Using the Rate of Perceived Effort (RPE) scale of 1-10   (1 being the lowest perceived effort and 10 the maximum amount of effort the player felt they had worked at), I designed 4 conditioning sessions. Two sessions were using the rugby ball and 2 without the ball. Each session, unknown to the players, all covered the exact same distances as each other. All lasted 43 minutes, and each would take place on a Tuesday evening.  The only parameter that was not guaranteed to be the same for both sessions was the weather. In order to glean even more information on my human experiment I hooked each player up to Global Satellite Positioning (GPS).

The content of the different sessions included intervals and steady state running for the non rugby ball session.  The session with the ball consisted of continuous 2 ‘v’ 1, broken play attacks, and 6 ‘v’ 3 ‘v’ 2 ‘v’ 1 attack from the half way line. As soon as the sessions where over the players had to rate how hard they thought the session was from 1-10 on the RPE.  Every one of the players rated the non rugby ball session on average 6-7.  The session which contained the ball was rated from a 4-6 by the players.  When I checked the GPS results the session with the ball showed faster running speeds.  Players heart rates where higher throughout this session which gives a better training response, and the recovery patterns mimicked what the players would experience in a game. The GPS results of the non rugby ball session showed classical interval training responses.  Heart rates spiked when the players where running, then dropped right back down during recovery to a regulated patter.  This was very unspecific for rugby.

The fact that players rated the training with the ball as easier (and all said more enjoyable), would indicate they CAN train hard, enjoy the session and hopefully gain some skill development along the way-a winning situation all round!
 
Mikey