Brian Carney Vs. Phil Clarke. Hosted by a model.

[Cas Vegas]

A good wee argument, this;

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-league/11971140/golden-point-daily-player-welfare-debate-rages

[Harry Stottle]

Interesting that the guy who played in the 'engine room' as a second row forward sees it as a lot lesser of an issue to play more than once a week, than a winger who would have had a lot lesser physical involvement on the field.

[Cas Vegas]

27 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Interesting that the guy who played in the 'engine room' as a second row forward sees it as a lot lesser of an issue to play more than once a week, than a winger who would have had a lot lesser physical involvement on the field.

Yeah, I thought that too, @Harry Stottle. Particularly the way his own career finished?


Although apparently that was down to bad advice by Ellery.

[Mr Plow]

45 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Interesting that the guy who played in the 'engine room' as a second row forward sees it as a lot lesser of an issue to play more than once a week, than a winger who would have had a lot lesser physical involvement on the field.

Do you think Phil Clarke says these things just to be outrageous and create an argument that’s good for TV rather than him actually believe it that? 
 

Or is he just an idiot? 

[paulwalker71]

3 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

Do you think Phil Clarke says these things just to be outrageous and create an argument that’s good for TV rather than him actually believe it that? 
 

Or is he just an idiot? 

The two things are not mutually exclusive in his case

[Mr Plow]

6 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

The two things are not mutually exclusive in his case

True.

My favourite bit was when he tried to back up Gary Heatheringtons comments without having read them 

[Lowdesert]

I sometimes think Carney is just trying to be controversial.   Raise a load of and then at the end of it thinks, 'what was all that about'?  No one is any wiser. 

I've said it before but behind the mike is different and not for everyone.  Time for a change though.

[Dunbar]

I thought the argument brought forward by Clarke on the relationship between the frequency of matches and the intensity of the games was interesting.

The logic is that when a team and player plays more frequently the intensity reduces so injuries that may be associated with muscle fatigue and strain (which Carney referenced from football) may increase but serious injury sustained from higher intensity impact may reduce.

Putting aside the quality of the games for a second, is there any evidence to back up theory?  I remember Wigan having loads of fixtures backed up in the 80's playing a silly number of matches (felt like they were playing every other day).  There is no way that the intensity of the games can be sustained in these circumstances.

I am not advocating for this one way or the other, I was just wondering if there is any evidence to back this up; I know Clarke cited the Easter weekend but that is just one round in a season.

[Wigan Riversider]

3 hours ago, paulwalker71 said:

The two things are not mutually exclusive in his case

Thought the same when I read on BBC website that in the 1985 CC final at Wembley Mike Ford was the dominant half back on the day.

According to Shaun Edwards.

[my missus]

carney talks more ###### than clarke, a stupid argument about something that will probably never never happen, if we have to have extra games i would say 3 in 10 is doable with a decent squad rotation.

[DoubleD]

30 minutes ago, my missus said:

carney talks more ###### than clarke, a stupid argument about something that will probably never never happen, if we have to have extra games i would say 3 in 10 is doable with a decent squad rotation.

It’s entertaining during a lockdown period. Whilst they both took extremities of positions during the debate, I thought it was interesting and raised good points 

[Cas Vegas]

28 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

It’s entertaining during a lockdown period. Whilst they both took extremities of positions during the debate, I thought it was interesting and raised good points 

Agreed. And a show of how rugby league people frequently disagree with each other but remain mates.

[Cas Vegas]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I would say intuitively the opposite is true. That as fatigue comes in to play technique and discipline fail putting players in a more dangerous position. 

It's not often that we see pure impact injuries. Especially serious ones.

 

Fair points.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

So if Carney's beard is completely grey does that mean he'sdying his (completely brown) hair? 

[Dunbar]

I have spent the afternoon looking at articles that show correlation between the intensity of a match and the rate of injuries.

An article by TIM J. GABBETT titled Influence of training and match intensity on injuries in rugby league is particularly interesting and I quote an extract below:

"The match injury rates also closely tracked the overall match load, with higher intensity matches resulting in the highest injury rates. These findings are consistent with previous studies that found higher rates of injury as the playing level and match intensity was increased (Gissane etal.,1993;Stephensonetal.,1996)."

The problem with these studies is that they will compare the match intensity with lower level matches (from either different times of the season or for lower leagues) when determining the rate of injury and its correlation to match intensity.

What we cannot know I guess is if we increase the number of matches that a player plays... will the individual match intensity go down resulting in fewer injuries but the higher number of matches lead to more injuries though fatigue and strain.  As with all things there is a balance here.

Any PhD candidates out there looking for topic?

[Tommygilf]

28 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Any PhD candidates out there looking for topic?

If you can think of a clever way to get it into either history of liberalism or the USSR I'll see what I can do haha

[DoubleD]

33 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have spent the afternoon looking at articles that show correlation between the intensity of a match and the rate of injuries.

An article by TIM J. GABBETT titled Influence of training and match intensity on injuries in rugby league is particularly interesting and I quote an extract below:

"The match injury rates also closely tracked the overall match load, with higher intensity matches resulting in the highest injury rates. These findings are consistent with previous studies that found higher rates of injury as the playing level and match intensity was increased (Gissane etal.,1993;Stephensonetal.,1996)."

The problem with these studies is that they will compare the match intensity with lower level matches (from either different times of the season or for lower leagues) when determining the rate of injury and its correlation to match intensity.

What we cannot know I guess is if we increase the number of matches that a player plays... will the individual match intensity go down resulting in fewer injuries but the higher number of matches lead to more injuries though fatigue and strain.  As with all things there is a balance here.

Any PhD candidates out there looking for topic?

How is intensity measured?

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

How is intensity measured?

Afraid I am going to have to refer you to the article for that one as the approach is quite complex and no point me trying to relay it.

If you google the name and title you will find a link to a downloadable pdf if you are interested.

[DoubleD]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Afraid I am going to have to refer you to the article for that one as the approach is quite complex and no point me trying to relay it.

If you google the name and title you will find a link to a downloadable pdf if you are interested.

It looks like it’s some form of algorithm which isn’t easy to decipher. 

 I would say the sample size of 79, all of whom were from the same period, is relatively small and insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions. 

 I would be interested in seeing a wider research carried out, which shouldn’t be difficult with all the player trackers that are now in play

[Mr Plow]

5 hours ago, my missus said:

carney talks more ###### than clarke, a stupid argument about something that will probably never never happen, if we have to have extra games i would say 3 in 10 is doable with a decent squad rotation.

But does every SL team have enough players in their squad to be able to do that? I’d say Toronto and Salford don’t. It’s a ridiculous idea, just scrap the loop fixtures so the season doesn’t go on forever

[TBone]

35 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

But does every SL team have enough players in their squad to be able to do that? I’d say Toronto and Salford don’t. It’s a ridiculous idea, just scrap the loop fixtures so the season doesn’t go on forever

I doubt many have enough players of SL standard. Another thing to bear in mind is that the players will have had a long lay off so few, if any, will be in peak condition to start with.

[RigbyLuger]

Lee Smith tweeting Sky Sports to get rid of Clarke is as embarrassing as some of his performances at the Bulls were.

[Man of Kent]

12 hours ago, Mr Plow said:

Do you think Phil Clarke says these things just to be outrageous and create an argument that’s good for TV rather than him actually believe it that? 
 

Or is he just an idiot? 

This is the great debate of our age.

On one hand Clarke is a science graduate. On the other, he frequently utters outlandish statements with little basis in reality.

No doubt both Clarke and Carney ham it up for the cameras but Clarke in particular is an enigma.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

9 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

 

No doubt both Clarke and Carney ham it up for the cameras

..... And we talk about Phil a lot here

Maybe just maybe they/he knows what they/he is doing when he does it

[Cas Vegas]

10 hours ago, Mr Plow said:

But does every SL team have enough players in their squad to be able to do that? I’d say Toronto and Salford don’t. It’s a ridiculous idea, just scrap the loop fixtures so the season doesn’t go on forever

Well said. The Loop Fixtures are terrible. I don't go to them. Not interested. I know of no-one who likes them either, so the argument that the clubs need the money for them doesn't stack up as everyone thinks that they suck. Plus, they rob us of opportunities for Rep. fixtures.