General Rugby Discussion II

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, it's very much not relevant if players are moving between provinces when the exact same thing happens between private clubs for all sorts of reasons. DOC moving to Worcester for example, and that was mid-season iirc? Dan Tuohy to Bristol?

I mean ultimately this isn't a remotely good point. It's turned the discussion down a very silly path indeed.

Hold on, you are comparing Tuohy and DOC to Joey Carbery and then declaring this discussion silly?


You're definitely right there I guess.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Says IBF.

The team who rested the most players for player welfare this season won the final in a convincing manner. Over a team who did not rest players and were knackered.

And in 2011 when Leinster hammered Northampton in the 2nd half, in one of the best 40 minute performances in club rugby history, they spoke about how knackered they were at the end of the season.

The only thing that player welfare is an example of is that IRFU policy can sometimes help a team to be more competitive.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Hold on, you are comparing Tuohy and DOC to Joey Carbery and then declaring this discussion silly?


You're definitely right there I guess.

You're the one who asked for examples.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

Hold on, you are comparing Tuohy and DOC to Joey Carbery and then declaring this discussion silly?


You're definitely right there I guess.

Or Jordi Murphy right?


Or John Cooney, Andrew Conway, Felix Jones, Sean Cronin, Robbie Henshaw. Did any of those players indicate that they moved for reasons other than getting more game time or improving their chances of winning medals?


Or moving in with the girlfriend.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're the one who asked for examples.

Yea, but I thought it would be obvious that really stupid examples like over-the-hill locks moving to clubs who don't even play in the same european competitions are not that useful.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Yea, but I thought it would be obvious that really stupid examples like over-the-hill locks moving to clubs who don't even play in the same european competitions are not that useful.

So DOC or Tuohy moving somewhere for starting rugby because he couldn't get gametime is not the same thing as Joey Carbery, who moved to Munster for starting rugby because he couldn't get gametime.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So DOC or Tuohy moving somewhere for starting rugby because he couldn't get gametime is not the same thing as Joey Carbery, who moved to Munster for starting rugby because he couldn't get gametime.

I'm devils advocating a bit here, but the main difference is that DOC and Tuohy were old, so they weren't getting gametime and were never going to get it. Joey was young, he had potential yet to realise, time to realise it and more importantly a mentor in the twilight of his career ahead of him.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I'm devils advocating a bit here, but the main difference is that DOC and Tuohy were old, so they weren't getting gametime and were never going to get it. Joey was young, he had potential yet to realise, time to realise it and more importantly a mentor in the twilight of his career ahead of him.

Right, a bit like Jordi Murphy. Players have moved around outside of Ireland as well though, I just don't know the details as much. Welsh regions have seen lots of movement in recent times, like Scott Williams this summer.

DOC went to Worcester and became their club captain, as well. And he was a pretty important leader with Munster who I think probably benefitted from a personal relationship with the coach after not making the Irish world cup squad. I think a few people would argue Munster could very much have done with him sticking around.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

The IRFU just moved one player from one of it's teams to another of it's teams. They can do this on a whim really, inter-pro transfers are not really real transfers and contracts are fairly meaningless.

So why is there such a fuss made over Carberys move if it isn't anything other than very irregular? There is zero evidence that the IRFU can or do move guys around provinces as you're claiming. None. This seems like a really bizarre point.

awec wrote: »

Says IBF.

Says anyone with an ounce of objectivity. There's a massive, massive difference between managing the welfare of human beings in a researched, educated and measured way compared to throwing games or anything like that.

Lots of bizarre stuff going on here today....

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

So why is there such a fuss made over Carberys move if it isn't anything other than very irregular? There is zero evidence that the IRFU can or do move guys around provinces as you're claiming. None. This seems like a really bizarre point.

Maybe it's easier to believe that the IRFU forced Carbery to move to Munster rather than him exercising his preferred choice of going to Ulster.

awec

Lads, are you actually being serious here?

I mean, if we go back in history on this forum I guarantee we will find numerous complaints that the away interpros at Christmas time were practically a thrown game because of imposed rests. Or are we just all ignoring that now?

Anyway, forget about it, this is just ridiculous now. The other sports that don't allow this practice full stop are just silly I guess.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

Lads, are you actually being serious here?

I mean, if we go back in history on this forum I guarantee we will find numerous complaints that the away interpros at Christmas time were practically a thrown game because of imposed rests. Or are we just all ignoring that now?

Anyway, forget about it, this is just ridiculous now. The other sports that don't allow this practice full stop are just silly I guess.

Is this any different from league games during the AIs and the 6N? Or the early season games?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Lads, are you actually being serious here?

I mean, if we go back in history on this forum I guarantee we will find numerous complaints that the away interpros at Christmas time were practically a thrown game because of imposed rests. Or are we just all ignoring that now?

Anyway, forget about it, this is just ridiculous now. The other sports that don't allow this practice full stop are just silly I guess.

Teams rest players in sports all the time.

The Premier League had no problem with it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/united-allowed-to-field-weakened-team-says-scudamore-1688796.html

But the other sports who allow this practice are just silly I guess.

In the NFL teams literally "tank" so that they can get better draft picks. They must be silly I guess!

They brought in a draft lottery in the NHL to stop the practice, but teams still do it and it's perfectly legal.

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

awec wrote: »

Lads, are you actually being serious here?

I mean, if we go back in history on this forum I guarantee we will find numerous complaints that the away interpros at Christmas time were practically a thrown game because of imposed rests. Or are we just all ignoring that now?

Anyway, forget about it, this is just ridiculous now. The other sports that don't allow this practice full stop are just silly I guess.

Teams rest players in sports all the time.

The Premier League had no problem with it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/united-allowed-to-field-weakened-team-says-scudamore-1688796.html

But the other sports who allow this practice are just silly I guess.

In the NFL teams literally "tank" so that they can get better draft picks. They must be silly I guess!

They brought in a draft lottery in the NHL to stop the practice, but teams still do it and it's perfectly legal.

It is not coordinated by an owner of multiple teams though.

2smiggy

They even have a very detailed website for teams 'tanking' in the NBA. As soon you are out of the playoff picture, it's a race to the bottom for the best chance in the draft lottery

the tankathon

awec

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not coordinated by an owner of multiple teams though.

Ah he probably thinks it's entirely coincidental that the IRFU enforce these B team squads when their own teams are playing each other.

And that there's definitely no advantage to the IRFU of being able to force these rests among their own teams rather than against teams over which they have no selection control.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not coordinated by an owner of multiple teams though.

No, but it's incorrect to say its not allowed full stop.

There aren't any union controlled teams in soccer as far as I know. It's fairly unique to rugby I think?

Interested Observer

2smiggy wrote: »

They even have a very detailed website for teams 'tanking' in the NBA. As soon you are out of the playoff picture, it's a race to the bottom for the best chance in the draft lottery

the tankathon

Stuff like that is clearly messing about with the league. Just because other sports do it does not mean the IRFU don't interfere with the league which they obviously do. Sexton played 5 regular season games this season I think. But nothing to see here apparently.

irishbucsfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

Stuff like that is clearly messing about with the league. Just because other sports do it does not mean the IRFU don't interfere with the league which they obviously do. Sexton played 5 regular season games this season I think. But nothing to see here apparently.

Sexton played 5 regular season games for the team who won the league?

Interested Observer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sexton played 5 regular season games for the team who won the league?

Yes.

irishbucsfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

Yes.

Right, so the player welfare policy is anti-competitive how exactly?

Interested Observer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Right, so the player welfare policy is anti-competitive how exactly?

Because the best players in the league barely play obviously.

irishbucsfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

Because the best players in the league barely play obviously.

Right. And those best players win everything when the end of the season comes around and they're fully fit while the performances of sides like Scarlets and Northampton fall off a cliff.

The player welfare policy is objectively beneficial to Leinster regardless of its benefits to the national side.

The fact private clubs haven't been able to get it right is entirely down to their own mismanagement of players.

Interested Observer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Right. And those best players win everything when the end of the season comes around and they're fully fit while the performances of sides like Scarlets and Northampton fall off a cliff.

The player welfare policy is objectively beneficial to Leinster regardless of its benefits to the national side.

The fact private clubs haven't been able to get it right is entirely down to their own mismanagement of players.

You know there are other teams in the league right who rested players and won nothing? You know Leinster have rested players every season and more often than not have in fact not won the league right? Stop pontificating, it's tedious.

irishbucsfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

You know there are other teams in the league right who rested players and won nothing?

So if other teams can do it, it's nothing to do with the IRFU then? You'll need to make up your mind here...

You know Leinster have rested players every season and more often than not have in fact not won the league right? Stop pontificating, it's tedious.

Did it help Leinster this season or not?

Did it help Leinster in the 2nd half in the Milennium Stadium or not?

Also no team wins everything every year. In any sport. If you're going to use that argument then the team you use as your example probably shouldn't be the team who have won more Pro 14 titles than anyone else and joint most European titles.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

Ah he probably thinks it's entirely coincidental that the IRFU enforce these B team squads when their own teams are playing each other.

And that there's definitely no advantage to the IRFU of being able to force these rests among their own teams rather than against teams over which they have no selection control.

I genuinely don't understand this POV. I asked earlier, but got no response, as to how this was somehow different from the early season rest periods or the international windows. Other than that the interpros coincide with the Christmas training camp and rest period. But there are also interpros at the end of the season too.

I take it the desired end point of this conversation for some on here is for the IRFU to lose control and have the provinces become privatised?

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Lads, are you actually being serious here?

I mean, if we go back in history on this forum I guarantee we will find numerous complaints that the away interpros at Christmas time were practically a thrown game because of imposed rests. Or are we just all ignoring that now?

Anyway, forget about it, this is just ridiculous now. The other sports that don't allow this practice full stop are just silly I guess.

The player welfare programme is not the same as throwing games unless you want to look at things very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very simplistically. The player welfare programme is a permanent programme aimed at ensuring that players are kept in the best possible condition, not for any particular game or competition, but for the entire length of their careers. It has a very real and meaningful impact beyond the careers of those players also, as it is in reality something that is beneficial for the sport as a whole as well. It's a sensible and rational approach to squad management that is consistent year on year too.

If you think that is the same as throwing individual games then fine. But you're completely wrong. You're refusal to look beyond really narrow definitions of things and see the bigger picture isn't helping at all here.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

The player welfare programme is not the same as throwing games unless you want to look at things very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very simplistically. The player welfare programme is a permanent programme aimed at ensuring that players are kept in the best possible condition, not for any particular game or competition, but for the entire length of their careers. It has a very real and meaningful impact beyond the careers of those players also, as it is in reality something that is beneficial for the sport as a whole as well. It's a sensible and rational approach to squad management that is consistent year on year too.

If you think that is the same as throwing individual games then fine. But you're completely wrong. You're refusal to look beyond really narrow definitions of things and see the bigger picture isn't helping at all here.

Does it?

Haven't we looked at this before and found that Irish players have not got longer careers, nor do they have more appearances than English or French guys?

What stats do you have to back this assertion up?

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Does it?

Haven't we looked at this before and found that Irish players have not got longer careers, nor do they have more appearances than English or French guys?

What stats do you have to back this assertion up?

Of course it does. Look at this season for example. English teams have struggled and there have been statements from players in the league saying that they are playing too much. Leinster and Ireland have beaten all before them and looked very fresh at the end of what was a really long season. That would not have happened but for player welfare.

There are no stats available because the player welfare system as it currently stands isn't in place long enough to tell the long term impacts of it. But listening to the players and looking at seasons like this one it seems fairly clear to me that it has positive impacts on the performance of teams who put the level of effort into player welfare.

Are you really trying to claim that using medical and sports science evidence to reduce a players game time, and therefore the natural wear and tear on their bodies as well as the volume of big collisions that the are subject to, doesn't have a beneficial impact? Really? I mean, it would seem common sense to me that less game time plus less collisions plus a reduction in the potential for injury would lead to positive results, but then I'm no doctor.