Relegation, Play-Offs and player burn-out
There are four commonly discussed subjects, which I believe are all interrelated and should be discussed together. The four topics are; the play off system we have in place for the Premiership, relegation from the Premiership, club versus country and player burn out.
The competing demands are from fans, clubs, the RFU and players. Fans want to see as many meaningful matches at the highest level featuring their club and their country. Clubs are businesses and want as many high paying games as they can get to maximise their profit, winning is only a means to an end. The RFU is also a business, its team is England, and they have the same motive as the clubs. The players want to both maximise their earnings, whilst enjoying what they do, and at the same time play at the highest level possible.
The current conflicts arise because Clubs and the RFU are trying to play as many games as possible without regard to each other. They have forged limited agreements but with no real solution in place. In the middle of this the players are playing more and more games to satisfy their teams, and the fans are just taking what they are given.
The intensity of the modern games is as much, if not more, of a problem than the number of games, but I can't see how to mitigate the intensity so I think the solution is to increase the off-season recovery time; more time for recovery and less games. We are also at the point of fixture overload and so I think it is time for the number of fixtures to be reduced. The current limit is 32 games over 44(ish) weeks. I hope and believe we will organise a shorter, but more sensible season; 40 weeks for international players, 30 for the rest with around 25-30 games allowed per player. This would require a structured season, simultaneously solving the club v country row. I favour the escalation model; national leagues followed by European Cup followed by internationals. To do this the Premiership would be split in to two conferences of eight, with a play-off. The best nine teams from the premiership, Celtic league and the French league all go in to the European cup, joined by two Italian teams, the finalists of last years cup and the winner of last years challenge cup. This gives 32 teams with possibly 12 coming from one league. It also makes the Celtic league competitive, as Borders and Connacht will be allowed to qualify if they are placed high enough.
I don't sit on the board of any clubs so I am not sure what the break even points are, but my understanding is that the fractured season is also a problem. If fans know that every fortnight there will be a home game, then the clubs will be happy, with a slightly expanded European cup clubs could expect to have at least 12 home games a season with a break for the autumn internationals. As for who goes in which league, I would probably seed them 1,4,6,7, etc. and 2,3,5,8, etc. possibly have a full tournament with bowl and plate competition to be played for at the end of season, and complete the seedings for next year.
If we structured the season as suggested the play-offs would make sense and so would be considered fair. A play-off makes sense in a Super 12/14 style round robin contest, or in an NFL conference scenario. I had the view that when play-offs were introduced that it was a stepping stone to either of the above variations, and now I believe that European rugby is the priority and so the league is the tournament to lose out. Currently the play-offs make little sense compared to a full 22 match, home and away contest. However, I still think that coming top of the league no longer makes you champions. This is because teams do react differently to crucial games once they are safe at the top. So in effect the playoffs devalue the the league, but make for a great spectacle. Shawn Edwards was complaining that he gave away players during the international period and so the league is not fair, but most top clubs are equally punished for their success, being a Tigers fan, I know a good squad can see you through.
I usually see three reasons given for ending relegation, in reverse order:
It will end the importing of non-English qualified players
It will prevent poor performance due to fear of relegation
It will provide sound financial footing to develop club
Only in sport am I a red blooded capitalist; if you're not good enough you're out. The business case for ending relegation is a shoddy self serving pile of nonsense. If you manage your business well you base you expenditure on your income, at the moment too many clubs are basing future plans on variable income gained from playing in Europe, RFU handouts and so on. In my view the cheapest way to get a good team is to bring on your own youngsters, the best way to get youngsters involved is to get parents to watch the game. If your attendance goes up, then your reliable income goes up, your player base goes up and you can start to put together a good cheap, English qualified team.
I feel the real problem is even standards amongst the premiership teams and the step down in standards to the next division, the way to cure this is to expand the Premiership in the manor described before, and extend support down the leagues. Once we have a more structured season, where club and country do not overlap then clubs will feel less need to offload their England players and replace them with overseas retirees. If we have a larger Premiership then there will be a larger spread of ability and a smoother drop in ability to the lower divisions. The salary cap has been great in producing a level playing field, but it is really there to prevent individual clubs committing financial suicide in the manner of Richmond, and to this extent it has been good. I wouldn't increase the salary cap too much, perhaps introduce a variable element based on attendance. If it there is no limit I think more squad rotation would occur, whereas I would like to see a 1st XV every week. I quite like the competitiveness that the salary cap has brought, just add a structured season which should make current internationals more appealing.
If we ring fence the premiership what are we to do if say Leeds or perhaps Newcastle are not in the league, what chance have we got of developing players in those areas? At the moment teams in the Devon and Cornwall area are developing players, and that investment is coming because the teams believe they have a chance of Premiership action. Of course, teams like Bath and Bristol will look to exploit the huge player base in neighbouring areas, but why not spread the cost to local teams with ambition? It is better to to let local teams develop a local audience, as I said above this is the best way to increase the player base and improve English rugby for all.
I won't accuse the club owners of lining their own pockets, because they have lost millions, but that is their choice. If clubs use the turnover from reliable sources to fund the teams, and use the extras funds to build the club infrastructure and club support, then I think they will balance the books, and I am sure they will tell me I don't know what I am talking about :-)
One further point on relegation; I often hear and read that fear of losing causes negative play. Surely a coach would demand better rugby from the team if they are struggling? Or am I a wild eyed optimist?
I know the RFU occasionally touts a franchise system as an alternative. I wonder what they would think it good if the IRB took the same view of internationals.
Clearly the top ten teams (Six Nations& Tri-Nations & Argentina) need to located in the largest populations, with the richer North America and Europe having two teams, the countries ranked 11 to 20 would be merged with them:
The France & Portugal would become the “Cockerels” and would represent Western Europe
The Italy & Romania would become the “Blues” and would represent Eastern Europe
The Wales & Georgia would become the “Reds” and would represent Russia
The Ireland & Canada would become the “Clovers” and would represent East Coast North America
The Australia & Samoa would become the “Islanders” and Would represent the Pacific
The New Zealand & USA would become the “Ferns” and would represent West Coast North America
The South African & Tonga would become the “Cheetahs” and would represent Africa
The Argentina & Uruguay would become the “Pumas” and would represent South America
The England & Fiji would become the “Roses” and would represent India
The Scotland & Japan would become the “Heathers” and would represent China
Go Cockerels!
The competing demands are from fans, clubs, the RFU and players. Fans want to see as many meaningful matches at the highest level featuring their club and their country. Clubs are businesses and want as many high paying games as they can get to maximise their profit, winning is only a means to an end. The RFU is also a business, its team is England, and they have the same motive as the clubs. The players want to both maximise their earnings, whilst enjoying what they do, and at the same time play at the highest level possible.
The current conflicts arise because Clubs and the RFU are trying to play as many games as possible without regard to each other. They have forged limited agreements but with no real solution in place. In the middle of this the players are playing more and more games to satisfy their teams, and the fans are just taking what they are given.
The intensity of the modern games is as much, if not more, of a problem than the number of games, but I can't see how to mitigate the intensity so I think the solution is to increase the off-season recovery time; more time for recovery and less games. We are also at the point of fixture overload and so I think it is time for the number of fixtures to be reduced. The current limit is 32 games over 44(ish) weeks. I hope and believe we will organise a shorter, but more sensible season; 40 weeks for international players, 30 for the rest with around 25-30 games allowed per player. This would require a structured season, simultaneously solving the club v country row. I favour the escalation model; national leagues followed by European Cup followed by internationals. To do this the Premiership would be split in to two conferences of eight, with a play-off. The best nine teams from the premiership, Celtic league and the French league all go in to the European cup, joined by two Italian teams, the finalists of last years cup and the winner of last years challenge cup. This gives 32 teams with possibly 12 coming from one league. It also makes the Celtic league competitive, as Borders and Connacht will be allowed to qualify if they are placed high enough.
I don't sit on the board of any clubs so I am not sure what the break even points are, but my understanding is that the fractured season is also a problem. If fans know that every fortnight there will be a home game, then the clubs will be happy, with a slightly expanded European cup clubs could expect to have at least 12 home games a season with a break for the autumn internationals. As for who goes in which league, I would probably seed them 1,4,6,7, etc. and 2,3,5,8, etc. possibly have a full tournament with bowl and plate competition to be played for at the end of season, and complete the seedings for next year.
If we structured the season as suggested the play-offs would make sense and so would be considered fair. A play-off makes sense in a Super 12/14 style round robin contest, or in an NFL conference scenario. I had the view that when play-offs were introduced that it was a stepping stone to either of the above variations, and now I believe that European rugby is the priority and so the league is the tournament to lose out. Currently the play-offs make little sense compared to a full 22 match, home and away contest. However, I still think that coming top of the league no longer makes you champions. This is because teams do react differently to crucial games once they are safe at the top. So in effect the playoffs devalue the the league, but make for a great spectacle. Shawn Edwards was complaining that he gave away players during the international period and so the league is not fair, but most top clubs are equally punished for their success, being a Tigers fan, I know a good squad can see you through.
I usually see three reasons given for ending relegation, in reverse order:
It will end the importing of non-English qualified players
It will prevent poor performance due to fear of relegation
It will provide sound financial footing to develop club
Only in sport am I a red blooded capitalist; if you're not good enough you're out. The business case for ending relegation is a shoddy self serving pile of nonsense. If you manage your business well you base you expenditure on your income, at the moment too many clubs are basing future plans on variable income gained from playing in Europe, RFU handouts and so on. In my view the cheapest way to get a good team is to bring on your own youngsters, the best way to get youngsters involved is to get parents to watch the game. If your attendance goes up, then your reliable income goes up, your player base goes up and you can start to put together a good cheap, English qualified team.
I feel the real problem is even standards amongst the premiership teams and the step down in standards to the next division, the way to cure this is to expand the Premiership in the manor described before, and extend support down the leagues. Once we have a more structured season, where club and country do not overlap then clubs will feel less need to offload their England players and replace them with overseas retirees. If we have a larger Premiership then there will be a larger spread of ability and a smoother drop in ability to the lower divisions. The salary cap has been great in producing a level playing field, but it is really there to prevent individual clubs committing financial suicide in the manner of Richmond, and to this extent it has been good. I wouldn't increase the salary cap too much, perhaps introduce a variable element based on attendance. If it there is no limit I think more squad rotation would occur, whereas I would like to see a 1st XV every week. I quite like the competitiveness that the salary cap has brought, just add a structured season which should make current internationals more appealing.
If we ring fence the premiership what are we to do if say Leeds or perhaps Newcastle are not in the league, what chance have we got of developing players in those areas? At the moment teams in the Devon and Cornwall area are developing players, and that investment is coming because the teams believe they have a chance of Premiership action. Of course, teams like Bath and Bristol will look to exploit the huge player base in neighbouring areas, but why not spread the cost to local teams with ambition? It is better to to let local teams develop a local audience, as I said above this is the best way to increase the player base and improve English rugby for all.
I won't accuse the club owners of lining their own pockets, because they have lost millions, but that is their choice. If clubs use the turnover from reliable sources to fund the teams, and use the extras funds to build the club infrastructure and club support, then I think they will balance the books, and I am sure they will tell me I don't know what I am talking about :-)
One further point on relegation; I often hear and read that fear of losing causes negative play. Surely a coach would demand better rugby from the team if they are struggling? Or am I a wild eyed optimist?
I know the RFU occasionally touts a franchise system as an alternative. I wonder what they would think it good if the IRB took the same view of internationals.
Clearly the top ten teams (Six Nations& Tri-Nations & Argentina) need to located in the largest populations, with the richer North America and Europe having two teams, the countries ranked 11 to 20 would be merged with them:
The France & Portugal would become the “Cockerels” and would represent Western Europe
The Italy & Romania would become the “Blues” and would represent Eastern Europe
The Wales & Georgia would become the “Reds” and would represent Russia
The Ireland & Canada would become the “Clovers” and would represent East Coast North America
The Australia & Samoa would become the “Islanders” and Would represent the Pacific
The New Zealand & USA would become the “Ferns” and would represent West Coast North America
The South African & Tonga would become the “Cheetahs” and would represent Africa
The Argentina & Uruguay would become the “Pumas” and would represent South America
The England & Fiji would become the “Roses” and would represent India
The Scotland & Japan would become the “Heathers” and would represent China
Go Cockerels!
posted by AJ Thomas at
1:06 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home