Season too long or not? : Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:17 am  

So who do you think is right? Jamie Peacock: http://timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... ost-1.html I've gone on record this week as saying that a 15 day pre-season, in the case of our international players, is nowhere near sufficient preparation. Nobody is going to improve in that time. The six weeks rest after the World Cup was good, but what I'd give for a thorough 12 week pre-season to work on improving physically and skills-wise. It's no good flogging players continuously, which is especially galling when you see other sports looking after their elite athletes. The onus is on you, therefore, to train as hard as you can and put your body through a bit more than others. I'm as ready as I'll ever be in the time allowed. Or, Adrian Morley: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 35,00.html Having been one of only two ever-presents for Warrington in Super League XIII and then going on to play for England in the World Cup, you could excuse Morley for feeling a little tired. But the 31-year-old is instead raring to go again after just six weeks of well-earned rest and is now determined to lead the Wolves to glory. "I'm ready to go again," he added. "It was a really long year last year, and I probably played the most games I've ever played - because I didn't miss any through injury or suspension. "I've had six weeks off and rested up - and now I'm chomping at the bit. Four or five weeks is long enough time to get yourself in peak physical condition."

So who do you think is right? Jamie Peacock: http://timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... ost-1.html I've gone on record this week as saying that a 15 day pre-season, in the case of our international players, is nowhere near sufficient preparation. Nobody is going to improve in that time. The six weeks rest after the World Cup was good, but what I'd give for a thorough 12 week pre-season to work on improving physically and skills-wise. It's no good flogging players continuously, which is especially galling when you see other sports looking after their elite athletes. The onus is on you, therefore, to train as hard as you can and put your body through a bit more than others. I'm as ready as I'll ever be in the time allowed. Or, Adrian Morley: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 35,00.html Having been one of only two ever-presents for Warrington in Super League XIII and then going on to play for England in the World Cup, you could excuse Morley for feeling a little tired. But the 31-year-old is instead raring to go again after just six weeks of well-earned rest and is now determined to lead the Wolves to glory. "I'm ready to go again," he added. "It was a really long year last year, and I probably played the most games I've ever played - because I didn't miss any through injury or suspension. "I've had six weeks off and rested up - and now I'm chomping at the bit. Four or five weeks is long enough time to get yourself in peak physical condition."

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:23 am  

I suppose every persons body responds differently and recuperation periods are individual too.

In my opinion though, Peacock has jumped on this bandwagon which is fast becoming a very lame excuse for Britain being crap in the World Cup.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:26 am  

Wirefan wrote: I suppose every persons body responds differently and recuperation periods are individual too. In my opinion though, Peacock has jumped on this bandwagon which is fast becoming a very lame excuse for Britain being crap in the World Cup. Yes, I think Jon Wilkin has been a bit more honest: http://timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... by-jo.html The whole tournament was very disappointing from an England perspective but, in some ways, I am sick of hearing about it now. The team didn't perform at all, and you can make excuses and give mitigation for all the things which went wrong, but we got the rugby wrong. As players we didn't perform, and that's it really

Wirefan wrote: I suppose every persons body responds differently and recuperation periods are individual too. In my opinion though, Peacock has jumped on this bandwagon which is fast becoming a very lame excuse for Britain being crap in the World Cup. Yes, I think Jon Wilkin has been a bit more honest: http://timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... by-jo.html The whole tournament was very disappointing from an England perspective but, in some ways, I am sick of hearing about it now. The team didn't perform at all, and you can make excuses and give mitigation for all the things which went wrong, but we got the rugby wrong. As players we didn't perform, and that's it really

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:44 am  

As stated everybody's body reacts different and they have a different mind set, i would rather agree with Morley although having 1 or so week extra is't going to hurt anyone.
12 weeks which has been suggested by JP is taking the p!$$.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:51 am  

In that case then, why don't we knock the number of teams down to 12 and let everyone play each other home and away. Getting rid of the Challenge Cup is another "brilliant" idea, and while we're at it lets get rid of the play offs and the fabulous visit to Old Trafford so Super League becomes a 'first past the post' competition. Fergie doesn't even want us there. The Magic weekend is a waste of time too, who cares about expansion after all? As for internationals, pah! We're no good so why bother.

Hell if it were up to me, Super League would be a knock-out competition.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:01 pm  

The players have clearly voiced their wish to play fewer games.

If SL reduced the number of fixtures then there would be a reduction of income for the clubs, season tickets would be cheaper because they would offer fewer games, and the TV companies would offer less money because they would have fewer games to screen. Also there would be fewer games to sell sponsorship etc.

So with the reduction in income there would have to be a corresponding reduction in the salary cap which would mean the players were paid less.

If they think this is a price worth paying then that's fair enough but I wonder if some of them would start saying that it was a disgrace that the cap had been reduced and we would start losing talent to RU...

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:04 pm  

I agree with Moz.

Peacock is an overgrown primate who lacks the intelligence and communication skills of the average ape. His opinions, no matter how poorly communicated, are of no interest and have no worth.

End of discussion.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:22 pm  

Dan Gosling wrote:

I agree with Moz.

Dan Gosling is an overgrown primate who lacks the intelligence and communication skills of the average ape. His opinions, no matter how poorly communicated, are of no interest and have no worth.

End of discussion.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:23 pm  

[quote="Des's Nemesis"][/quote]

Hello Catpiss, how are you today?

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:26 pm  

Dan Gosling wrote:

Hello Catpiss, how are you today?

Wrong . . .AGAIN!