Stop crying you soft British cow

[World's End Stella]

Only Russia, USA and Germany have won more - thick ****

Unusually for Anaconda, some of that is actually true. I know sod all about the Olympics historically, it was just a wind up on top of Burney's wind up.

If I wanted to really comment on how un-athletic the English are I would point out their historic futility in football, rugby and cricket with rugby and cricket being particularly amusing given how few countries of any size actually play them.

[Luis Anaconda]

Unusually for Anaconda, some of that is actually true. I know sod all about the Olympics historically, it was just a wind up on top of Burney's wind up.

If I wanted to really comment on how un-athletic the English are I would point out their historic futility in football, rugby and cricket with rugby and cricket being particularly amusing given how few countries of any size actually play them.

It is stunning how you demonstrate such increasing ignorance with every post. wd WES - you truly are a gold medallist ****wit

[World's End Stella]

It is stunning how you demonstrate such increasing ignorance with every post. wd WES - you truly are a gold medallist ****wit

I'm going to move this post to the 'Anaconda is a close minded dimwit' folder - if there's room.

[Luis Anaconda]

I'm going to move this post to the 'Anaconda is a close minded dimwit' folder - if there's room.

Again a stupid thing to say. I'm very open-minded, I even like 50% of the Canadians who post on here

[Burney]

It is stunning how you demonstrate such increasing ignorance with every post. wd WES - you truly are a gold medallist ****wit

I'm very amused by the idea that - despite apparently being so unathletic - we gave the world most of its biggest sports and indeed the very concept of organised sport in its modern sense.

WES really can be such a spastic when he puts his back into it.

[World's End Stella]

I'm very amused by the idea that - despite apparently being so unathletic - we gave the world most of its biggest sports and indeed the very concept of organised sport in its modern sense.

WES really can be such a spastic when he puts his back into it.

Are you really equating athletic prowess with the ability to invent a sport? You think the correlation between the two is obvious and intuitive? I'd argue otherwise.

In fact, that was always the British stereotype, great at inventing them, terrible at playing them. Tennis being a great example. But you could add cricket (0 world championships despite countries with much smaller populations winning the majority of them, and rugby union where Australia and NZ despite having a combined population slightly more than half of England's, have won five WCs to England's one.

Perhaps you chaps should try looking at some data and actually thinking for a change.

[Pokster]

Are you really equating athletic prowess with the ability to invent a sport? You think the correlation between the two is obvious and intuitive? I'd argue otherwise.

In fact, that was always the British stereotype, great at inventing them, terrible at playing them. Tennis being a great example. But you could add cricket (0 world championships despite countries with much smaller populations winning the majority of them, and rugby union where Australia and NZ despite having a combined population slightly more than half of England's, have won five WCs to England's one.

Perhaps you chaps should try looking at some data and actually thinking for a change.

So how do we win so many Olympic medals at such a large variety of sports....bloody hell, other nations must be very unathletic then, or I suppose its your usual drug use comments...****

[Luis Anaconda]

Are you really equating athletic prowess with the ability to invent a sport? You think the correlation between the two is obvious and intuitive? I'd argue otherwise.

In fact, that was always the British stereotype, great at inventing them, terrible at playing them. Tennis being a great example. But you could add cricket (0 world championships despite countries with much smaller populations winning the majority of them, and rugby union where Australia and NZ despite having a combined population slightly more than half of England's, have won five WCs to England's one.

Perhaps you chaps should try looking at some data and actually thinking for a change.

Perhaps you should try understanding things you quote rather than just picking up statistics off the internet. It would stop you looking like an idiot. (There is no such thing as a world championship in cricket, by the way). And just saying that a country has a smaller population really does overlook a lot of other factors. But you seem to revel in your ignorance so why should we bother trying to educate you

[World's End Stella]

Perhaps you should try understanding things you quote rather than just picking up statistics off the internet. It would stop you looking like an idiot. (There is no such thing as a world championship in cricket, by the way). And just saying that a country has a smaller population really does overlook a lot of other factors. But you seem to revel in your ignorance so why should we bother trying to educate you

I'll add this to the 'Anaconda is a close minded etc etc

The cricket world championship I am referring to is the cricket world cup played in the ODI format, but I think you know this and are just being deliberately obtuse/difficult. And while it isn't the only factor in judging a nation's ability at cricket, it's a pretty good one. Or perhaps you would like to regale us with England's long history of dominance in the long form of the game?

And while having a larger population isn't the only factor, it's also a pretty good one. For years Canada and Russia dominated hockey and guess what? When you counted the number of amateur players in each country, guess which two came out on top? And on that note, The Times did an analysis of the number of amateur rugby union players in each country a few years back. Want to guess which two countries were far and away the leaders? That would be England and South Africa (the two most populated countries in the list BTW). At the time South African rubgy wasn't in disarray and they weren't losing many of their best players to foreign clubs and were very strong internationally with a consistent record of success.

What was England's excuse? Well, I think we know what the answer is.

[Luis Anaconda]

I'll add this to the 'Anaconda is a close minded etc etc

The cricket world championship I am referring to is the cricket world cup played in the ODI format, but I think you know this and are just being deliberately obtuse/difficult. And while it isn't the only factor in judging a nation's ability at cricket, it's a pretty good one. Or perhaps you would like to regale us with England's long history of dominance in the long form of the game?

And while having a larger population isn't the only factor, it's also a pretty good one. For years Canada and Russia dominated hockey and guess what? When you counted the number of amateur players in each country, guess which two came out on top? And on that note, The Times did an analysis of the number of amateur rugby union players in each country a few years back. Want to guess which two countries were far and away the leaders? That would be England and South Africa (the two most populated countries in the list BTW). At the time South African rubgy wasn't in disarray and they weren't losing many of their best players to foreign clubs and were very strong internationally with a consistent record of success.

What was England's excuse? Well, I think we know what the answer is.

We were no 1 in the world in Test Cricket not that long ago thank you very much And we are competing with a country that has a population of 1.2 billion in that regard

Rugby union is a professional game so quite what the number of amateur players around a few years ago has to do with the price of fish, but on that note since you bring up the subject you fail to take into account that rugby union has only been professional for a relatively short period of time - officially since 1995, yet it clearly was so in Australia and New Zealand long before that, which explains their advantage to some degree.

I'd put our lack of "success" in the union sphere (and some of the other sports) down to a number of factors, none of which have anything to do with being unathletic, which seemed to be your original point.

Very few countries spread their resources as thinly as the UK does in team sports - obviously football has become increasingly dominant in recent years and union has to compete with that and rugby league and to a lesser extent cricket and hockey for a limited player base (for example Andrew Strauss had the makings of a top class scrum half but decided to focus on cricket). Compare this to New Zealand where rugby union is a religion, everyone plays it and no self-respecting Kiwi would place a career in another sport above union.
Secondly, the powerful club structure in England is at odds with a successful international team and that has undoubtedly undermined the national side at points down the years. Compare to Ireland, whose success over the last ten/15 years came once the IRFU took complete control of the players, being able to dictate when they can play and more importantly who they can play for. Having an entire squad playing for the four Provinces has undoubtedly made a difference and ensuring they haven't lost valuable players to England and France was vital. There's echoes of this in cricket where from the debris of the 90s Duncan Fletcher and co built a very strong team based around central contracts and I don't really need to explain how detrimental the power of the clubs in the Premier League is to the strength of the national football team, do I?
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, is the complete shoddy amateurism of the governing bodies (again the FA, anyone?). Clive Woodward's biggest accomplishments as England manager was to take on the old farts of the RFU at every step and ensure that his team (which he didn't really coach) had the best chance of winning. It was not a lack of talent that held England back but terrible organisation. Not surprising not England coach has succeeded to that extent before or since, though Jones is made of the same stuff.

And as you have probably stopped reading this **** by now I will say we are actually just a bit **** at cricket really. It's one of our charms.

Yours
Close-minded dimwit