The debate over restricting playing time for All Blacks in Super Rugby has gone to another level after it was criticised by leading coaches Warren Gatland and Tony Brown.
New Zealand Rugby’s “load management” policy has created divisions at the top level.
And now Chiefs coach Gatland and Highlanders assistant Brown – both accomplished international coaches – have added their voice to those who believe it is too heavy-handed.
Kiwi Super Rugby teams must give their returning All Blacks restricted minutes through the first three rounds and find a way to rest them from two full matches during the competition.
Given the failure of the All Blacks at last year’s Rugby World Cup and the ongoing battle to generate interest in Super Rugby, the move has been widely panned by supporters.
Former All Blacks John Kirwan and Wyatt Crockett told Sky TV the enforced absence of top players “disrespects” the competition.
That thought was echoed by Brown, who agreed players should be handled on a “case by case” basis.
Japan assistant coach Brown said some fringe Test players had been dealt a bad hand by the policy in recent seasons.
“It’s always been the sort of Richie McCaw, Dan Carter, Kieran Read plan, where they need to give those guys all a rest,” Brown told Radio Sport.
“So to keep it all even they make it mandatory to rest every All Black.
“I think in the past it’s actually cost a few players their All Black careers.”
Former Wales coach Gatland believed it was important to manage player welfare but said NZ Rugby should leave it to each franchise, rather than impose a blanket rule.
“Everyone is in a different boat. Some might need more than two games off,” Gatland said.
“I’d like to see us work together. The people in charge need to trust us and if we don’t do a good job then don’t let us manage them.”
New All Blacks coach Ian Foster told Stuff media that he could understand the criticism and believed the policy would be reviewed.
However, he said it was difficult to see a better way to get peak performance from players and reduce injuries off the back of a short off-season.
“What we do know is that there are no other full-contact sports in the world that start on January 31 and go to November 20, with very few breaks in between,” he said.
“We’ve learned through science players are most susceptible to major injury when they first come back after a break or when they’re fatigued in the latter part of a game.
“It seems common sense to have a graduated return.”
Old Bugger
Guest
Well then, neither do I buy your response. When Deans was coach, there was no such thing as load management or R&R for AB players. And as for Blackadder, what's he done at home and overseas.....sweet FA. He couldn't win the SR (even when his side made the finals) and neither could he take Bath to any exceptional finish....and now, he's calling the shots for a team in Japan. Sayonara and good luck. And for your information - WR sanctions are a load of crock. Whoever is paying the players salary bill gets to call the shots - just look at the club vs country argument, happening up north. Since NZ SR rugby players a contracted centrally by NZR, then the Union calls the shots on managing players, through a season. Its just a bleat from teams who've been caught short of having sufficient player experience to cover for the LM program....I didn't hear any bleating when the Landers won 4 or 5 years ago and definitely didn't hear anything from Razor, over the past 3 years.
Uriah Heep
Roar Rookie
I don't buy that OB. The process is crap and always has been. The Cru managed them better than the others but Deans got badly offside with the NZRFU for standing up to them over the interference pre-2008. Blackadder isn't the best coach available but he was severely hamstrung by having star players (Carter McCaw and Read) because he couldn't manage them wrt availability or get them to bring their A game expect when it suited them - usually coinciding with upcoming tests. I've no doubt that the Cru would have won more super titles if they had a coach prepared to stand up to Tew and Hansen. Super rugby is a WR sanctioned tournament. It's not up to the NZRFU to run interference on that.
Old Bugger
Guest
Exactly CVV. This barrage of criticism against a process that's been happening since Henry and Hansen were AB coaches, is just sour grapes by coaching teams who suddenly lack, the personnel they had over the past few seasons. The Saders got through the past 3 seasons with managing their roster to not just survive but more emphatically, to win and they did it with a roster including more AB players than they've ever had, on the books.....for 3 seasons. And yet now, with an early loss in the comp, they are bleating about the same old system that won them 3 comps, in succession - presumably because they now lack the players they could use to cover when others are resting, as they're suppose to. The Landers lost a truck-load of players this year and yet, there were no complaints from them last year. There's been murmurs from the Blues, Canes and Chiefs but for these teams, it's business as usual but, you go on with what you've got and leave the your concerns, on the paddock. Come next year, the conference games are out and every side plays each other once. I think in that new competition, we will see some changes to this current load management (LM) format but not, a total displacement. NZRU will IMO, review the players who played most tests down to players who played least tests and apply the LM form accordingly rather than the blanket coverage, occurring atm. I say, suck it up and move on cos next year, will bring a totally different competitive environment, from the past 4-5 years - and one, that removes the greatest concern for the NZPA - the double-header local derby matches in NZ.
12 team super rugby tournament , single round robin, semi and final, and you are talking 13 weeks, what better player management can there be?
adam smith
Guest
It’s not a “poor example”, as he is the highest profile player in New Zealand’s biggest market & catchment, & he is unavailable. Which does indeed (wether negotiated or not), compromise the integrity of the supposed, “Super” rugby comp.
Ex force fan
Guest
The paid sabbatical forms part of the resting policy. The point I make that resting key players influence outcomes and that compromise the competition. South Africa is getting a lot of heat for their lack of commitment to Superugby, however New Zealand cannot complain while they undermine the competition themselves. South Africa used to give Superugby more priority than the Boks but that changed when Rassie took over. RA should reflect how this lack of commitment from the key partners means to their strategy to have all their eggs in the Superugby basket.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Barrett is a poor example as I think he negotiated a sabbatical. So even without mandated rests, he’d still be missing.
Ex force fan
Guest
There is an inherent conflict between managing player welfare, prepare players so that they peak during the test window and showing commitment to Superugby. South Africa used to prioritise Superugby with franchises playing start players week in and week out so with the players were poorly conditions and carrying injuries into the Test season, while the AB benefited from better managing player workload. What is undeniable is that the management of player load compromises the integrity of the competition. It may be debatable if the Blues may have manage a win against the Chiefs in the 1st round if Beauden Barrett was allowed to play as the Blues played well but just lacked that little spark that Barrett can provide. It becomes a strategic decision to rest players that could influence the log and play-offs, e.g. rest players at he end of the season when you cannot make the finals (Sharks), rest players when you know you will lose (Rebels vs Crusaders) or when you should win (Blues vs Sunwolves - backfired spectacularly). The broadcaster, viewer and member that expect the star players to play are ripped off to watch a severely degraded game.