The Rugby Thread - Part Deux

sand_man said:
Baltimore is considered part of the series though.
Click to expand...
I'm fully aware of that, but is it grass-roots decision-making? Or is it astro-turf decision-making...

Your next comment suggests the latter....

sand_man said:
This has always been punted as a 4 match test series. I think the venue for the 4th wasn't decided until the 25th hour and there had been speculating for months, over where it would be... and when it was announced as the States, the home series concept lost 25% of its credibility...

It's just one of them...

We tour NZ in 2030 and it will most likely follow the same format IE 3 in NZ, 1 abroad, most likely USA, as they host RWC 2031...
Click to expand...
Being announced long in advance is one indicator of transparency. Being impervious to any widespread discontent is ofc an opposite indicator.
 
lexity said:
I'm fully aware of that, but is it grass-roots decision-making? Or is it astro-turf decision-making...

Your next comment suggests the latter....


Being announced long in advance is one indicator of transparency. Being impervious to any widespread discontent is ofc an opposite indicator.
Click to expand...
The argument for USA:
1.) revenue generator benefiting both unions 50/50 split...
2.) 'grow the game' narrative - USA, has for the last 50 years, been labelled the sleeping giant of world rugby. Personally I feel they're the dead giant of world rugby so this test is wasted CPR. Having said that, I don't think Baltimore has ever seen live rugby...
3.) generate interest ahead of the 2031 RWC - seeing as they're hosting in 2031, an additional element to the 'grow the game' narrative. Also prepare US for what international audiences expect from a broadcasted test match. The last test in the US was NZ v Ire and the quality of the broadcast was absolutely atrocious. They need practice....
4.) revenue generator benefiting both unions 50/50 split...
 
The rubgy is being streamed on Prime in the US so let's hope for a few more fans after this. (This screenshot is from the past weekend's game)

1788772226274.png
 
lexity said:
Is Rassie going to try to hold on, out of loyalty, to older players, next year come the world cup?

There will be quite a few veteran boks by then, if they haven't been replaced.
Click to expand...

You still going on about this I see.

Who exactly is a concern that you feel should be dropped before next world cup that you keep coming back to this? Specific players, or just a clutch that nobody over 30 or something should be in the squad?
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
You still going on about this I see.

Who exactly is a concern that you feel should be dropped before next world cup that you keep coming back to this? Specific players, or just a clutch that nobody over 30 or something should be in the squad?
Click to expand...
I don't want to talk on behalf of @lexity but anyone over 32 and/or on 90 caps or more.... :p
 
What I will say on the matter... Eben, Malcolm, Siya, PSDT, Deon Fourie, Lood, RG are all players one injury away from retirement... nature of the beast I'm afraid....

As long as they are performing, Rassie will continue to pick them and why wouldn't he?

The Bok management has worked diligently to limited the load on the aging players.

Hell, I heard Rassie encouraged Ruan to take a Japanese club contract, specifically for him to play in a less demanding league and prolong his career.

Japan has been a good career move for our top players. They earn well there, play in a far less abrasive league but play for clubs that demand discipline and loyalty. The Japanese game is a high paced one, which places a premium on handling skills, aerobic and anaerobic fitness (more the former).
 
Last edited:
So it's basically a case of wanting to kick all the experience to the curb and put a blanket ban on anyone over 30 for WC selection?

Very rational /s
 
sand_man said:
What I will say on the matter... Eben, Malcolm, Siya, PSDT, Deon Fourie, Lood, RG are all players one injury away from retirement... nature of the beast I'm afraid....

As long as they are performing, Rassie will continue to pick them and why wouldn't he?

The Bok management has worked diligently to limited the load on the aging players.

Hell, I heard Rassie encouraged Ruan to take a Japanese club contract, specifically for him to play in a less demanding league and prolong his career.

Japan has been a good career move for our top players. They earn well there, play in a far less abrasive league but play for clubs that demand discipline and loyalty. The Japanese game is a high paced one, which places a premium on handling skills, aerobic and anaerobic fitness (more the former).
Click to expand...

Every single player is an injury away from retirement, not simply the 'old guys'. Nature of the beast as you say, its rugby, contact sport after all. Not really sure of the weight of this point trying to raise. The fitness, player management these days is next lvl, their risk factor isn't the same lvl as 10-20years ago.
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
Every single player is an injury away from retirement, not simply the 'old guys'. Nature of the beast as you say, its rugby, contact sport after all. Not really sure of the weight of this point trying to raise. The fitness, player management these days is next lvl, their risk factor isn't the same lvl as 10-20years ago.
Click to expand...
The point being the older you get, the harder and longer it takes to recover and regain fitness, say, from an ACL.

If you 23 and suffer an ACL, 8-9 months later you playing again. Happens to so many players unfortunately. But the rehab is worth it cause at 24 you still got 10 seasons ahead of you, potentially.

The same injury at age 34 is very different. For most it wouldn't be worth the effort...

I'm not convinced the risk factor has diminished now v 20 years ago.

I think the nature of injuries has changed significantly. Obviously the big issue in the 21st century is head contact. Athletes are bigger, stronger, faster than they've ever been but a persons skull (that which protects and covers the brain) doesn't develop the same way the body does.

And protective clothing just hasn't evolved to the extent where it makes a difference. Scrum cap etc...
 
sand_man said:
The point being the older you get, the harder and longer it takes to recover and regain fitness, say, from an ACL.

If you 23 and suffer an ACL, 8-9 months later you playing again. Happens to so many players unfortunately. But the rehab is worth it cause at 24 you still got 10 seasons ahead of you, potentially.

The same injury at age 34 is very different. For most it wouldn't be worth the effort...

I'm not convinced the risk factor has diminished now v 20 years ago.

I think the nature of injuries has changed significantly. Obviously the big issue in the 21st century is head contact. Athletes are bigger, stronger, faster than they've ever been but a persons skull (that which protects and covers the brain) doesn't develop the same way the body does.

And protective clothing just hasn't evolved to the extent where it makes a difference. Scrum cap etc...
Click to expand...
Yes and no. We're seeing players over 30 still performing. Risk increase, but not like use to. Player management, fitness, careers are stretching further than before. Play minutes etc are managed far better than use to be and we seeing the results.

Over 30 isn't the same 'deadend' it use to be by a long shot.

Just dumping players cause 'age' regardless of form, performance standard etc is just stupid (I do note not you calling for it.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X