Boks need 12-weeks' rest

A compulsory ten-week rest period between rugby seasons is not ideal but it is, at least, a step in the right direction.
That is the response of the South African Rugby Players Association (Sarpa) to the prescribed break that the International Rugby Board announced at the weekend.
Piet Heymans, Sarpa's chief executive, said on Monday the minimum rest period was nearer to what was scientifically regarded as an ideal break between seasons.
"People such as Prof Tim Noakes (one of South Africa's leading sports scientists) feel players should be given twelve weeks' rest," Heymans said.
"That they are now given ten weeks, is a step in the right direction. It is clear that the IRB and the broadcasters have taken note of the well-being of the players."
Heymans believes the break that the Springboks enjoyed at the end of last year paid dividends this year, particularly in the World Cup tournament.
"We saw the results of the decision not to send some of the senior Springboks on the end-of-the-year tour. It certainly favoured the Springboks.
"It also proved it is not only the rest that matters, but when you rest.
"As part of their conditioning programme, some of the senior Springboks did not tour last year and were given another break during this year's Tri-Nations competition.
"It worked for the Springboks but it was different with New Zealand's conditioning programme. New Zealand made a strategic mistake," Heymans said.
In an equally controversial move, the New Zealanders put their 22 best players through a conditioning programme during the first seven weeks of the Super 14 competition.
The All Blacks won the Tri-Nations title but some of their senior players did not come up to expectations and the favourites lost to France in the World Cup quarterfinals.
"It's not only about the duration of the rest period but when you are exposed to it," Heymans said.