Is one better than the other? I believe they both have their strengths and weaknesses and both need each other in order to be successful.

The way I view it, structured conditioning (i.e. no ball in hand, shuttles, linear runs, etc) creates the tools for conditioning games to have the best effect when preparing rugby players for their competition games. Structured conditioning allows for more targeted energy system development (rather than having a diffused stimulus across all systems) allowing for higher ceilings/outputs as well as ensuring every player receives a solid stimulus.

However, being too structured could lead to a rude awakening come game day, when players struggle to cope with the more chaotic sporting demands and make decisions under fatigue. Having a solid base of structured con loading under your belt going into con games allow for higher outputs to be reached during the game and for more skill development to occur (i.e. if you’re too fatigued early on – the game slows – less touches are created, etc.)