Irish team has handy season compared to others ??

Diamondmaker

JustinDee wrote: »

No, you're not.
They have a handy season compared to other unions.

Can someone back this up with actual figures, I just dont get it. Its often bandied about and nooone in Oz seems to think its correct as they deffo play less.
I can see how the French and English front liners may play more but no one else.

The Welsh potential season is the same length as ours, the Scots too. On average even a bit shorter, as the Irish top 2 progress further in ML and H Cup and had more Lions call ups typically than Scotland.

Basically the Irish players can play 6-9 HC, 5 6N and some of the 18 ML games + 2 play off. Therefore a potential 34 games. ( 29 -34)

The Tri nations only play 13-15 league games and the 3N only consists of 6 games*. Therefore a potential 19 games. ( 19 - 22 )* plus the 1 "Bonus HK Bledisloe"

I know the elite players dont play all the ML games but they sure as hell dont miss more than the 10-12 range required to bring the balance in favour of the 3N playing more games!? ( assuming only group games are played in H Cup and no ML play offs )

Add in the tours at each end of the season which are on average across the teams pretty equal and then the Lions tours which the 3N only play once every 12 years or some guys never. Compared to the whole tour done by Ireland just gone adds even more game time to many of our guys over the 3N.

The above statement oft quoted does not add up ? Now remember the French play alot too, but do not Lions tour and the intensity travel and life in a camp surely accounts for a few T14 games. So I reckon last season the English played the most by virtue of also Lions touring, then the French but closely followed due to the Lions and extended ML and H Cup runs the last few season by Ireland. Then we have Wales, Scotloand and only then you start looking at the 3N ???

Now some might say the S14 is at a higher level and I would agree but there are several teams in teh lower half that cause no more competition than the worst of the ML and regardless this point is inquantifiable in relation to what Im getting at. A Lions tour sure as hell makes up for some easier games played in a ML than S14 in a given year if thats to be allowed for.

Am I missing something huge here or are people getting something incorrect into their head because we have a decent player management system tor est our top players for a handfull of ML games at the beginning.

outwest

ireland player dont play in more then half of the magner games,

the french and english player play in nearly all their games,

the sh player alos play in the domestic league too,

profitius

Irish players might not play as many games sometimes but they still have to be 100% fit all through the season. Also the games they do play are usually high intensity.

Diamondmaker

outwest wrote: »

ireland player dont play in more then half of the magner games,

the french and english player play in nearly all their games,

the sh player alos play in the domestic league too,

A very woolly answer supported by no facts and the sub S14 level Air NZ and the like is no more than AIL club rugby at home and the Wallabies, for example as I can comment based on facts, do not play at this level. The question I posed was it just a rumour that Ireland have a handy run and can somene put some facts down to support this. You are compounding my point with sweeping incorrect and inaccurate statements and no facts to back your self up.

I play at the local club here, which at the end of the S14 season, gets the Reds back but no Wallabies. They go into camp.

Im sure its similar at NZ. Its like the ireland players playing AIL. A very rare occurance.

Regardless to take you point then. The SH play in the domestic league while the Irish play in the ML. The ML would be far far more competitive than the DL here which like home is amateur in the main. As I say you dont see Wallabies in the domestioc league.

sock puppet

The South Africans all play in the last few rounds of the Currie Cup as far as I know. The Tri Nations also has 6 games not four. They seem to play more tests than the European sides in the June and November internationals too.

I'd say they're about the same as Ireland. 13 Super 14 games, a handful of domestic games, 12 or so internationals.

Diamondmaker

sock puppet wrote: »

T The Tri Nations also has 6 games not four. They seem to play more tests than the European sides in the June and November internationals too.

.

Point 1 true, my error corrected in OP. But I did leave out the 2 ML play offs.

Point 2 is again has nothing to back it up. In the absence of anyone posting all the tour fixtures from say the last 3 seasons its more accurate for the sake of discussion to say they average out.

On a snap shot

This tour gone Ireland played 3, Eng 3, Aus 4, NZ 3 for example. Irl and Eng also played Baa baas did they not ?

To make the arguments hold up someone need to display that the Irish guys miss 10-12 of the ML games just to bring near parity in a non Lions year.

profitius

I remember a few years back the NZ players ere rested for half the super 14 competition.

Diamondmaker

profitius wrote: »

I remember a few years back the NZ players ere rested for half the super 14 competition.

FACT. RWC year wasnt it ?

I think the X factor which needs to be considered in the whole debate is the Lions tour. 6 weeks in camp away from home on the road, some guys have done 3 of these. The home nation has no where near the discomfort of the tourists on one of these. Its got to be jading.

This tour alone is not even counted above given it was immediately preceding to the season just gone. I womnder how it is even possible for tourists to win tests these days such are the odds stacked against for so many reasons.

JustinDee

Diamondmaker wrote: »

Basically the Irish players can play 6-9 HC, 5 6N and some of the 18 ML games. Therefore a potential 32 games

This potential figure you arrive at is not even remotely reached by the centrally contracted players. If you've got the time, go through the Magners website and tote up the number of games these players have turned out for.
Its 12.25 here and there's a snowball's chance in hell that I'm going to do this now.
Also have a trawl through the IRUPA literature to find out more on player availability and games window.

Diamondmaker wrote: »

The Tri nations only play 13-15 league games and the 3N only consists of 4 games. Therefore a potential 19 games

You're referring to Australia more than the other two here. This would be fine if Australia wasn't actually seeking to play more games each season. You should bear in mind that the ARU are striving for more games. The number of games they are restricted to is not by choice.
The ARC championship, an attempt to expand the sport with a professional domestic league failed and was binned.
In VIC, a fifth Super Rugby franchise has been formed.
The ARU were the main instigators behind the extra games in the Tri Nations (which entails six games and not four as you say).
They have also jumped at the chance of contesting an extra Bledisloe Cup game each year.
With the South African and New Zealand players, you have omitted the Currie Cup and NPC comps which their contracted 'elite' squad members all take part in.

sock puppet

Diamondmaker wrote: »

Point 1 true, my error.

Point 2 is again has nothing to back it up. In the absence of anyone posting all the tour fixtures from say the last 3 seasons its more accurate for the sake of discussion to say they average out.

On a snap shot

This tour gone Ireland played 3, Eng 3, Aus 4, NZ 3 for example. Irl and Eng also played Baa baas did they not ?

To make the arguments hold up someone need to display that the Irish guys miss 11 of the ML games just to bring near parity in a non Lions year.

Ireland only play 3 games in the Autumn internationals. Most other teams play four I think. Wales and England have anyway the past two years.

On this tour Ireland will play two tests (you can't really count the Maori or Barbarians games), Australia four, New Zealand 3, South Africa 4 and Wales 3.

You're not counting the Currie Cup either. I also remember watching an Air NZ Cup final once and there were a few All Blacks starting. Couldn't speak for any of the other games though.

Diamondmaker

sock puppet wrote: »

Ireland only play 3 games in the Autumn internationals. Most other teams play four I think. Wales and England have anyway the past two years.

On this tour Ireland will play two tests (you can't really count the Maori or Barbarians games), Australia four, New Zealand 3, South Africa 4 and Wales 3.

You're not counting the Currie Cup either. I also remember watching an Air NZ Cup final once and there were a few All Blacks starting. Couldn't speak for any of the other games though.

Maori was a hell of a lot more competitive than Oz Fiji. Plus it was the National team and not an A team so no reason to discount.

Anyway we are talking about 1 -3 games tops here when the difference has been shown to be in the order of 13. So waht ever way we cut it there are still up to 10 games more we may be playing.

Lets even say we miss half of them with the senior guys, thats still 5 odd games more and no where do I count the Lions tour, which is a damn site more intense than Currie Cup !

Diamondmaker

JustinDee wrote: »

This potential figure you arrive at is not even remotely reached by the centrally contracted players. If you've got the time, go through the Magners website and tote up the number of games these players have turned out for.
Its 12.25 here and there's a snowball's chance in hell that I'm going to do this now.
Also have a trawl through the IRUPA literature to find out more on player availability and games window.


You're referring to Australia more than the other two here. This would be fine if Australia wasn't actually seeking to play more games each season. You should bear in mind that the ARU are striving for more games. The number of games they are restricted to is not by choice.
The ARC championship, an attempt to expand the sport with a professional domestic league failed and was binned.
In VIC, a fifth Super Rugby franchise has been formed.
The ARU were the main instigators behind the extra games in the Tri Nations (which entails six games and not four as you say).
They have also jumped at the chance of contesting an extra Bledisloe Cup game each year.
With the South African and New Zealand players, you have omitted the Currie Cup and NPC comps which their contracted 'elite' squad members all take part in.

We are not talking about desire to play more etc etc but who is CURRENTLY playing more. I agree with what you are saying and most is going off topic and could even splinter into an additional Bledisloe being for $$$ and not game time, why oh why is it in HK if its not primarily $$$.

yes the Rebels will mean more games for all but thats not now and anyway there are many arguments on a tangent, to say this may detract from the ARU due to such a thin layer of talent and it may well become a mercenary team and add no value to the ARU. Again Im using Oz as a bench mark as its what I am most familiar with.

I fully agree with your ML point and hence I say "potential", I dont think they miss more than 6 or 7 games tops between a few at the start and 3 or 4 during 6N. In Leinsters case we did not even rest just prior to HC games.

You are right and until some one decides to do a detailed study nation by nation it will be a bit grey, but in the whole I have displayed that no one can argue we play substantially LESS thats for sure. That is the main aim of my thread.

sock puppet

Diamondmaker wrote: »

Maori was a hell of a lot more competitive than Oz Fiji. Plus it was the National team and not an A team so no reason to discount.

Anyway we are talking about 1 -3 games tops here when the difference has been shown to be in the order of 13. So waht ever way we cut it there are still up to 10 games more we may be playing.

Lets even say we miss half of them with the senior guys, thats still 5 odd games more and no where do I count the Lions tour, which is a damn site more intense than Currie Cup !

Ireland fielded a second string team for both games. The team Australia fielded against Fiji is largely the same as the one we're facing.

Your last sentence is a bit strange though.

Zane Kirchner; Francois Hougaard, Jaco Pretorius, Wynand Olivier, Bryan Habana; Morné Steyn, Fourie du Preez; Gurthrö Steenkamp, Derick Kuün, Werner Kruger, Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield (capt), Deon Stegmann, Dewald Potgieter, Pierre Spies

That's the team that won the Currie Cup. It's virtually the same team that won the Super 14. The Lions midweek side (which is where most of the Irish contingent played) played against teams which were far far below this standard. When all the teams are at full strength the top Currie Cup sides are as strong as their Super 14 teams.

outwest

Diamondmaker wrote: »

We are not talking about desire to play more etc etc but who is CURRENTLY playing more. I agree with what you are saying and most is going off topic and could even splinter into an additional Bledisloe being for $$$ and not game time, why oh why is it in HK if its not primarily $$$.

yes the Rebels will mean more games for all but thats not now and anyway there are many arguments on a tangent, to say this may detract from the ARU due to such a thin layer of talent and it may well become a mercenary team and add no value to the ARU. Again Im using Oz as a bench mark as its what I am most familiar with.

I fully agree with your ML point and hence I say "potential", I dont think they miss more than 6 or 7 games tops between a few at the start and 3 or 4 during 6N. In Leinsters case we did not even rest just prior to HC games.

You are right and until some one decides to do a detailed study nation by nation it will be a bit grey, but in the whole I have displayed that no one can argue we play substantially LESS thats for sure. That is the main aim of my thread.

at best the play half which means the miss half, england and france player 5-6 more games then the irish lads, this too many games is a lazy exuse for ireland bad form due to the injurys, we had it soft in terms on injuries over the last 8 years,

JustinDee

Diamondmaker wrote: »

We are not talking about desire to play more etc etc but who is CURRENTLY playing more. I agree with what you are saying and most is going off topic and could even splinter into an additional Bledisloe being for $$$ and not game time, why oh why is it in HK if its not primarily $$$

My point is that the union you are using as a prime example actually exemplifies everything that goes against your argument, given their constant attempts to lengthen and increase the scope of their own rugby union season.

Diamondmaker

JustinDee wrote: »

My point is that the union you are using as a prime example actually exemplifies everything that goes against your argument, given their constant attempts to lengthen and increase the scope of their own rugby union season.

My point is we DO NOT play, give or take, any less than any other Union currently, perhaps slightly more. That is all. Its a myth IMO.

EDIT: Watching the Fox Sports Rugby Club show and one of the regular panelists, Jeremy Paul, commented on the length of the NH season compared to SH teams.

Ill take a sweeping statement from him over anyone here.

sock puppet

Diamondmaker wrote: »

My point is we DO NOT play, give or take, any less than any other Union currently, perhaps slightly more. That is all. Its a myth IMO.

EDIT: Watching the Fox Sports Rugby Club show and one of the regular panelists, Jeremy Paul, commented on the length of the NH season compared to SH teams.

Ill take a sweeping statement from him over anyone here.

Well it is a fact that we play less international rugby than other unions. And when you count the Currie Cup a South African international would play the same number of games as an Irish international for their club (15-20 games a year). So yes our players play less games than they do.

shanagarry

On top of looking at the number of games played, you also have to look at the rest periods that players get.

I'll focus on SA as that's the country that I'm most familiar with, but their rest period last year was much shorter than the Irish guys'.

After the Lions tour ended, the Irish lads were on a break, only playing competitively again at the start of October, but the Boks went straight into tri-nations until 12 Sept. I checked the Bulls' Currie Cup teams, and they had their Boks back on 3 Oct, and the key guys played a game every week until 31 Oct. Then they were in Europe for the month of November with the Boks. They got Dec off and were back in for Super 14 preseason in Jan, with the first games on 13 Feb. Then 15 Super 14 games for most given the Stormers and Bulls contested the final. Followed by the June tests, and now straight into Tri-Nations again.

So the Boks will have had a month off in the period that the Irish players will have had at least three months off.

You also have to factor in the amount of long-haul travelling the Sanzar teams do over the course of the season, which definitely has an impact.

Diamondmaker

sock puppet wrote: »

Well it is a fact that we play less international rugby than other unions. And when you count the Currie Cup a South African international would play the same number of games as an Irish international for their club (15-20 games a year). So yes our players play less games than they do.

OK maybe the SA play a bit more but maybe they dont and until some one wants to count up all the game played ( As I have done ) Ill take a genarlistic statement by an ex Wallabiy any day
Any way I never said we play "more" I said "give or take a handfull of games we play no Less" ( and possibly a bit more )

Further I also just spent the night with a bunch of Kiwis, who also seemed to agree and confirm that "these days the ABs virtually never line out for the Air NZ games and only play the S14, 6 x 3N games and any tests"

Based on that "info" BOD played:
8 H Cup, 5 6N and say ( conservativley ) 9 ML ( from 18 )= 23 games.

Carter or Mc Caw played ( ignoring any early games Im sure both missed ) played:
15 x S14 and 6 x 3N = 21 games.

BOD played Lions that neither NZ played and they played give or take ( lets give in this instance ) the kiwis played 2 extra summer / winter tests.

Conservatively BOD played 25 ( inc the 2 major Lions tests ignoring the rest and the fact he spent 6 weeks on the road) and Carter and McCaw played 21. Excluding touring tests but lets allow 2 extra more for the NZ cos noone has any facts and Im feeling generous.
= 25 BOD to 23 NZ

OK, this year if you want, the Saffas played the Lions games BUT at home and unlike BOD and many other Irish, did not play 2 or 3 Lions tours of the last 12 years.

Please please add up the numbers simply like this to show other wise, if Im wrong, cos I have been chatting about this the last while and no SH fan I have come across even attempts to discuss otherwise.

No matter what way I cut it I make we play a bit more. So allowing all sorts of room for error again I say:

" The Irish team play no more or no less than any other team " to any real dramatic affect, possibly a bit more in fact.

sock puppet

Diamondmaker wrote: »

OK maybe the SA play a bit more but maybe they dont and until some one wants to count up all the game played ( As I have done ) Ill take a genarlistic statement by an ex Wallabiy any day
Any way I never said we play "more" I said "give or take a handfull of games we play no Less" ( and possibly a bit more )

Further I also just spent the night with a bunch of Kiwis, who also seemed to agree and confirm that "these days the ABs virtually never line out for the Air NZ games and only play the S14, 6 x 3N games and any tests"

Based on that "info" BOD played:
8 H Cup, 5 6N and say ( conservativley ) 9 ML ( from 18 )= 23 games.

Carter or Mc Caw played ( ignoring any early games Im sure both missed ) played:
15 x S14 and 6 x 3N = 21 games.

BOD played Lions that neither NZ played and they played give or take ( lets give in this instance ) the kiwis played 2 extra summer / winter tests.

Conservatively BOD played 25 ( inc the 2 major Lions tests ignoring the rest and the fact he spent 6 weeks on the road) and Carter and McCaw played 21. Excluding touring tests but lets allow 2 extra more for the NZ cos noone has any facts and Im feeling generous.
= 25 BOD to 23 NZ

OK, this year if you want, the Saffas played the Lions games BUT at home and unlike BOD and many other Irish, did not play 2 or 3 Lions tours of the last 12 years.

Please please add up the numbers simply like this to show other wise, if Im wrong, cos I have been chatting about this the last while and no SH fan I have come across even attempts to discuss otherwise.

No matter what way I cut it I make we play a bit more. So allowing all sorts of room for error again I say:

" The Irish team play no more or no less than any other team " to any real dramatic affect, possibly a bit more in fact.

Every team has a profiles section where they say how many games each player has played for a given season. I had a quick look through some Leinster and Munster players a couple of weeks ago and the Irish internationals played about 15-20 games a season all told. With international rugby it's less than South Africans and though I haven't bothered to check, It's almost certainly less than French or English players (though then again it is much harder for a French or English player to hold down their place in the national team). No one said we play the least out of anyone, just that some other nations play more

Hyndsy85

to be pedantic, the Welsh clubs do play more than irish. they play the Anglo-Welsh LV cup thing on top of the same competitions irish clubs play.

I dont know about southern hemisphere but with currie cup and the like i reckon the only (Top Level) country who plays less than us could be Australia.

You could say scotland because of our 2 extra european games and now playoffs but scotland only have 2 clubs so their top stars play virtually all their ML games whereas ours play 25-50%

Risteard

Alan Quinlan made a good point on RTE there that players are fine physically and that they're well looked after but towards the end of a season they're mentally weary which when you think about is a small bit understandable.

For pretty much the entire year bar a few weeks they have to be switched on most of the time, focusing on the next match coming up, coping with pressure plus being in the spotlight. I thought it was an interesting point.

thomond2006

OT but Quinlan spoke very well.

I doubt he was comfortable when Hook repeatedly led the "Quinny for Ireland" charge though.

I might be wrong here but let's compare Ireland and Australia say.

Irish players only get one extended period of rest i.e. summer as they pretty much (bar being rested at least 5-6 seperate weeks for ML) play from September through to June. Even if you are rested for a week, like Risteard says you will thinking about/focusing on your next game in 2 weeks time. You are still integrated in a squad. You can't "switch off".

From what I can see, Australians get a break after the new year (about a month) till the beginning of the Super Rugby season, a months break until the beginning of this year's Tri Nations and a month break again after the Tri-Nations.

So Irish players don't play for about 2 months, while for Aussies it's 3.

Open to correction on the above of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Super_14_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Tri_Nations_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_end_of_year_rugby_tests

funky penguin

thomond2006 wrote: »

OT but Quinlan spoke very well.

+1, he did very well could definitely look into punditry when he retires from the game. Why not!

I liked how he stood up against Hook when he felt strongly about an opinion (eg Buckley).

But sorry, yes off topic.

thehighground

Doing an average over their careers of the no of games played gives an idea of the demands from the different countries. I used players who would generally be first choice when available for both club & country.

Fabian Pelous = 27 (average games per season)
Martin Johnson = 25
Martyn Williams = 24**
POC = 21*
Richie McCaw = 20
Victor Matfield = 17
Chris Patterson = 17

With those who would have played with the Lions - I haven't included the dirt tracker matches.

*Both BOD & ROG also average out with 21 games per season over their careers.

**Only averaged MW since 2003 as there is no info available as to how many games he played before regionalisation in Wales so his games total might be a bit high as its over a shorter period at the peak of his career.

No surprises there as to who plays most, but I'm sure some will be surprised to see how easy the SH players have it.

anonymous_joe

Would McCaw play in the ANZ Cup?

Stev_o

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Would McCaw play in the ANZ Cup?

ITM...:p

And yeah they he and the other AB's would.

anonymous_joe

Stev_o wrote: »

ITM...:p

And yeah they he and the other AB's would.

So that'd add on a few more games?

I mean, 13 (now 14? Don't quite know how S15'll work) games, plus 2 potentially, plus four 3N games, plus the whatever they call it now cup. Be about the same as our lads.

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

So that'd add on a few more games?

I mean, 13 (now 14? Don't quite know how S15'll work) games, plus 2 potentially, plus four 3N games, plus the whatever they call it now cup. Be about the same as our lads.

The average of 20 includes his provincial rugby:

Canterbury 34
Crusaders 91
ABs 83
Total 208 games over 11 years = 18.90 (I rounded it to 20!)

sock puppet

thehighground wrote: »

The average of 20 includes his provincial rugby:

Canterbury 34
Crusaders 91
ABs 83
Total 208 games over 11 years = 18.90 (I rounded it to 20!)

Cheers for the list. Though Matfield's is definitely wrong as he has more caps than McCaw at provincial, Super and international level.

anonymous_joe

thehighground wrote: »

The average of 20 includes his provincial rugby:

Canterbury 34
Crusaders 91
ABs 83
Total 208 games over 11 years = 18.90 (I rounded it to 20!)

Shít that few?

Still he needs a lot of rest, look how often you see him lying down in a ruck. :mad:

shanagarry

sock puppet wrote: »

Cheers for the list. Though Matfield's is definitely wrong as he has more caps than McCaw at provincial, Super and international level.

Yeah, definitely out. If you start after the Lions tour last year he had approx (some I checked, got bored!) 6 tri-nations, 4 Currie Cup, 4 Autumn intls, 14 Super 14, and 3 June intls. Taking the average can distort things if the player either started slowly with only a few games in their early careers, or missed periods through injury.

shanagarry

thomond2006 wrote: »

From what I can see, Australians get a break after the new year (about a month) till the beginning of the Super Rugby season, a months break until the beginning of this year's Tri Nations and a month break again after the Tri-Nations.

So Irish players don't play for about 2 months, while for Aussies it's 3.

Open to correction on the above of course.

They don't get a break before the tri-nations, it's straight from Super 14 to June Intls to Tri-Nations. Tri-nations is starting the weekend after next.

They get December off and S14 pre-season starts in Jan. And they might be off in October as well. The saffers aren't as they play Currie Cup then.

stadedublinois

In l'Equipe today it said Jean-Baptiste Poux has played 40 games this season