Six Nations 2016

[GrumpyGregry]

England have more players than any other country. They are to be congratulated on their impressive victory.

England have more players than all the other countries put together!

 

[Aperitif]

Must be time for evolution then:

1
England
Wales
Ireland
France

2
Scotland
Italy
Georgia
Romania

Winner 1 plays Runner up 2 etc. Upcoming players can get match time in their National Team, clubs will be amply rewarded by the revenues "fairly distributed" and rugby will grow as entertainment for the masses.

Well, Mel Gibson might explode, but - as long as 'Football' as we know it doesn't follow the relentless analysis of The NFL in its quest for the best.

 

[martint235]

Must be time for evolution then:

1
England
Wales
Ireland
France

2
Scotland
Italy
Georgia
Romania

Winner 1 plays Runner up 2 etc. Upcoming players can get match time in their National Team, clubs will be amply rewarded by the revenues "fairly distributed" and rugby will grow as entertainment for the masses.

Well, Mel Gibson might explode, but - as long as 'Football' as we know it doesn't follow the relentless analysis of The NFL in its quest for the best.

I think I prefer the two league system with promotion/relegation. In your setup, the final would always be Winner 1 v Runner Up 1 as there's no development for the teams in 2 really.

 

[Aperitif]

I think I prefer the two league system with promotion/relegation. In your setup, the final would always be Winner 1 v Runner Up 1 as there's no development for the teams in 2 really.

Oops! Forgot to mention the 'two up, two down' bit, sorry.

 

[nickyboy]

Oops! Forgot to mention the 'two up, two down' bit, sorry.

Another dig at us Northerners and our poor quality housing.....sheesh

 

[Paul99]

England have more players than any other country. They are to be congratulated on their impressive victory.

Inevitable but pointless comparisons.

Your original post infers that the only reason England won was because they have a bigger pool of players to choose from.

My post was pointing out to you that is not the case. NZ have a smaller population than Scotland but they have quite a good team.

So it isn't pointless. It's very relevant.

Scotland lost because they were second best. Sorry to break the news to you.

 

[AndyRM]

Your original post infers that the only reason England won was because they have a bigger pool of players to choose from.

My post was pointing out to you that is not the case. NZ have a smaller population than Scotland but they have quite a good team.

So it isn't pointless. It's very relevant.

Scotland lost because they were second best. Sorry to break the news to you.

My original post was actually "England are pish". And they are. They should be annihilating teams like Scotland and Italy but have needed penalties and a crap pass to get over the line.

Comparing them with countries that have no interest in rugby is pointless.

My bitterness/resentment has nothing to do with England being England, which is a country I love - it makes my top three without really trying. I just find it hugely frustrating that the resources available for rugby are totally wasted. It's like resting a Faberge Egg on a poorly constructed plywood plinth.

 

[nickyboy]

I just find it hugely frustrating that the resources available for rugby are totally wasted..

I've been giving this a bit of thought and I'm pretty clear on the reason why England punches well below its weight. It's school rugby

If you look at all the England age-group teams (U16,U18,U20) and have a look at what schools the boys are at or have been to you'll see a lot of "top rugby schools" and hardly any at schools that aren't rugby focused. That means that it's a very small % of boys that are on a track that propels them into potential England reckoning

What's happening is that England age-group selection comes from Regional selection which in turn comes from County selection. And the County selectors look at school games. So if you don't go to a serious rugby school you won't get a look in

There must be loads of boys who aren't lucky enough to go to a rugby school who just slip through the net. So thousands of kids end up playing club rugby and, because they didn't go to a high-profile rugby school, they don't get looked at for selection

Example...my son goes to a rugby school. The school has a very good track record in producing boys who have been selected for England age group sides. The local state school is just as big as my son's school but don't play much serious rugby and don't have good coaches. They have no track record in getting boys selected for England but the boys there probably have the same genetics. It's just down to lazy selection methodologies

 

[subaqua]

and in wales we have regions . which just funked it up completely for grass roots progression. or am i just being bitter

 

[martint235]

and in wales we have regions . which just funked it up completely for grass roots progression. or am i just being bitter

Wales have great players: Warburton, Halfpenny, Roberts, Wyn-Jones et al. A fantastic coach in Gatland and yet if it came to running a p*** up in a brewery I think the WRU would struggle to find the brewery. The regions? The central contracts?

 

[subaqua]

Wales have great players: Warburton, Halfpenny, Roberts, Wyn-Jones et al. A fantastic coach in Gatland and yet if it came to running a p*** up in a brewery I think the WRU would struggle to find the brewery. The regions? The central contracts?

The WRU couldn't find their own peanut with a map and their own hands to be honest.

Friday night elite rugby, brought to you by an ex fecking DJ.

 

[Aperitif]

A letter from The Guardian, says:

Robert Kitson rightly praises Billy Vunipola for his Man of the Match performance for England against Ireland and for lasting 80 minutes (Sport, 29 February). However, the ball was actually in play for a total of only 37 minutes – 18 minutes in the first half and 19 minutes in the second – because of the rules and referees of rugby union. Is it not time that the authorities put more emphasis on keeping the game flowing rather than allowing tedious delays at scrums, lineouts and penalty kicks?
Tony Hartigan
Otley, West Yorkshire

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My original post was actually "England are pish". And they are. They should be annihilating teams like Scotland and Italy but have needed penalties and a crap pass to get over the line.

Comparing them with countries that have no interest in rugby is pointless.

My bitterness/resentment has nothing to do with England being England, which is a country I love - it makes my top three without really trying. I just find it hugely frustrating that the resources available for rugby are totally wasted. It's like resting a Faberge Egg on a poorly constructed plywood plinth.

^This. umpteen times over. With the resources we have, and the money we have, we should trounce, and I mean spank out of the park, every NH side we play. That we don't, and that this doesn't cause a flicker of embarrassment at Twickers, is beyond me.

 

[Aperitif]

Richard Williams' two penn'orth today...
Extract:

There are small mercies. During last weekend’s match between England and Ireland, the ball was in play for exactly 37 of the 80 minutes. This divided into 18 minutes in the first half and 19 in the second, which suggests something systematic at work. The spectators were lucky to be given time to go to debate the EU referendum or the US primaries rather than enduring more of what passes for international rugby. This is an era in which place-kickers go through interminable pantomimes of gnomic tics and minutes are wasted in a single scrummage being reset over and over again, the consequence of both cynical tactics and the referees’ refusal to observe the first rule, that of a straight put-in, because the original point of the scrum has long been forgotten.

Full article here

 

[Beebo]

PHEW!!!!!!