6N 2013

[FoxyPV]

Wales fully deserved it. England were grim.

Enjoy, Finners.

[Finnegan]

Summary from the chief rugby writer on the BEEB, he's an Englishman by the way:

England have won one Grand Slam in 18 years and secured one championship in 10. Wales had three Slams in eight years and can now celebrate four championships in nine.

It is a disparity to make a mockery of the gulf in financial and player resources between the two unions, let alone the health of their respective domestic leagues.

[leicsmac]

Summary from the chief rugby writer on the BEEB, he's an Englishman by the way:

It's true. Wales have far less players and far less money, yet they have a fantastic track record.

But then the same is true for New Zealand.

I do wonder - with the money and player base, what's not quite right with England? Lack of quality coaching at grassroots level?

[Webbo]

The reason is is that Rugby is not as important in England and Scotland. It's mainly played by public school types. Most sporty kids here want to play football.

[leicsmac]

The reason is is that Rugby is not as important in England and Scotland. It's mainly played by public school types. Most sporty kids here want to play football.

But we still have over 2.5 million registered players, which I'm thinking is bigger than anywhere else, and the cashpot to go with it. Surely out of the 2.5 million there's 15-20 who with the right coaching, management and application of money can be the best in the world, purely just by the law of averages?

It's the same situation with tennis - and at a world-class level, football, come to that.

[Finnegan]

The reason is is that Rugby is not as important in England and Scotland. It's mainly played by public school types. Most sporty kids here want to play football.

You're on a roll this morning, Webster.

The fact it's played in public schools should, quite frankly, be a boon. More money is better facilities, better coaching. Look at the volume of your Olympians that came from public school / middle class backgrounds. The success of your cycling and rowing teams isn't down to working class, grass-roots BMXing in urban Lancashire is it?

You dominated the sport in the nineties and early naughties when it was still very much the upper-class game in England, that didn't seem to hold you back then, did it?

[Webbo]

I'd imagine that an average championship player would earn more than a top Rugby player(or cricket player, come to that). The elite sporty youngsters in England will want to go into football, not just for the money but the prestige as well.

Admittedly some of the forwards in rugby are too big and cumbersome to play football but a good back would probably be a good footballer or cricketer as well. Also there are more professional football clubs in England than rugby clubs so there are more opportunities as well.

This is all over the place but I'm sure you get my drift.

[Webbo]

You're on a roll this morning, Webster.

The fact it's played in public schools should, quite frankly, be a boon. More money is better facilities, better coaching. Look at the volume of your Olympians that came from public school / middle class backgrounds. The success of your cycling and rowing teams isn't down to working class, grass-roots BMXing in urban Lancashire is it?

You dominated the sport in the nineties and early naughties when it was still very much the upper-class game in England, that didn't seem to hold you back then, did it?

Our cycling and rowing teams Finners, ours.

I'm not complaining about being held back, I'm just stating common knowledge, most kids want to be footballers.

[Finnegan]

This is all over the place but I'm sure you get my drift.

No, we're not getting your drift. Because your drift just seems to be "rugby isn't as popular as football." Thanks for that, sausage rolls aren't as popular as chocolate bars but they're still a thriving industry.

Rugby and football have existed side by side as popular sports for time, leicsmac is just speculating why the English side has fallen off over the last decade. Rugby's never been as popular as football so it's not like football's just magically taken over and now there's no rugby players, is it?

End of the day, sporting generations rise and fall. You were shite in the seventies, you were tidy in the eighties and nineties, you're shite again now but you might have a reasonable latter-2010s if this current crop develop well together.

[Webbo]

No, we're not getting your drift. Because your drift just seems to be "rugby isn't as popular as football." Thanks for that, sausage rolls aren't as popular as chocolate bars but they're still a thriving industry.

Rugby and football have existed side by side as popular sports for time, leicsmac is just speculating why the English side has fallen off over the last decade. Rugby's never been as popular as football so it's not like football's just magically taken over and now there's no rugby players, is it?

End of the day, sporting generations rise and fall. You were shite in the seventies, you were tidy in the eighties and nineties, you're shite again now but you might have a reasonable latter-2010s if this current crop develop well together.

Well since the premier league there is more money and prestige in football than there was 20 years ago.

End of the day, Rugby is a bigger deal in Wales than England.

[Finnegan]

Well since the premier league there is more money and prestige in football than there was 20 years ago.

End of the day, Rugby is a bigger deal in Wales than England.

Well, yes, but football is still massive in Wales and the population of Wales is about seventeen times less than England, almost three times as many people live in London than Wales.

England has plenty of players and plenty of "sporty kids" playing rugby. The Premier League and football have **** all to do with it, there are still plenty of rugby people there.

[Webbo]

Well, yes, but football is still massive in Wales and the population of Wales is about seventeen times less than England, almost three times as many people live in London than Wales.

England has plenty of players and plenty of "sporty kids" playing rugby. The Premier League and football have **** all to do with it, there are still plenty of rugby people there.

But Scotland has nearly twice the population of Wales and they've got more wooden spoons than Delia Smith. So population isn't the most important factor.

[Guest]

How many world Cups have Wales won?

[Guest]

But Scotland has nearly twice the population of Wales and they've got more wooden spoons than Delia Smith. So population isn't the most important factor.

Welsh boys dream of wearing red rugby shirts in the fields and in the showers, English lads dream of girls and football. I understand where you're coming from Webbo.

[Finnegan]

But Scotland has nearly twice the population of Wales and they've got more wooden spoons than Delia Smith. So population isn't the most important factor.

Ah but up there it really isn't a particularly noteworthy sport, they've only really ever had two half decent clubs and have no great, imperious rugby playing history. In fact, they've made absolutely no impact in the professional era what so ever.

Honestly, I don't really know what you're trying to argue or why you're trying to argue it. Rugby is healthy in England, scores of people have played and still play it, you've ample massive rugby clubs who are relative giants of their sport and you're still producing a sizable talent pool with easily the best strength in depth of the home nations.

You've just got a young side at the moment because your last leadership milked an ageing generation of "golden age" stars without properly blooding any youth and now you're suffering for it whilst Lancaster takes time to rebuild and bring through the latest crop.

The reason you've not won anything of note, besides one scrappy non-Slam championship, in a decade is because pretty much half the side that had you dominating the sport in the 90s and took you to a World Cup in '03 retired on the spot after said victory leaving a huge amount of rebuilding to do.

These things happen in football, too. Look at the Dutch now compared to the 90s, they became reliant on one generation of players, all about the same age, all who retired together and left a vacuum. It's not because some other sport has become massively more popular and taken away all the "sporty kids" ( ) in the Netherlands is it?

I understand where you're coming from Webbo.

not surprising, given you're about equally clueless.

[pSinatra]

I don't know how other people judge it but as far as I'm concerned it's the Grand Slam or nothing. Winning the championship means very little.

I thought the celebrations yesterday were a little over-the-top. Were Wales celebrating stopping England from winning the Grand Slam or the hollow victory of winning the championship? If Wales had not lost to a frankly dire Irish team, it could have been them with a Grand Slam......but they didn't & the title of 'Champions' has little meaning (even if it is statistically correct).

Maybe it just highlights the lack of passion we have for the sport in England & the historical value of beating the English?

[Webbo]

Honestly, I don't really know what you're trying to argue or why you're trying to argue it.

I don't myself really , I'll support England at any sport you can imagine but I only really care about football and to a lesser extent cricket.

[Finnegan]

I don't know how other people judge it but as far as I'm concerned it's the Grand Slam or nothing. Winning the championship means very little.

I thought the celebrations yesterday were a little over-the-top. Were Wales celebrating stopping England from winning the Grand Slam or the hollow victory of winning the championship? If Wales had not lost to a frankly dire Irish team, it could have been them with a Grand Slam......but they didn't & the title of 'Champions' has little meaning (even if it is statistically correct).

Maybe it just highlights the lack of passion we have for the sport in England & the historical value of beating the English?

Context is important, really. When England lost the Grand Slam but still won the Championship after a mauling in Dublin then, of course, celebrations were muted.

But Wales came in to the tournament off the back of one of the worst losing streaks in their history. Confidence was very low, our two time Slam winning manager was absent on Lions duty, we had the worst injury list in the hemisphere (later surpassed impressively by the Irish) and the outlook was bleak.

We got absolutely battered in the first fifty odd minutes of the opening game but the side rallied, recovered and has gone from strength to strength since. The game in Paris may have been one of the most dour of the tournament but it was an enormous show of solidarity and mental strength that started a run of three back to back away wins.

To then crown the achievement with a record smashing of the tournament favourites and potential Grand Slam winners was a staggering achievement. Having been written off before the tournament and after the Ireland game, to then slowly grow in to - at absolute best - a muted, distant, dark-horse, a "long shot" and to come back that impressively was a very big thing.

There'll be extra value because they derailed a Grand Slam winning bid and because it was against the English but this was no chip-on-the-shoulder, as-long-as-we-beat-the-enemy triumphant squarking. This was a well deserved tournament win, wildly and rightly celebrated by a public who desperately want this generation of players to be a romping success. And yesterday they were.

As for Grand Slam or nothing? I don't really agree. A Slam is great but of all of our tournament wins (and by our I mean England, Wales, Ireland, France, etc) less than half were completed as Grand Slams so you're essentially writing off over fifty percent of the tournaments in the history of the sport. You win the most games and / or scores the most points then you deserve your trophy, simple as that.

[Guest]

Well, yes, but football is still massive in Wales and the population of Wales is about seventeen times less than England, almost three times as many people live in London than Wales.

I wonder why China and India aren't world Rugby champions if population size is an important factor.

You expect the Americans to be better too.

[Finnegan]

I wonder why China and India aren't world Rugby champions if population size is an important factor.

You expect the Americans to be better too.

Do you have to work on being that stupid?

[Guest]

How many world Cups have Wales won?

Oh yeah Wales managed 3rd in 1987 didn't they.

And despite being the best team in Europe for the last 10 years or whatever it is finnegan is claiming they've only made it to be a losing 3rd/4th place team in the three World cups during that 10 years. Impressive!

[pSinatra]

I like the Wales team & I like what Lancaster is doing with England. It will be interesting to watch the Welsh & English develop over the coming years..........with the English having to develop that much quicker.

[Finnegan]

What was that, one Championship in a decade? One Slam in nearly two? That must sting.

Mind you, your football fans have pretended for nearly fourty years they don't give a toss because they've at least won a world cup. Whatever soothes I guess.

[Guest]

Considering the Leicester City fans theory Lancaster should now be kicked out. We were in first throughout the championship only to bottle it on the last day.

[Guest]

What was that, one Championship in a decade? One Slam in nearly two? That must sting.

Mind you, your football fans have pretended for nearly fourty years they don't give a toss because they've at least won a world cup. Whatever soothes I guess.

3 world cup finals and 1 win certainly matches up better than 0 finals and 0 wins that the incredible Welsh have managed.