Wednesday 7 June 2017 20:47, UK
How many games should we have in a season? How many weeks should they be spread out over? It's not just in rugby league that fans, players, coaches and club owners are discussing this topic.
It is one that is currently being debated in rugby union as well and the problem is that there always seems to be several competing interests. We've been lucky in rugby league that we have never really had a major battle between club and country for the players, although the latest problem was caused by the World Cup camp that never happened.
It is generally accepted in rugby league that a team should play one game a week in the season, it seems to suit all the parties mentioned above but how many weeks should it go for and who knows if it is in fact dangerous to play more than one game a week? Is the risk a short-term one of pulling a muscle or a longer term one of serious joint damage? What is the risk and how much does it increase if you play two games in a week?
I have followed the game quite closely now for a long time and have never seen a report or study from the RFL which shows whether or not we get an increase in injuries after the Easter weekend. Is it a myth or does it lead to more injuries?
Some players get seriously injured in pre-season training, how does that compare? I can understand and appreciate how physically demanding a game must be on the players. I also know what a short-term increase in the physical workload can do to the body, but when will we see some evidence to say what is "safe" for the modern-day player? This could open up a can of worms I suppose, how long will it be before you say that one game in a week is not safe?
At the moment, the top players are asked to compete in 36 games a season for their club (maximum of 32 in Super League and a possible four more in the Challenge Cup). I spent this week asking several people within the game what they thought the perfect season would be and most of them said that ideally we should be working towards a 32 game season (13 home and away games in Super League , two play-off games including the Grand Final, plus a possible four more in the Cup).
Most of the criticism of the three games in eight, nine or 10 days that teams have recently played has come from the coaches and not the players. Is this because the players don't want to publicly complain or because they don't have as big a problem with it as their coach does?
I followed the NRL club team selection last week after the first game of the State of Origin series with interest. It had been possibly the most physically demanding game in the history of the sport and yet just two or three days later most of the players backed up and played for their club sides. I understand the gladiatorial nature of the game and the psychology of a player who wishes to play whenever he possibly can, but are some of the coaches in this country saying that they would not have selected their Origin players if they had already played in an Origin game mid-week?
It would be interesting if the RFL did conduct a private and anonymous questionnaire with all the players to listen to their thoughts on the subject, they may have already done it. Commentators, coaches, fans and people like me have their say on player welfare when really none of us play anymore. Without the players we have no game, so we need to get better at listening.
If the RFL do send out a questionnaire then I would like to add my question at the bottom of the list.
Let's just imagine that the NRL season is played at the opposite time of the year to the Super League one (as it used to before the game switched to a summer season in the UK).
"Would you take up an off-season contract with an NRL team for 12 weeks?"
