Quote Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda View Post
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
Ah ha! See, you are capable of being literate and logical and not just leap into gratuitous abuse when someone disagrees with you. It's good to see I've brought out the best in you.

The amateur players analysis is aimed at highlighting the number of youth players, really, as that should be a good standard to understand how many people actually play the game, as opposed to the population of your country which is a less reliable barometer.

Not at all convinced on the UK spreading their resources more thinly than others. Australia loses many of their potentially best rugby union players to Aussie rules etc. And while rugby union may be a religion in NZ, so what? What should really matter is how many people play it. There are many areas of England where football is a religion (or so they say) but it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the national team.

And yes, I didn't read it all.