I think you will find all the St. Helens players have not had a decent off season break for 3 years..................and it shows.
Its time clubs outside of Leeds and St Helens stop recruiting between 7 and 10 overseas players and contribute some home grown talent, instead of going for the short term gain.
Hopefully the no relegation policy will start to put clubs in transition for the international future of the game.

I should point out Barrett said hw went to the SL so he did not have to deal with the NRL off season, which is like an Army style boot camp

Workload could be a factor but tbh, imo it is excuse making, fair enough the English players may have played more games but at the end of the day if say a player from Saints has played 37 games, you can knock 4/5 off that total already because 1/2 were probs a Challenge Cup game vs NL2 opposistion and the best players at Saints could probably be out on the lash the night before that game and still beat them by 40 points at least. Also 3/4 games a season probs more for the Saints/Leeds contingent in the England side are played with less intensity for example and its no disrespect to a team in the lower echelons of SL here but around 9/10 times Saints play Cas how many times are Saints's players giving it 100%, probably never, more like 60%/70%. In the NRL there really are no easy beats, fair enough SL has seen a reduction in 40+ point results but you still get far more than in Aus. The competition is more intense thus a player playing 28 intense games a year is probably on the same workload as a player who played 38 games a year with around 9/10 games not at 100%.
Another problem SL has is you look at all 14 teams in the SL, how many of them have 2/3 star players, eg : 2/3 of the best 60 players in the world. I would probs say 7. In the NRL every side has at the very least 2 star names. Even NQ Cowboys who finished bottom of the NRL last year have Thurston, Penrith have Wesser, Civoiniceva. The really top sides in the NRL have say 5/6 star players, eg Melbourne - Folau, Inglis, Slater, Johnson, C Smith.

IMO many fans are understandably upset at England's failure in RLWC, but the popular reasons (that the test players are not good enough, too many overseas players in SL) merely serve to create convenient scapegoats of those players. Those reasons are excuses, at best secondary reasons.

Even if the talent pool is widened, and even if the the number of imports is reduced, unless the major problem of the season structure is addressed, nothing will change and England will still be beaten.

Player welfare is not just a physiological phenomenon, but a mental one too. England players need a 3 month off season to mentally take a break and freshen up. The 2 month offseason is inadequate compared to Australia's 3 months.

what about the chat for aussies test players before the thread being renamed

IMO SL should have 12 teams and 22 games, it seems daft playing more because it gives some teams an unfair advantage, I'd still keep the play offs as they are though.

Challenge cup from January to April, that way most teams can treat the early easy games as pre season friendlies, assuming they don't draw a decent team in which case they might need a friendly or two. Plus this means you can't just rely on hitting form around july in order to win trophys.

Add to that a mid season international friendly (ideally Lancs v Yorks but this seems to have gone down the pan so England v Ireland/Scotland/Wales/France would do.) Then a friendly just before the internationals start.

Agree with the sentiment of your post, but I would raise these points.
1. None of the 14 SL clubs will agree with a reduction in the number of teams in SL. They won't risk being relegated to the Championship. The RFL also want 14 to maintain the value of TV rights, as Sky wants to maximise coverage to increase subscriptions.
2. The clubs still need to participate in around 26 games to generate the revenue from gate takings. The trick is how to lighten the load on representative players.
3. The NRL has not staged full home and away fixtures for years, but clubs, players and fans accept it because the season would be too long.



I would definitely agree with this. However the question is whether the BBC would agree to revert the scheduling back.



This would be my model:

1) Reduce the SL to 20 rounds (from 26/27 rounds). Each club plays all the others once, half the others twice.
2) 3 weeks finals series, comprising top 6 or 8 on a straight knockout basis.
3) A European Nations Cup (either England, France and Wales playing home & away; or a 5 nations competition adding Scotland and Ireland, all nations playing each other once), then away and home test tours against Southern Hemisphere opposition.
4) Expand the Northern Rail Cup by adding SL's English clubs using their non test players. 8 pools of 4 teams This will making up shortfall of SL fixtures for the clubs, and will make the NL clubs happy. The RFU is planning something similar with an expanded Anglo Welsh Cup. Celtic Crusaders, Catalan Dragons and Toulouse could play in an NRC equivalent competition with French Division 1 and 2 clubs.
5) For the Challenge Cup resting test squad from most games involving non SL opposition, except on a case-by-case basis if they have missed a lot of games due to injury.
6) If an Anglo French test must be played mid season, stage it on a culturally significant day - either V-E Day (first week May) or D Day.

Actually, I'd revise the model:

1) Reduce the SL to 16 rounds (from 27 rounds). If SL is not expanded from 14 teams, either
a) Each club plays all the others once, three other clubs a second time. OR
b) SL is split into two conferences (east and west) of 7 clubs. Play clubs in own conference at home and away, play 4 of 7 clubs in other conference once
2) SL Finals series = 3 weekends, comprising top 7 on a straight knockout basis. The minor premiers would move straight to a semi-final as a reward for finishing top, the Quarter Finals would be 2nd vs 7th, 3rd vs 6th, 4th vs 5th. SL would run from late Feb to a Grand Final on last weekend of August.

3) The Challenge Cup (and Northern Rail Cup) would be completely revamped. The Challenge Cup would be transformed from being a knockout competition to a pool based competition only involving the 32 SL, Championship and C1 English clubs. 4 pools of 8 clubs - Lancashire and Yorkshire pools of SL clubs, Yorkshire pool of SL clubs, Lancashire and Yorkshire pools of Champ/C1 clubs. The first 8 rounds would be staged from September to October, where a SL pool would play all teams in the Champ/C1 pool of same county. So a team like Wigan would play Championship clubs west of the Pennines, such as Leigh, Widnes, Rochdale, Oldham, Workington, Whitehaven, Barrow. Leeds would play clubs like Hunslet, Dewsbury, York, Featherstone, Doncaster, Sheffield etc.

International players would not play in these rounds if they have played all SL games.

4) Rounds 9/10 would be held in late Feb and early March of next calendar season. SL clubs would play 2 other SL clubs from their pool, Champ clubs would play C1 clubs from either pool and vice versa. The top 8 clubs (invariably will be SL clubs) would go on to play in Challenge Cup QFs, SFs and Finals on three bank holiday weekends in April and May. The top 8 from Champ/C1 pools would play in Northern Rail Cup finals on the same weekends. All test players would be available for these games. The Magic weekend would be held on bank holiday weekend in early April, hosting the 4 CC Quarter Finals and 4 NRC QFs.

5) Amateur clubs would play for a national knockout trophy.

Basically, England international players could be involved in a maximum 32 games, down from the current 38 to 41 many have been involved in over the last decade:
Pre-season = 2 games
Challenge Cup last 2 regular rounds = 2 games
CC finals = 3 games
Super League = 16 games
SL finals = 3 games
(Internationals that don't play in all finals games can play in tests against France and Wales)
Roses = 2 games
Kiwis = 2 games
Kangaroos = 2 games
TOTAL = 32 games

That's just not going to happen. Clubs should be responsible for resting players througout the year, problem solved.
In a few years we'll go to about 16 clubs, 2 conferences - h&a your conferene, alternate the other conference, 22 games + magic if need be, playoffs, cup and internationals, 34 tops.

It should happen if England want a chance of winning a trophy in Rugby League. In Rugby Union, national governing bodies manage their players to achieve domestic and international success:
* Australia's ARU centrally contract its national team players, the Wallabies, plays them in Super 14, but mostly rests them from NSW/QLD club Rugby.
* New Zealand's NZRU centrally contract its national team players, the All Blacks, plays them in Super 14, but mostly rests them from the older, traditional National Provincial Championship.
* South Africa's SARU contracts its Springboks, who play Super 14, but miss games of the century old Currie Cup tournament when they are on Tri Nations duty.
* England's RFU made a deal with Premiership clubs for release of players for the test team, as I said [url=http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showpost.php?p=6569959&postcount=46on League Unlimited[/url





The clubs don't rest the players now, even when the result is not in doubt. Last weekend, most SL clubs selected their England test players, even in games against Championship clubs.
* Wigan 2009 England internationals Sam Tomkins and Sean O'Loughlin to beat Widnes 64-10.
* Leeds picked internationals Sinfield, Peacock, Hall, Smith against Blackpool! Result 70-22
* Bradford picked England 2009 back Paul Sykes for the 58-16 win over Leigh.



With at least 2 pre-season games, 22 SL games, 4 SL finals, 5 Challenge Cup games, 1 mid-season test, 1 post-season warm up test and 4 Four Nations tests, a player could play up to 39 matches. Still little improvement.

Its a huge improvement, they play 5 less league games!
Plus the international players dont tend to play in all the pre season games as they're still in r+r lastly any players in the GF dont play in the warm up test, so.. no. Adding to that the chances of any player playing in all playoff/final and CC games year after year is slim. Make no mistake, it's the 27 league games we need to cut down really.
Or just be smarter in your rotation which some coaches can do.

Why do you think that a restructuring of SL and the Challenge Cup, as recommended, is "just not going to happen"? Super League switched the elite game to summer in 1996. The Challenge Cup switched to summer in 2003. Both were enormous moves that would have been unthinkable. Nevertheless, they happened. If English Rugby Union could do it with the Anglo Welsh Cup (which runs on November test and Six Nations weekends, and thus has no access to test players), that provides even more precedent for the RFL.



It would still yield more fixtures than NRL players would be subjected to. In any event, the SL clubs need at least 13 fixtures at home to meet their financial obligations, so that's why they have not agreed before to reduce to 22 fixtures.



The club coaches will only rotate players if it benefits them or their club, or doesn't affect their chances of maximising their play-off place. So basically, if they are outright leaders in SL, they may consider it. A club coach won't do it for the test team's interest. So the responsibility for rotation would be left to the national team coach, which would not work - he can't rest any players against Aus or NZ.



Test players need to not be involved in 27 league games for their club. I have counted the large number of England/GB players whose season workload has approached or exceeded 40 games.

Australian, NZ, South African and Japan Rugby Union players all play a 13 game regular season in the SANZAR Super 14 and Japan Top League (features former RL players like Roosters/Souths/Kangaroo test utility Craig Wing plays, former Cronulla/Tonga back Fraser Anderson, and was to feature Benji Marshall in an off-season stint). Super Rugby will move to 16 regular round games in 2011 with the introduction of conferences. There is precedent in Rugby for a 16 round SL and 10 round Challenge Cup.

fact - the Tomkins brothers plus O'Loughlin all played for Wigan against Trinity 24 hours after the England v France match !

And the point being made is what?

have 16 teams and play 22 regular super league rounds with a 8 team playoff and use the nrl style playoff its simple, leave the challenge cup as it is,no trial games. we need more international games simple as, if we want domestic rugby league to improve then we need to concentrate on the international scence. if one day we can get to a point were the international game is strong has a good structure and nations are playing games all the time throughout the year then the reputation of the game will improve and our domestic comps will improve dramatically. at some time during the season june july time we need a 4week break were we have just international games for the 4 weeks all over the world. i would have the a tri nations against new zealand and austrlia and play as great brtain that way players like brough ect might just stick with there countries.also then this gives people the chance to see us play as great britain as some people prefer it as great britain.
at the same time we can have a european 5 nations of england,wales,france,scotland,ireand play eachother once and thats 4 weeks. also at the same time a pacific 5 nations comp of samoa,tonga,fiji,papa new guniea and the cooks,again thats 4 weeks with the team at top winning. i deffo think that this would work because for 4 weeks theres no super league,nrl or whatever its just international so theres no hassle about players missing super league games ect also for the fans its not about picking and chosing games like it has this week they would be no domestic games whatsoever so the tri nations and the 5 nations would well be supported with good marketing and ticket offers. i also think that players like brough if not selected for great britain then they would play for scotland same with all the pacific sides if not selected for aussie or new zealand they would play for the other countries in the pacific 5 nations. i also think that people would take to it as it would be competitive all the games and both 5 nations , the england side would be made up of young good talent.

no point whatsoever,just an observation
professionals constantly gripe they have to play too many matches in the season etc etc it doesn't stop them playing two games in two days does it ?
are we trying to make life easier for our SL players or not ? it seems incredulous that the club and the rfl allow them to play so soon after an international
can't see any point in england playing against the other home countries,unless it's the second team - potentially even more pointless encounters imo - remember the previous england v wales match ?
speaking of young good english talent - many good young Academy players on show against the french last week - the future IS bright so give them a chance to flourish in the SL at the expense of some of the overseas 'stars' maybe ?

I do not think it was any coincidence that Locky went off after 10 minutes and did not return yesterday with a quad strain.

The players, national coach and the RFL want the players to turn out for the national team. Presumably the clubs agree to release players yet ask that the players return to club duty immediately. Ideally, national team duty should take priority over club Rugby, which should include getting a proper. In reality, the opposite occurs. The clubs control the game, and feel that as they pay the players, they s.



Not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure to what depth the clubs or the RFL have considered the issue. I doubt they have analysed the issue to the extent that various Rugby Union authorities have. Jamie Peacock has called for a reduction in fixtures for elite players, his calls were rejected yet not really addressed.



It does seem incredulous, but players are currently primarily paid by the clubs, and want them on deck as much as possible in order to win as many Super League fixtures as possible. If the player is not obviously unable to play, then they would want him to play, and they would see it as their right to play him.

A major change in mindset is required that the competition structures need to be geared towards helping the national team win. However, the RFL may need to offer significant financial incentives to the clubs to produce players for the national team, and to compensate the clubs for giving them up for test duty.
[url=http://www.buzzle.com/articles/161576.htmlRugby union: A complex 8 year deal between clubs and the RFU covering the country's top players[/url

So what kind of debrief and video analysis session did England's players get to go over their performances on Saturday?

Presumably most of them will have been straight out of the changing rooms and off back to their clubs. Would it have been such a disaster if they had stayed together as a squad for another 24 hours to review the game and take on board any relevant points about their own and collective performances?

The French team is on a hiding to nothing in this mid-season fixture - Super League based players are worked into the grounds by the cumulative effects of a gruelling Super League schedule, season after season, as [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/2010/02/14/super-12-row-115875-22041251/senior figures like Jamie Peacock identified[/url:



The logic is the same for the French trying to compete with England. French test players (as well as England and Wales test players) should only be playing 16 Super League fixtures (rather than 27), with a maximum of 30 games over the course of a season, 32 at the absolute most. Unfortunately, in recent seasons, leading senior players are overworked and the effect on them is being blunted, ineffective and eventually breaking down with injury, e.g. these are the game workloads for leading French players, not including pre-season games:
* 2008 - Raguin and Bosc played in at least 35 games, Mounis in at least 34 games, Casty in 32 games.
* 2007 - Ferriol, Gossard and Rinaldi played in at least 33 games, probably in 35.
* 2006 - Jamal Fakir played in at least 35 games and unsurprisingly suffered a major knee injury in his last. Fellous played in at least 34 games, Guisset in at least 33 games, Mounis played in at least 32 games.

The lack of attention to manage player welfare and workload leads to players breaking down, and the huge injury list before this match exemplifies that fact. Super League's international players receive a more gruelling schedule and workload than any other nation in Rugby League OR Rugby Union, largely due to an excessive schedule of club games. Leading South African Sports Scientist Tim Noakes the studied the issue of workload in detail, consulted with the SA cricket and Rugby Union national teams, and his advice to the Springboks helped them win the Rugby World Cup. He has constantly championed the need for easing the burden on players to avoid burnout and injury, such as [url=http://www.keo.co.za/2006/05/23/noakes-burnout-will-sink-boks/all-comments/#commentsBurnout will sink Boks[/url:



The precise recommendation for workload is at [url=http://www.keo.co.za/2009/05/26/noakes-rotation-will-be-key/Noakes - Rotation will be key[/url



Furthermore, the FFR based players are also asked to play this game at the end of a long season, and these players would also be tired and jaded.

Agreed, a proper debrief would have been helpful, as would a proper rest, and not having to back up that weekend.

Don't change the season, just require that no player should play more than 90% of the League fixtures, pre playoffs. This would mean that all coaches would know that they have to rest all their players at least three times through the season, which means rotation and greater use of academy players - which is good for burnout and good for developing talent.

The problem is that clubs will either not agree to rotate players, or they might initially agree but backtrack from the agreement. Why would clubs want to? Resting international players from SL games might mean the difference between winning and losing games, making the finals or not, securing a home final or not, and ultimately a coach, coaching staff, players or administrators keeping their job or losing it. IMO the only time a club will consider resting players (if they are uninjured) is if they lead the competition and have no risk of losing the lead. So, as long as SL clubs are scheduled to play so many times against other SL clubs, they will want their stars on deck. Their other options would be to sign more overseas players to fill the gaps, and ask them to not play test matches, and to refuse release for international teams that aren't England. Neither option is good for RL.

They may consider resting star players against semi professional opposition.

I wasn't limiting this rule to internationals, make it a rule for all players. If you make this the rule, same for all, from pre-season, then coaches know that they have to play their academy players a minimum of 60 times through the season (based on a 20 man squad), more if there are injuries. This means the coach has to focus on bringing through talent and developing the academy players. It means that (say) Leeds would play more academy players against (say) Salford meaning closer games, as well as less player burnout and more time for developing academy players. The only difficulty is getting the clubs to agree, which is easy - just make it a condition of the next license agreement.
Oh, and this would only count for SL matches. Yes, International players would play more matches than non-internationals, such is life. You can't field your academy side in a CC match against a C1 side, drat. Yes, if your club do well in the Cup you play more matches. I bet most SOO players complain about the extra matches and ask for time off?