Rugby players are tired and distracted

Agree with you about SOO, perhaps my punctuation didnt make it clear. But do not think the international games are as intense or carry as much pressure. While you may make the claim that the Kangaroos are like the All Blacks in winning records, however there isnt the same pressure (in my opinion). If the AB's had lost at home in a World Cup final players and coaches careers would have been ended. Whereas the Aussies lose the Rugby League World Cup, with Slater making the mistakes that he did, the vitriol would have been enormous. International league is just a bit of icing on the cake, Slater will be remembered for what he has done in Club footie and SOO, and be judged rightly a great player. A rugby player who bombs at international level but shines in club/state football is not considered in the same way. A number of Australian players do play in the ITM cup, either they come over and join a team for exposure, or more commonly, the Aussie Super XV teams pick up the best Kiwi talent they can find that dont get signed to Kiwi Super XV teams. So in a Super XV competition where 10 of the teams involved have long seasons, and a number of players in the Australian teams are either playing at representative level or in other competitions (theer is sevens as well, and club rugby in Australia, although a further tier down) that I dont think you can really say that the life of a league player or AFL player is that much tougher. I do agree that it should be less of a problem for Australian sides. Personally though I reckon the change in quality of play is most linked to weather and that games played on hard grounds in late Feb to April will be of a greater appeal from a running rugby perspective than those on wet fields. For example re the Brumbies blues game there is no doubt that both teams would have played the game differently if it had been played in March.

I am struggling to find a website that gives all the above stats- please help me and give me the names of some sites(I am serious- not trying to dispute your figures) Please help!

Can't see the difference in travelling 10 000 kms north or east. Same amount of travel to play outside of our regular season, it makes no sense what so ever to move north.

Its important not to judge the Wallabies by only the few really good times. Sure, we should treasure the memory of the brilliant plays of 1991 and 2003, but let's not forget that these are not typical of Wallaby teams overall. I personally prefer to remember that Australia held the Bledisloe for five series from 1998 to 2003, rather than the equally true fact that New Zealand held it for twelve successive series from the 1950s through to the 1970s. There was an embarrassing 4-0 series result in there somewhere as well...!

BBA, if you were talking about NZ or SA players I would agree, but as you point out, Australian players don't have the equivalent of ITM or Currie Cup. After Super 15 season is over, sure there are tests, but only for 15% - 20% of the Super players. The majority of the players have only club rugby which is not at the same level of intensity. I wouldn't agree with any suggestion that league rep football is less intense than rugby tests. The three Origin matches are as intense as any you will find in any code of football. As for tests, the number seems to vary each year, but maybe three or four? Its not that far different to 4N plus the two tours. And who's to say there isn't pressure in league tests? These days the Kangaroos seem to be the equivalent of the All Blacks in rugby, but they don't maintain that position by taking tests lightly. I think your best point would be the fact that a smaller proportion of league players are called up for Origin and Test, than Super players are called up for Wallabies (because more NRL clubs to provide the players). But the fact remains that the Super 15 season is only about half as long as the NRL season, and only a small number of players have the added burden of representative selection.

Thanks for yet another first-rate article, Elisha. I'm very interested in your notation that 'our rugby season is much more like the Northern Hemisphere than it ever has been and we're seeing the fruits of it'. I'd be interested if you and others might care to expand on this topic, beyond a seasonal configuration/extension basis. Maybe this is what you're already saying, but it seems to me your notation can be considered from a different vantage. This vantage starts with the premise that SH rugby traditionally has been very distinctive from NH rugby, but over the past decade or so, at least for the Wallabies (from my perspective), this distinctiveness seems to have been evaporating. It can be argued that the Test-level game - NH and SH - is becoming homogenised. To me, SH Test rugby is becoming far less 'attacking intent oriented', whether defensively or with ball in hand, and far more 'other team's mistake' oriented. In other words, what I have always understood to be NH rugby. Season length equalling a levelling-off and blandness owing to player fatigue may be one reason for this, perhaps even the primary one. Another, more insidious reason may be that NH audience size and support levels are very strong for NH rugby. Perhaps far-too-parochially, I've attributed this to the 'white bread' factor: if that's the only type on offer, you take it. Worldwide sports models increasingly seem predicated on 'a win is a win' catch-all temporary audience manufacture with telecast sponsors increasingly fitting into almost uniformly circumscribed categories. Australian sports models, including that of Australian rugby, have followed suit. The packaging of any given sport worldwide is increasingly pro forma. If the tail completely wags the dog, the 'a win is a win' 'dogma' means the content recedes to the level of the greatest audience. Unquestionably, it takes considerable effort to be distinctive against a prevailing norm and yet more against an increasingly prevailing norm. Personally, I like bread, but not only white bread all the time. My question ultimately is: if enhanced season length means NH-like player fatigue outcomes and (if I've understood correctly) thereby NH-like playing outcomes, is it reasonable to hope that distinctive SH rugby can continue? Are SH type rugby supporters being weaned to be NH'ers?

AFL players do not have extensive international seasons to play as well, which physically and emotionally are more equivalent to playoff games. Non-international NZ and SA players also play in their domestic competitions. Either playing internationally or domestically could add say another 10 to 12 games a season. NRL has some international/representative games, they do have State of Origin (potentially 3 games), but the international season is very limited and certainly dont seem to carry the same level of pressure as rugby tests. Accordingly I dont see what point there is in comparing the Super XV season with the NRL or AFL season. Would also say that the NRL season contains some flat periods as well. Dont follow AFL at all, so there may be some representative higher tier than club footie I have missed. PS I think someone posted some analysis that indicated rugby players were playing some serious minutes when compared to other sports.

Its hard to pick trends. I thought both Stormers and Reds showed attacking flair on the weekend, but both also had very good defence. That can lead to games that some people label "boring". Re length of the season - S15 is quite short. NRL and AFL players do longer seasons.

Could have done with his boot in Cape Town as the Reds didn't look like scoring any other way. Am assured by someone in the know he was virtually incapable of passing to one side.

OK, Des O'Conner then.

Yeah great article. Professionals or not you cannot be up the whole time. The Saders and Chiefs have correctly realised this and are hitting their straps now while the oz teams will lose more now as their main players in the wallabies are thinking purely on the Lions. The quality has been high but the season is too long 14 rounds is plenty. Play every side once. Sheek I don't think people will follow the conferece type teams so would think it a costly experiment, especially if you got rid of S15 at the same time. Ok for the NZ and Currie cup teams.

Three years is a decent length of time to judge whether he should actually be a Wallaby unlike Mike "the footnote" Harris.

nos at the moment the unions in the southern hemisphere hold the whip hand because the franchises are just that, franchises. If they became independent or privately owned clubs then it would be difficult indeed. Resting players like that isn't ideal, you're right, but perfect solutions are hard to come by. Remember though that in the northern hemisphere the players are lost to their clubs for I would imagine 10 weeks in the year but have to play on regardless (not sure if I'm right about the number of weeks). So at least the clash is lessened between Super rugby and the RC. I don't think players can play all year long with month off, and if anything the season will be lengthened rather than shortened. A way needs to be found within that to lessen the load on the international players, whatever it is. AdamS you don't punish them because when they do have the players they benefit from having higher quality players than their opposition. In any case they can choose who to rest their stars against. A larger squad allowance would obviously help too.

harry - i'm gonna whinge anyway. devine is one aus player over 100+ years of rugby and at the time we didnt need him . i couldnt figure out how he even made the ABs.

Then you in effect punish a team for acquiring or developing too many good players. I go back to my suggestion. Turn represtative football fully professional with a permanent squad and expanded season. SXV runs as it does now without the distraction of tests.

Stick to it Jason, you can join Aussie Mike and Aussie Quade! Hopefully by then Aussie Robbie will be long gone. When is Aussie Henry available, the Rugby championship or EOYT? And before you Kiwi's start whinging, two words ... Steve Devine.

The premise of this article is incorrect. We are not used to seeing test match intensity or quality matches in Super rugby. In recent years the quality of the games on offer has been poor from the start, and has at times improved as the competition reached the finals. This year the quality has been better from the start than previous years. What we saw on the weekend was typical of previous seasons, but unusal for 2013 when overall quality has been higher.

Unfortunately yes, I agree with you Kpm, it's not realistic. I like your idea although clubs, at least in europe, will do what Toulon are doing now, hire players who are ineligible to represent their country. In SR, the issue I have is that the season is already fairly short and resting their best players for 4-5 games isn't ideal (25% of the season). Or we just have to accept that today's international players can't be on all year round for their decade-long career. Like us 'normal human beings'. We aren't on all the time (certainly not as am writing these words anyway!! )

nos I don't think less rugby is realistic economically though: in fact the quantity there is still leaves two out of the three SANZAR unions struggling financially as they can only offer an insufficent to quantity of product to the broadcasters to make enough money. In the article I wrote the other week I pointed out that when anyone talks about 'the players' having too long a season they are actually only referring to the 'international players' who after a Super season have to go on to months more rugby. This at present is only around a fifth of those in Super rugby, and if there were expansion in the future it would be ever fewer. For this fifth I think different rules should apply. The franchises should be forced by SANZAR to give them four matches during the season off, possibly more. This would allow the coaches to rest them against the weakest opponents, but would mean they wouldn't get too exhausted by the long season. A team which practices rotation such as the Brumbies are already doing this, but many coaches wouldn't unless obliged too. If it were a blanket rules, it would be fair on all teams. But shortening the season for this fifth is not possible I think.

Completely agree with the gist of your article Elisha: it's hard or virtually impossible for players to think rugby, breathe rugby and play rugby for 11 months straight. I watched the top 14 semis this w-e and read a lot about the season so far, the players etc. it's clear all the Clermont and Toulouse players who will travel to NZ are a spent force after a lengthy season, some big disappointments at club and national level in 3 different comps. How can we expect them to be giving 100% in NZ, both mentally and physically ? they started their season in August last year, we're back on the training paddock end of June early July. Was reading that Parra's injury this w-e was a blessing in disguise as he can finally rest. Others will come back end of June, rest for a few weeks then back. It's just too much IMO and even if players love their sport, their body and brain say no more sometimes. One of the reasons given to Toulon success this year was the fact they do not have many current international players on their roster. ll of them ARE or have been internationals, but not anymore as most of them aren't eligible in their country. Sadly, that's the way to go, hire players who can solely focus on their team.