World Rugby statement: Rugby World Cup final

WR does NOT schedule matches for the big unions. It is a big union problem, not a problem for WR to fix for once.

NZ regularly plays games against PI nations, Japan, and USA, expanding their unions and markets. What has SA done for the game, aside from winning RWCs and playing some really good rugby?

Nothing.

Remember they'll be for all forms of rugby, and 'competition's as well as proper club leagues, for some of the more unique countries in the list. But yes, its fairly interesting what countries are getting upto with the game, Sri Lanka are just off that list. Have you watched Rugged Rugby on Netflix?

I really should check those references on Wales numbers. I had heard it was super popular down through the community, a bit like France in the south, but I'm still surprised by them. NZs mens numbers rose by 5% this year. Google list of rugby union playing countries.

But yes, you wouldn't want it to come to the detriment of other countries, thankfully that's not happening imo.

They certainly aren't going to go to Scotland if theres no jobs.

They other thing I noted is that he appeared to have a bench backup on those equations. UBB never tried to create a player who can act as his cover and go with a bigger forward split on the bench? Would seem like the perfect opportunity.

There's definitely a case for countries to get together for their own benefit as it's such a young sport everything is evolving and theres plenty of knowledge out their (from sports like football) to help that along. SANZAAR is the perfect example.

The issue that I pointed out to JV is he was acting like France's is solved/resolved, when it is clearly not. But yes, no is acknowledge SA's 2 months off shouldn't be consecutively, were just also not losing site that French players only have 1 month off and that introduces worse R&R.

By the same token as your criticism of HHT, you two are guilty of doing the same thing. You just don't like what the data says so you go on the attack LOL.

Lucu is the exact same yet you were suggesting he's supposedly worked harder as a Bordeaux player (and he is in a way it's just a credit to the clubs). Someone like Ratima played the same amount of games this year. Gordon, who plays for a country with probably the best player welfare policy and structure (they aren't pushed as hard for coutnry) played a similar amount of minutes than Dupont averages. Fakatava had 24 games this year. Mitchell has got upto 30 games twice in the last 3 years.

It is the club with the big season, not the players, that is ensured in part by them being managed by clun abd country. But you can't suggest another couple of games against NZ for instance is too much. The issue is categorically the length of the club season, whether playing or not, it adds wear. It's just as I described earlier, where I think SA has a better more aligned/clear respite periods (I'm not really sure how French clubs manage it, just looks like sometimes they don't travel to away games), and perhaps that's why they're perceivably getting more/better use out of their players?

I thought you just massage your ego by spouting platitudes at digital strangers.

I'd struggle with Afrikaans. My conversational Dutch is poor.

Would it be okay for the men? The rules need to be consistent.

As Stacey says the league game has a lot of physical roughing up of the player and of course she now has a broken leg as a result of her time playing it.

I get that the women aren't on as much as the men to play rugby sevens, etc, but that should be no excuse for NZ rugby to be allowing the Warriors, etc, to raid the playing stocks with no repercussions.

Clearly transfer fees are impossible so NZ rugby investing millions of dollars into the women's game to then have them go to league and promote league isn't at all intelligent.

The women signing up for league need to be told that they are going to miss the Olympics, world cups and the sevens global comps.

NZ rugby needs to of course accept some will go but in turn those that go need to be told that they're not going to have their cake and eat it to.