Packed schedule hurting players and fans

Hmm I'm quite interested to hear from anyone how they think playing only one game against all teams rather than some games two and the rest one could be seen as a fair competition. Obviously playing everyone twice won't work, but the system currently is drawn at random (from what I know) so those odd 10 games a year keep things more fair as you're more likely to play more teams vying for the finals both home and away. Incidently this could even be having an effect on star/marquee playiers as they are often called upon to play their team back into a tough match, on the road, where two invaluable points are being dangled in front of every player: enforcers and stars ;)

You've got no evidence to support that. All I saw was Lote T smash into him at full speed as the much smaller Stewart came across trying to tackle him. The impact and body twists caused the injury not a tired body. What has previous seasons possibly got to do with that?

Stewart got injured in the first games because of a heavy workload in previous seasons.

Both of B Stewart's injuries were at the start of the season. B Stewart also did his knee or shoulder in his very first NRL career game and missed a year before making his 2nd appearance in NRL. I hear what you're saying but you've got no hard evidence to support the view that the number of games caused those injuries.

if you want it to go this way where there are less games so people are fresh for rep games, people will have to get creative with contracts ie player compensation tied to incentives on a reduced schedule. Players will be busting guts to get on the track to get their money, if they know there is a reduced schedule. Its all about productivity. I do not think that this is a panacea though. There are holes in every system, and I think that the system here works for the majority of fans and players and sponsors. This whole debate is assigned to rep players who are the minority-the creme de la creme. If Ozzie continue to lose like they are-I guarantee that the administrators WILL find a way to rectify the burnout. I agree with dans of san souci- its about risk, but JD makes a good point. If you play a 25 games schedule as per normal nrl player, that s a different prospect to a rep who plays a 32 game schedule (state and intls + NRL) Thats an extra 7 chances (risk) to get hurt or 28%!!! ouch! but they do get paid extra for the incurred risk.

James Ditchfield I daresay your concerns are well founded but the logic isn't. How did the number of games Tate played in 2010 contribute to the injury he sustained in the final rugby league game of 2010? It could just as easily have happened to any player in the annual All Stars game in February. If you have evidence of wear and tear on players causing injuries then you would have a case. But where is it? So really it's not about too many games at all. It is about the risk of injury in any one game. Obviously the more games you play the more chance something will happen but that is no reason to cut the league season back. It wouldn't matter what was done to reduce the length of the season or to cut the number of games top players play in. There also isn't any rule change that could have stopped Tate's injury. So cutting back the season will just cost the game money and someone will still do his knee cruciate in round 1.

Money, money, money. When a team pays for a star player, they don't want him resting on the sideline if he is injured. Better to give him a couple of needles to kill the pain and get him back on the paddock. Sends a mixed message about "no drugs", but who cares? Next season there will be someone to replace him, and at the age of 40 you'll see him shuffling around like a 65 year old from a lifetime of injuries. Have a look at the serious injuries that are suffered every week in league (and union), and look at the impossible recovery times. Sometimes there's an attempt at explaining them away with "he's such a fit young bloke ... hyperbaric chambers ... ultrasound therapy ... broken leg but he should be right for the finals".

i wonder how the europe based players cope with this issue as they also compete in the challenge cup which is also perceived as significant silverware. obviously the standard is lower in the super league and such but not to an extreme degree.

also it means less biased draws where teams have to play a an opponent twice while some only play them once. eg: the warriors only play parramatta once while storm play them twice and so on

With 18 teams,I would have 3 conferences of 6.The Messenger,Gasnier and Llewis conferences.Maximise ythe local derbies. The effect would be A team in 1 conference would play the other 5 teams twice;10 games The teams in that conference would play the other 12 teams once only: 12 games You have ineffect reduced the comp rounds to 22 You can then maintain your 3 SOO You can have the obligatory Across the ditch test against the Kiwis. You have reduced the workload of the basic NRL players,you have done likewise with the elite rep player.You still maintain your SOO income and test incomes.You have reduced by 1 rd only the home games (instead of 12). You make up the revenue with the additonal time slot offered by the extra two teams,and I would suggest that slot be a sunday twilight one.it would rate its head off on the East Coast. You boost the revenue of the clubs by having more local derbies,dependant of course on how the conferences are planned. For examaple the Gc/Cowboys/Bronocs games would be financial goldmines,playing each other twice. It is a fair point to argue,as the elite players will receive a boost to ttheir contracts,likewise they should be expected to pull their weight.

It all comes down to cash, thats the be all end all of it. This is the problem when you follow a market based culture like the states. The difference is that they do not have an international or interstate schedule (NFL as the comparison) They play 16 games and there is a massive debate over there now around playing 2 extra games. Its a big issue in the upcoming CBA (collective bargaining agreement) When revenue streams dry up with less games, the teams will cry foul and then look to reduce salaries, then you get a player problem. Tough decisions in a salary cap competition. However NRL is the most competitve comp in the world I think, but this is the price we pay. Salary cap system is governed to punish and weaken the good teams, but that's another argument. This is a player burnout issue- as well as a patriotic plea for better ozzie performances. Get ready for more pain as I do not see the reduction of games,playing and scheduling on the horizon.

I agree, they could speed up the schedule for the new teams and then move to play every other team only once in the season. Alternating years for home/away. Move SOO to weekends - no NRL comps in SOO weekends. So with that, and the tri nations (also in their own weekends without NRL games) the season would be around the same length, but the players would be a lot better off. To fill out the airtime, as others suggested can play city/country in the same weekend as SOO, and fill it out with some U20's which deserves more prime time scheduling too. On another point: good words about Tate, but I reckon deserves a lot more recognition. Maybe he will never be the top try scorer, or run the most meters, have the most hitups but he is always out there egging the whole team on - and when he does get the ball he leads by unselfish example. Any team with Tate in it, doesn't matter if they are up or down, will always go the full 80 minutes at 100%. The Warriors were a 40 minute team till Tate arrived, in the same year the Bronc's seemed to have less "never say die" attitude after he left (and again if Broncs were leading tended to sit back near the end of the game). SOO too, he would be out there pushing the whole team to keep going until the end. It's really unlucky he will not play for the Cowboys this year (hopefully next year) because once again his magic would appear and the Cowboys would be top 8 material.

7's, what a joke! Even though I love 7's and used to go to the 7's in the early 90's, can you imagine coaches risking players that are pivotial to their premiership abitions like Haynes, Anasta and marshall for a mickey mouse comp. It is hard enough to get coaches to put their first choice players for trial matches. I still haven't seen anyone explain how they would recoupe loss tv revenue and gate with less games. I wonder how many of the players who complain about the length of the season, would complain if they were given a shorter season but less money for it

Just heard on Fox News that Canberra has signed Orford - it's official.

Hi James I'm sure a couple of articles have appeared right here on the Roar in the last 2 or 3 years - you can try doing a search, and most probably you'll find links to other sites. Unfortunately such articles end up having hundreds of comments because they rapidly descend into code wars. You could also check out Sean Fagan's excellent site: http://www.rl1908.com/

Can you please give me more info about League in the US, I want to write an article about it.

Jumping on the RU olypic inclusion ban wagon?

The NRL (or ARL) use to have a terrific pre-season 7s comp featuring quite a few international teams - would be great to bring something like that back - not sure why it was ever axed.