I am sure this subject will come up by the time the millenium matches are over, but what would your stance be on putting players out in pre-season friendlies ?

At the start of every season we have excuses about "being a bit underdone" or players "not yet match fit", yet we pass up the chance to give top players an extended run-out in the friendlies.
Isn't that what they are there for ?

Yes, we can get injuries (like last time we went to Donny), but you can get injured in any match so on that basis you wouldn't play top players in [uany[/u game !

I just think in these days of only 27 league games, 1 cup competition, and then playoffs we should play a top team as much as possible pre-season (at least 2 half games) so that we are up to speed before we go down to Cardiff.

Remember if you hear the words "a bit under done" from Agar, you heard it here first !!

Friendlies are all about getting players a little bit match fitter as well as fine tuning a few other things they have been working on in training. If you are not going to give your starting 13/17 a run out then they are pointless.

I said this last year too (and possibly the year before). If we've only got 2 friendlies before the season starts, we need to get the players who will start the season out on the park playing together.

No offence to the young players but I don't want to travel to a friendly to watch the under 20s. Yes there's a risk of injury but get the first choice 17 match practice together.

Will the new owners of the SMC let us have a home game next year??

It isn't an SMC issue, Agar doesn't hold much value in the games so I doubt we'd ever play anyone that would attract a viable crowd.

You haven't forgotten we played RH's testemonial have you?

agree with that, if we where to have 4 friendlies then maybe try a few combinations, but with only the 2 we have got to get our starting 17 some game time together, for however long that starting 17 stays the same which i doubt will be long. ( no pun intended! )

so to answer the original question, yes definately friendlies, its gutting if you lose someone to injury in a game but its the chance thats got to be taken.

Never in a million years if it were my choice, the risks far outweigh the positives from a friendly however there are other boardroom deals behind these games which dictate they must go ahead AND with a decent squad on show!!
but if it were me it would be match number one is first run out not friendlies, there is no such thing as a friendly in RL and thats the problem

So you would be happier if we run out at Cardiff against Rovers with no match practice whatsoever? You can only do so much in training and it still takes a fair few games to get match fit.

players need game time before the season starts, personally i dont go to friendlies because they are just glorified training sessions (unless its a players testamonial then i make the effort). ive said in another thread somewhere and i'll say it again, i would get rid of the friendlies and bring back the county cups as a pre season warm up tornement(s), if a team got knocked out in the 1st round they could arrange friendly matches against another team that also got knocked out if they wished. there would be more silverware in the game and teams would be well and truly warmed up for the season proper.

These games will be good to get our backup half backs working together.

For me our 1st team squad need to all play in both friendlies if they aren't injured. If we want to give the kids a go too we need to arrange a 3rd friendly.

The only purpose friendlies serve for me, as a supporter, is an extra opportunity to see the team, even if it's only half a team. I fully agree with Neil Hudgell's view expressed on RH that 13 guaranteed home games a season is not enough - only one a month over the year. He meant it from a financial perspective, but from my point of view [uas a supporter[/u, I do think we could have a longer league season, in the context of the old days of the floodlit trophy, regal trophy etc. Maybe this is clouded by our early exits from the cup/play-offs. Whilst I love lots of things about the modern game, including summer rugby, Friday nights, a gazillion interchanges etc, I certainly wouldn't complain with a few more home matches each season. The players probably wouldn't be happy but it would also test depth of squad and potentially give more opportunities for young, emerging players.

I like the idea of the return of the County cups. It would allow players to get match fit for Super League in meaningful matches. The fans would have something to look forward to early in the season and it could be financially beneficial to Championship clubs if they get a home draw against a big Super League club.
Plus it gives Rovers and Hull a realistic chance to win something without having to worry about Wigan, Wire and Saints.

even with friendlies players are still a way off match fit however the time in wales has been constant simulation senarios day after day so the lads are as match fit as they could be right now !!, there is sometimes a lot of kudos placed on this "gotta be match fit" illusion however at Pro level most lads who look after themselves could play a decent game after a decent warm up for 30 mins never mind friendlies... just my opinion however most players hate friendlies because of the risk for no real reward if that makes sense

Got to agree with you there a floodlit cup sounds a good idea with all matches played at night!!! that would be fun huh and most clubs could handle that with todays floodlighting systems , its a wonder nobody thought of that before but a great idea !!

That completely contradicts itself. It starts by saying even with friendlies players don't reach match fitness but progresses to "some players can play decent with only a 30 minute warm up"

Couldn't be done at the start of the season but I'd like to see that Super league vs the NRL series done again sometime to see how our game has progressed against their's.

just go to the away games as well and you get 27 games like a lot of us do more than enough for most supporters I would say. whilst I can see the point from a financial point of view the last thing we need is a longer season we are kicking friendlies off in january and not finishing internationals while the middle of november in one of the most physically demanding sports in the world, do you really think fans would be happy watching their team lose with young lads filling in for injured stars????

Yes it takes a fair few matches to get match fit, however a team that have played a couple of good friendlies are going to be going into the first game of the season better prepared than a team who have only done training. It is also most likely why we see a fair few upsets in the early rounds of SL as well.

As for players hating friendlies, that strikes me as strange because when i played (not at a pro level) i wanted to play all the time regardless of the match/oppenent etc. In fact I am pretty sure Longy says something similar in his book. A game is a game and like you said there is no such thing as a friendly.

I do, thanks. Still only one game a fortnight over a year, much less than football with league, cup, league cup etc, although I appreciate it's a much more physical game.

The season runs from mid Feb to early September for teams not in the play-offs, that's less than 7 months, with 4 weeks off during the season for the cup if you're out in the first round plus a mid season international. The vast majority of players are not involved in internationals at the end of the season.


I think with more fixtures, there would be more squad rotation and more opportunities for homegrown academy players. I can see why this doesn't appeal to you however.

No i've got to disagree with you there and this is not a rovers v hull point scoring fest, I know there are a lot of people on these boards who have played the game as well as football as have I in the past to some level or another, I'm sure most will tell you it takes its toll over a full season as it is . Throwing youngsters in who are not ready due to injuries does nobody any good and there is plenty of evidence of that since relegation was scrapped imho (a move I was bitterly opposed to despite being a red and white).

I think it's folly to suggest this will encourage squad rotation as we are in a results business and for pretty much everyone in the league apart from yourselves and leeds (and I'm not 100% about them) a long losing run would almost definately mean a drop in attendances and hence revenue. When you then add in the salary cap it makes squad rotation a no no for most coaches if you want a competitive team.

As for your point about most players wont make the playoffs or play internationals so get 5 months off, the Rugby league have a commitment to expanding the international game so more and more players are playing in internationals (albeit tenuously for ireland, scotland etc.) and more and more players are having clean up surgery on wear and tear in the close season probably than ever before as the game has got quicker over the years, this surely is an another indicator of how the length of season is more than enough.

How many games did we used to play on average in a season when there were 4 competitions, with far fewer interchanges and players with much lower fitness levels than we had today? It's a serious question, I don't know the answer.

I don't understand the point you're making about a losing run being bad for a team only in the scenario where more games are played. Clubs have differing levels of injuries now and would if there were more games. Why would a level playing field be suddenly removed if we played 4 more games a season, for example? It's nonsense. The only supporting argument might be that clubs with a genuine commitment to homegrown players would have potentially a greater pool of reserves to call on than one simply naming academy players in a first team squad, avoiding playing them at all costs, then getting rid each year to repeat the following season, but that's a good thing, surely, encouraging a broader squad?

As said already, as a fan I'd like to see more home games than 13. As also said, I suspect the players wouldn't. It would bring more money in, though. Hence why your chairman is such a big advocate of it.

Like I say, I would put the best possible team out in both. The "squad" players get plenty of practice in the "academy" games anyway, and they don't really count for much.

I guess I started this debate at odds with Agar because I think they ARE worth putting the best team out for, yet Agar consistently fails to do so then complains after the first match that we were "underdone".

If full time professionals cannot front up for 30 games a season then there has to be something wrong with them.

As I said - just wait for Agar's "underdone" excuse to trot out again this year !

i think 2 friendlies against a super league team and a top championship team with our best say 18,19 players and then maybe another game for the fringe players in the squad or players that need game time and the young first teamers with the rest of squad made up from players in the 20s against a side like donny

Totally agree with this...Injuries are part and parcel of the game, they can happen in training. Friendlies are hit outs and are an absolute must, even if the players get 20 mins they need to get the hits.