This includes our first, second and third choice scrum halves, which is leaving us a little thin! (we have two others in our squad, while an emergency back up, Lee Jones is in the Scotland squad too!)

SO to tackle the injury crisis, you need a combination of resting key players – recently there has been discussion about whether stints abroad might help players become more rounded – I would argue this gives them good exposure and it also it provides them with an environment where playing might mean more than winning; I’ve also prev floated the idea of sabbaticals for key England players (although main critique is because they aren’t centrally contracted this would be very difficult to implement).

By rotating big name players, you also allow your younger players to gain more experience. I do wonder whether we’ve got to the stage whereby looking at the top 4 clubs at the moment, the respective starting XV pick themselves (out of a combination of better skillsets and the need for clubs to win). But because of that, those starting players do not develop as their understudies aren’t given the chance to outshine them (too risky to play them) and the understudies cannot improve by being exposed in areas they are weak in (sounds harsh, but the best players are those that work on their mistakes).

How you encourage clubs to rotate more frequently through the team is harder to say. Perhaps clubs could get extra credit for playing “Home Grown Players” in their match day 23? As evidence, I would point to Sale, Newcastle and Exeter, who are all doing comparably well with a healthy mix of academy players and clever signings for their match day squads.

The clubs’s main motivation is to win, and increasing the salary cap won’t change this; it would likely encourage clubs to inflate wages in the short term to recruit/keep high value players which in the long term will make it even harder for less experienced players to break into starting 23s; and when the inevitable International period+injury crisis happens, we’ll just be asking the same question again.

An average salary (per player across the squad) might be better, but it might encourage some clubs to sign very cheap players to bring averages down.

Also, where would these extra quality players come from? I am not sure there are enough even now, and with EPQ rules about match day 23 players squad composition, things would get very tight.

I think what IS needed is some flexibility on the cap to allow emergency cover to be bought in. For example, as an extreme, take the salary costs of Sam Jones for Wasps. He remains part of their salary cap, but has not played for a very long time, and rumours suggest that he will not, and yet Wasps are fined for being slightly over the cap.

It could not have been foreseen and Wasps could have done nothing about it afterwards, but they should have been able to go out and find a short term replacement whilst recovery took place.

It would have to be limited to cases where the club applies to the RFU for dispensation on the cap, and minimum games lost before an application can be made to stop abuse. But, it would be better than what we currently have.

It also ensures that fans turning up are getting a high quality spectacle.

I guess the same for Sarries? I guess it makes life ‘interesting’.

Speaking of my own team (not expecting any sympathy!), Sarries are having a tough time during the Six Nations period. Five players away with the England squad, one with Scotland and one with Wales. But the injury list is more worrying. A total of 18 senior players out through either international duty or injury is difficult even for a team with our resources.