wilkin and Cunningham wasn't it?
And my god didn't they moan, the argument has real credibility but there's just nothing they can do other than be well rested by the coach.

jeeze thats twice in 24 hours youve agreed with me.

those 3 moaned about the Magic Weekend - and Wilkin had a whinge about cameras being in the dressing room at the GF.

Never to my recollection has any Saints player complained about having to play in the GF depsite winning the league. It would be slightly ironic seeing as though Saints were the first team to win the GF after not finishing top of the league.

as i've said, all the players named (except Wilkin) have benefited from the GF and play off system rewarding the team not finishing top becoming champions.

Pryce benefitted more than any other, in 2005 when Bradford finished 3rd in the league and won the GF.

So unless you can provide links/quotes - stop making things up.

Wilkin has voiced his opinion about how the team finishing top of the league should be given more prominence and that the playoffs are too heavily weighted

I dont remember that, but even if it did happen - it is hardly on the scale of:

[i"the saints players who used to whinge about having to play in the GF after coming first in the league"[/i

not surprised.

He said:



[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/2009/10/03/wilkin-stop-this-play-off-hype-115875-21718885/LINK[/url

Which isn't what the moaning get above stated. That is Wilkin moaning that LEEDS didn't get the credit for finishing top.

lol

so nothing at all like whinging about having to play the GF after coming first in the league.

[i"the saints players who used to whinge about having to play in the GF after coming first in the league"[/i

Quite, it is clarifying what Hopie said, which was what I was referring to

If you reduce the number of teams to 10 then how would the new kids break through? There would be huge competition for squad places. You would also probably have a club squad outside the top league which would be a better side than all but 3 of the national squads in the world! Madness!

Less games = shorter season = people cancelling their sky sports subscription earlier = Less money.

I think he's had 1 too many blows to the head!

Agree with Mild Rover that the number of games each player plays in should be limited.
That would ensure clubs developed their youth system fully so the younger players coming in would be of the right calibre.
If the number of games for each player was limited clubs could play more games!

In theory, if player burnout is a major issue, then the international players could perhaps be limited to 20 games per season with the RFL (that is if they ever started crapping money) compensating the clubs with the wages of the players when they are unavailable because of such a limit.

This would ensure the best players are ‘protected’ from playing too many games without taking a pay cut and the youngsters waiting to take the places of the top players get their chance. It also removes the possibility of smaller clubs saving their best players for when the play each other and then resting players when they play Leeds which a blanket 20 game limit wouldn’t.

But this is only in theory, I’ve no idea whether this would ever be viable.

If He cant handle the demand of the modern day player why doesn't he just retire

Or ask for his contract to be renegotiated and go part-time.

To be honest.
I'd like to see two more subs added to the bench.
It would mean less game time for certain players who are being run into the ground, we all know who they are but I'd like to see a requirement that two must be under 21/3/whatever