Zolton Zavos writes: There was an interesting article in the Tele a couple of days back from Matty Johns on player burnout in rugby league. Given the rotation policy currently being employed by the All Blacks as a part measure to avoid this, what do you think about the number of matches that elite league players are being asked to play each season?
sheek
Guest
Ironically, the interchange is hindering, rather than helping the wellbeing, of rugby league players. Anabolic levels remain high, resulting in bigger 'hits' for longer periods. This compounds itself in the context of structural body damage. Much better to adopt the rugby union system of one replacement 4 times, except for blood injuries. This way, aerobic fitness takes over, players run on energy rather than power, resulting in less structural body damage. I suspect the next SANZAR agreement, due to be made at the end of 2011, will be very different. For starters, the Murdoch Empire might be unwillingly to fork over so much money. Or it will come with conditions attached, namely that the 3Ns select their best XV every time, injuries aside, if they want maximum payment. There will probably be less test matches, which must be a good thing. Instead of killing the goose that laid the golden egg (too many tests), we might see a mixed bag of goodies - tests, S14, ARC/NZ Cup/Currie Cup. This makes sense. It also sees "what goes around, comes around", with rugby returning in part, to the way we knew it in the 1980s, for example. That is, perhaps a maximum of 8 tests per year per country, plus the S14 & national domestic comps. The S14 might also be abridged. Say, dividing into 2 pools of 7 teams. Each team plays 6 matches, plus 3 of its own country's other teams, for 10 matches, instead of the current 13. Plus semis & the final. Less matches, less travelling, less wear & tear on bodies & minds. This then allows the national domestic comps - ARC, NZ Cup, Currie Cup, to regain its former glory. Or seek new glory in the case of the ARC.