There’s no mitigation for Sinckler’s actions
AS the threat of a players’ strike becomes more of a possiblity than it was when first suggested by Billy Vunipola, it’s probably time for someone to come up with a solution that would suit everyone – so here’s mine.
To me the answer is quite simple: why not do what was suggested by the RFU years ago when the professional Premiership was in its infancy?
At the time, I was a part of the club England subcommittee on the RFU and already there were concerns as to player welfare, so it was suggested that clubs take a break when the internationals were being played.
It would have given the clubs two breaks in the season when those players not involved in the internationals could be rested and prepared for the next stage of the season.
It should then not have been beyond the wit of those who structure the season to make sure that the club games that follow the international break are those of less importance, for instance, the Anglo-Welsh Cup. This way the international players could be rested, allowing the young developing players the chance of selection for those games to provide them with valuable game time in ‘proper’ games.
Admittedly, it would probably have entailed a slightly longer season but there would be no extra games and the players would be rested, so the games should be more exciting with fewer injuries.
The clubs refused, saying that they needed to play every week, even without their star players, to maintain their fan base. However, now 20 years plus down the line, the clubs should be confident enough in their product to accept a couple of short breaks, particularly if it allows players rest, recuperation and also avoids ~ a very damaging and divisive strike.