The Ubiquity of Rugby

summerskin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There was a time - you may find it hard to believe - when more than a dozen clubs in total could win a European Cup. Celtic winning it wasn't an anomaly - teams from Serbia, Romania, also won the European cup. Even small-town teams like Notts Forest won it. W

hen do you think the next winner will come from somewhere other than England, Germany, Italy or Spain? When will former European powerhouse Ajax win it again?

And even on a national league level - when will a team other than the big five in England win the league without a billionaire investor coming along? Remember when small-town teams like Nottingham Forest, Derby County or Aston Villa were champions? When was the last time a team outside the big five even mounted a challenge?

Not sure about your point there, Villa are from Birmingham, the second largest city in the UK(or largest if you only count the actual "city of london" rather than the boroughs), and Derby and Nottingham are both cities.

Monty Burnz

summerskin wrote: »

Not sure about your point there, Villa are from Birmingham, the second largest city in the UK(or largest if you only count the actual "city of london" rather than the boroughs), and Derby and Nottingham are both cities.

Derby and Nottingham are not big cities though. Villa is cited as a team outside the big five hegemony that in the not-too-distant past has won both the league and the European Cup.

eyescreamcone

I do agree that the best players are more concentrated in the top teams.
But pre Bosman they were slaves to the club owners and could not be sold even at the end of their contracts. Crazy times.
This made for more competition as clubs could hold on to talent (illegally?!)

Still, in the EPL there are potentially 5/6 teams who could win next year.
I don't think that there was ever any more than that many real challengers.

The old European Cup with 1 entry per country eliminated a lot of real contenders before it kicked off. The present system where 4 from say England means better teams now qualify, making wins from weaker countries much more unusual.

I don't think we'll ever see a team like Forrest again -going from the second tier to winning the title and European Cup in 2 years. This was not done on a shoestring though as you will remember they bought players like Trevor Francis (first £1M player).

Because the top quality players are concentrated in the top teams the overall quality at the top level is vastly superior than in the old days and this improved product must be of benefit to the viewing public.
More fans are paying more money so the product must be ok.

As for players being mercenaries - I'm sure Brian O'Driscoll will hammer out the best deal for himself (even flying the odd kite of going to France if it'll help his cause).
He knows his career is short and you have to milk every last drop out of it. Also, teams will drop you like a hot potato when you're of of no more use. (see Roy Keane).
This will happen in any professional sport including Rugby.

starlit

I prefer GAA and Rugby. I find the matches in them more exciting than a soccer match as each game is different. Soccer its the same old thing nothing much exciting other than when they score, there isn't much to the game otherwise and can be a bit boring.

I'd watch Ireland play and the odd soccer match but not a massive fan of the soccer, more a fan of GAA and Rugby to be honest. For once I actually understand those sports (I'm a girl). Though like badminton and tennis too but not a massive sports fan either. Rather watch than play except would play badminton/tennis the odd time myself. Use to like basketball but got sick of it. Have the sports wii for the moment...

At least with GAA/Rugby and the odd horse race you can talk about it in a group of people who are into them whether lads or girls.

So a fan of GAA and Rugby here!:cool:

Pherekydes

Slattsy wrote: »

I won't slate ya.
I'll come back with this though. Is rugby the only sport in the world where you can be 25 stone, be as slow as a tortoise and when handed the ball all you have to do is simply run into the closest opponent, and yet be considered an athlete??

Sumo wrestlers don't count !!

I think you'll find rugby forwards, american football linemen and eh, sumo wrestlers are not as slow as tortoises.

eyescreamcone

Pherekydes wrote: »

I think you'll find rugby forwards, american football linemen and eh, sumo wrestlers are not as slow as tortoises.

Paul O'Connell is a rugby legend ...but when you see him running he looks like he's in slow motion.
He's probably still faster than me though!

pajunior

eyescreamcone wrote: »

As for courage, effort and skill - these are traits found in most sports (even F1).
But in particular I'm thinking of the like of Paul McGrath v Italy 2004.
Attacking players like Messi are a joy to watch.

I don't think he was saying that these traits are unique to rugby but rather that they exist in rugby. Many posters here have claimed that they don't.

As someone who watches just about every sport in the western world I am always amazed when people who watch one sport and notice every intricate detail but fail to see any broad skills in another sport, even one quite similar.

pajunior

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Paul O'Connell is a rugby legend ...but when you see him running he looks like he's in slow motion.
He's probably still faster than me though!

I think it's also a case that you don't always have to sprint in sports, Paul O'Connell rarely has to actually try run 100% flat out. Similar to Xavi I suppose . . .although that is where the comparisons end

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Paul O'Connell is a rugby legend ...but when you see him running he looks like he's in slow motion.

Lionel Messi is a soccer legend - but Paul O'Connell would break him in half. Different sports demand different things.

desertcircus

Slattsy wrote: »

I won't slate ya.
I'll come back with this though. Is rugby the only sport in the world where you can be 25 stone, be as slow as a tortoise and when handed the ball all you have to do is simply run into the closest opponent, and yet be considered an athlete??

Sumo wrestlers don't count !!

If you're 25 stone and slow as a tortoise and you're still playing top-level rugby, you're a tight-head prop, and you have two main jobs:

1. Throw a 110-130kg lock into the air in about half a second, and bring him back dow safely.
2. Push hard enough against a six-foot 110kg freak to shove him back six feet while he's trying to smash your head through your arse or put enough pressure on your neck to force you to pop out of the scrum for your own safety.

What's more, if you're 25 stone and have no pace and you're playing at the top level, you're almost certainly freakishly good at the two jobs listed above to the extent that you're the best paid player in the squad. Tight-head is a murderously difficult job.

eyescreamcone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Lionel Messi is a soccer legend - but Paul O'Connell would break him in half. Different sports demand different things.

...if he could catch him

Slattsy

desertcircus wrote: »

Slattsy wrote: »

I won't slate ya.
I'll come back with this though. Is rugby the only sport in the world where you can be 25 stone, be as slow as a tortoise and when handed the ball all you have to do is simply run into the closest opponent, and yet be considered an athlete??

Sumo wrestlers don't count !!

If you're 25 stone and slow as a tortoise and you're still playing top-level rugby, you're a tight-head prop, and you have two main jobs:

1. Throw a 110-130kg lock into the air in about half a second, and bring him back dow safely.
2. Push hard enough against a six-foot 110kg freak to shove him back six feet while he's trying to smash your head through your arse or put enough pressure on your neck to force you to pop out of the scrum for your own safety.

What's more, if you're 25 stone and have no pace and you're playing at the top level, you're almost certainly freakishly good at the two jobs listed above to the extent that you're the best paid player in the squad. Tight-head is a murderously difficult job.

So basically any fat bastard can play rugby then.

Burgo

Slattsy wrote: »

So basically any fat bastard can play rugby then.

exactly, an all inclusive sport!

pajunior

Slattsy wrote: »

So basically any fat bastard can play rugby then.

Eh no, a rather fit and extremely strong 'fat bastard' who has extremely good technique at certain skills could play rugby.

desertcircus

Slattsy wrote: »

So basically any fat bastard can play rugby then.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. That's why, when Mike Ross went off injured against England this year, we replaced him with a fat bloke in the stand and went on to win. Except we actually replaced him with a loosehead prop in Tom Court, and the act of replacing a tight-head prop with a loosehead (or in terms you can grasp, replacing a right-sided fat bastard with a left-sided one) cost us pretty much every point we conceded that day.

If you got a random fat bastard to scrum down in a Heineken Cup game, there'd be a 95+% chance of him coming off injured after the first hit and about a 50% chance of him being hospitalised. It's incredibly demanding, which is why tight-heads earn about twice as much as their teammatesin the French Top 14.

Burgo

desertcircus wrote: »

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. That's why, when Mike Ross went off injured against England this year, we replaced him with a fat bloke in the stand and went on to win. Except we actually replaced him with a loosehead prop in Tom Court, and the act of replacing a tight-head prop with a loosehead (or in terms you can grasp, replacing a right-sided fat bastard with a left-sided one) cost us pretty much every point we conceded that day.

If you got a random fat bastard to scrum down in a Heineken Cup game, there'd be a 95+% chance of him coming off injured after the first hit and about a 50% chance of him being hospitalised. It's incredibly demanding, which is why tight-heads earn about twice as much as their teammatesin the French Top 14.

In fairness when Mike Ross came to Leinster he was fairly out of shape, and Declan Fitzpatrick could be in better shape, he was huffing and puffing towards the end of the first half on Saturday.

eyescreamcone

A guy I know mentioned to me recently that there is almost a cover up of the amount of serious injuries in schools and non pro rugby at the moment.
I don't know whether this is true or not and am asking the rugby heads their opinion.

He said that because of the hits on young bodies freakish spine and neck injuries are now becoming more common.

Any truth???
The strength of some 18 year olds is phenomenal with all the weight training and "protein shakes"

pajunior

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A guy I know mentioned to me recently that there is almost a cover up of the amount of serious injuries in schools and non pro rugby at the moment.
I don't know whether this is true or not and am asking the rugby heads their opinion.

He said that because of the hits on young bodies freakish spine and neck injuries are now becoming more common.

Any truth???
The strength of some 18 year olds is phenomenal with all the weight training and "protein shakes"

In my opinion this is 100% true. Worse than that is the long term issue of brain damage done to professional players. In the last 20 years rugby has gone from a sport played by relatively small/weak players to a game played by extremely strong pro's. The effect of this has yet to be seen fully but just about everyone agrees that it will give players long term damage.
If a player is concussed then they have to take a minimum amount of time off but every single club and every single player hides any concussions. The governing bodys don't want to do anything about it and refs don't seem to care or else are under orders not to care.

As for non-pro rugby well those lads are getting bigger and bigger with the aim of going pro or at least to emulate pros. So you have all the same problems but with no doctors or proper professional welfare.

I think it is something over the next 10 years which the IRB will eventually have to stand up to.

Dravokivich

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A guy I know mentioned to me recently that there is almost a cover up of the amount of serious injuries in schools and non pro rugby at the moment.
I don't know whether this is true or not and am asking the rugby heads their opinion.

He said that because of the hits on young bodies freakish spine and neck injuries are now becoming more common.

Any truth???
The strength of some 18 year olds is phenomenal with all the weight training and "protein shakes"

Why do you need to put protein shakes in inverted commas? They are just dietary supplements to aid recovery. Won't do fúck all use if someone doesn't put the work in, in the first place.

I've read,(but cant remember where/when) injuries you mentioned are more prevelent now due to intensive training regemes, as well as the brutal physicality of the game itself, taking into account high impact tackles.

pajunior

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why do you need to put protein shakes in inverted commas? They are just dietary supplements to aid recovery. Won't do fúck all use if someone doesn't put the work in, in the first place.

I've read,(but cant remember where/when) injuries you mentioned are more prevelent now due to intensive training regemes, as well as the brutal physicality of the game itself, taking into account high impact tackles.

I imagine because they say that all they are taking is protein but it is widely speculated that they are taking other legal supplements like creatine which while a natural substance our body produces, some would say not good for a 14/15/16 year old.

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A guy I know mentioned to me recently that there is almost a cover up of the amount of serious injuries in schools and non pro rugby at the moment.
I don't know whether this is true or not and am asking the rugby heads their opinion.

He said that because of the hits on young bodies freakish spine and neck injuries are now becoming more common.

Any truth???
The strength of some 18 year olds is phenomenal with all the weight training and "protein shakes"

I only heard of one serious spinal injury in the 80s and 90s in Munster schools rugby, but it happened to some guy who was playing about 5 years before I started school. I'd say it's horse**** - there's a huge emphasis on safety. The automatic red card for spear tackles, the changes to the scrummaging rules - these all came in after I left the schools game.

eyescreamcone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A guy I know mentioned to me recently that there is almost a cover up of the amount of serious injuries in schools and non pro rugby at the moment.
I don't know whether this is true or not and am asking the rugby heads their opinion.

He said that because of the hits on young bodies freakish spine and neck injuries are now becoming more common.

Any truth???
The strength of some 18 year olds is phenomenal with all the weight training and "protein shakes"

I only heard of one serious spinal injury in the 80s and 90s in Munster schools rugby, but it happened to some guy who was playing about 5 years before I started school. I'd say it's horse**** - there's a huge emphasis on safety. The automatic red card for spear tackles, the changes to the scrummaging rules - these all came in after I left the schools game.

I'm not just talking about the injury that puts you in a wheelchair, even though this type of injury is much more common in rugby than in soccer or GAA.
Concussion was mentioned above.
Broken collar bones and serious knee injuries from heavy tackles are taken for granted

marienbad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I only heard of one serious spinal injury in the 80s and 90s in Munster schools rugby, but it happened to some guy who was playing about 5 years before I started school. I'd say it's horse**** - there's a huge emphasis on safety. The automatic red card for spear tackles, the changes to the scrummaging rules - these all came in after I left the schools game.

I don't know about that Monty , I was talking to a top medical guy and the opinion is that it could shorten the lifespan , frontrow in particular, quite significantly. The power of the collision at all levels is now just so massive.

Detailed studies of American football have said up to 10 years off lifespan. No reason why rugby won't go the same route , or so I would have thought.

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I'm not just talking about the injury that puts you in a wheelchair, even though this type of injury is much more common in rugby than in soccer or GAA.
Concussion was mentioned above.
Broken collar bones and serious knee injuries from heavy tackles are taken for granted

I dislocated a shoulder, but that was as bad as I managed. Sure, there are lots of injuries - it's a collision sport.

ormond lad

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A guy I know mentioned to me recently that there is almost a cover up of the amount of serious injuries in schools and non pro rugby at the moment.
I don't know whether this is true or not and am asking the rugby heads their opinion.

He said that because of the hits on young bodies freakish spine and neck injuries are now becoming more common.

Any truth???
The strength of some 18 year olds is phenomenal with all the weight training and "protein shakes"

Thats rubbish in relation to a cover up of injurys. Theres a huge emphasis on injury prevention and safety at underage level(and beyond). There is several laws that are in place for the adult game that are adapted for their use at underage level as to try ensure as few injurys as possible
Do you have proof that freakish spinal and neck injurys are more common place?
Neck and Spinal injurys are very rare and thankfully you rarely hear of injurys like matt hampsons, stuart mangan

Monty Burnz

marienbad wrote: »

Detailed studies of American football have said up to 10 years off lifespan. No reason why rugby won't go the same route , or so I would have thought.

I've been following the reporting of the research into severe depression in former American footballers which they believe may be related to concussions incurred during their careers - this may be related to the shorter lifespans. I also wonder they control for the lifestyles of these players post-retirement - an astonishing number of them blow their fortunes within 5 years of finishing the game.

eyescreamcone

ormond lad wrote: »

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A guy I know mentioned to me recently that there is almost a cover up of the amount of serious injuries in schools and non pro rugby at the moment.
I don't know whether this is true or not and am asking the rugby heads their opinion.

He said that because of the hits on young bodies freakish spine and neck injuries are now becoming more common.

Any truth???
The strength of some 18 year olds is phenomenal with all the weight training and "protein shakes"

Thats rubbish in relation to a cover up of injurys. Theres a huge emphasis on injury prevention and safety at underage level(and beyond). There is several laws that are in place for the adult game that are adapted for their use at underage level as to try ensure as few injurys as possible
Do you have proof that freakish spinal and neck injurys are more common place?
Neck and Spinal injurys are very rare and thankfully you rarely hear of injurys like matt hampsons, stuart mangan

For every Stuart Mangan type injury there will be plenty of slightly less serious ones that would still be classed as horrendous in other sports.

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

For every Stuart Mangan type injury there will be plenty of slightly less serious ones that would still be classed as horrendous in other sports.

Like broken legs and arms? Same as in soccer etc.? I broke a finger playing soccer. Deadly game. Stay away.

hardCopy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've been following the reporting of the research into severe depression in former American footballers which they believe may be related to concussions incurred during their careers - this may be related to the shorter lifespans. I also wonder they control for the lifestyles of these players post-retirement - an astonishing number of them blow their fortunes within 5 years of finishing the game.

This a growing issue in rugby, as highlighted by John Fogarty, Bernard Jackman and Alan Quinlan. http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/using-the-head-137010.html

eyescreamcone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

eyescreamcone wrote: »

For every Stuart Mangan type injury there will be plenty of slightly less serious ones that would still be classed as horrendous in other sports.

Like broken legs and arms? Same as in soccer etc.? I broke a finger playing soccer. Deadly game. Stay away.

Do you think broken legs, arms and collar bones are as common in soccer as rugby??
If so then you are mistaken at best.

Also, I have never ever heard of anyone ending up in a wheelchair after a soccer injury.

The biggest problem in soccer at the moment is the cardiac incidents (Fabrice Muamba etc)

If you broke your finger might I suggest u keep it out of your ass in future.

Monty Burnz

hardCopy wrote: »

This a growing issue in rugby, as highlighted by John Fogarty, Bernard Jackman and Alan Quinlan. http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/using-the-head-137010.html

The good thing is that this is getting attention not long into professionalism - hopefully this will mean that it is tackled rather than swept under the carpet as happens/ed in America. The fact that rugby players are better educated than the average American footballer means that they are more likely to take these concerns seriously.

pajunior

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The good thing is that this is getting attention not long into professionalism - hopefully this will mean that it is tackled rather than swept under the carpet as happens/ed in America. The fact that rugby players are better educated than the average American footballer means that they are more likely to take these concerns seriously.

I wouldn't be sure about that. At the beginning, middle and end of every season all pro players have to do these cognitive tests, the idea being that if they get worse during the year something is wrong. In Bernard Jackmans book he said that just about every player purposefully does worse than he could on the first test so that he doesn't have to stop playing rugby.

At the end of the day this is their livelihoods.

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Do you think broken legs, arms and collar bones are as common in soccer as rugby??
If so then you are mistaken at best.

Obviously they happen, same as in soccer - which was my point. You seemed to be suggesting there was a tier of serious injury in rugby below the most serious spinal injuries that do not also occur in soccer - I guess you just weren't able to communicate your thoughts coherently in text.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

The biggest problem in soccer at the moment is the cardiac incidents (Fabrice Muamba etc)

Clearly people dropping dead is less serious than people getting spinal injuries. :rolleyes:

BunShopVoyeur

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Slattsy wrote: »

Goalkeepers don't count !

The exceptions are piling up...

Have a look at this video of about 3 minutes action from one game - it captures a lot of what I love about rugby:

1. Physical courage
2. Honest effort
3. Brilliant skills, of a different type than seen in other games

As I keep saying, each to their own. I used to love soccer, but since the game went 'big money', I don't like many of the changes that happened. God be with the days when Celtic won the European Cup with a team largely made up of guys born within five miles of their stadium.

There was no days when teams like Celtic won the European Cup - it happened once ever - thus an anomaly!
All the teams of this era had foreigners especially Madrid who had Puskas and Di Stefano.
And how is winning a cup with foreigners a bad thing. Munster and Leinster have both used foreign players and coaches with great success.

As for courage, effort and skill - these are traits found in most sports (even F1).
But in particular I'm thinking of the like of Paul McGrath v Italy 2004.
Attacking players like Messi are a joy to watch.

Aberdeen won it...

Monty Burnz

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Aberdeen won it...

Well, that was the less prestigious Cup Winners Cup, but I suppose the point stands.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Aston Villa and N.Forest won European cups with great British players in the years before foreigners swamped the English league.

eyescreamcone

The cardiac incidents which have happened in soccer could happen in any sport in my opinion. In any case more research needs to be done to identify the exact cause.
There are more soccer games than any other sport so it might be just a case of more games equals more problems.

The hits in rugby are a lot harder than in soccer (above the waist) so it would seem logical to assume greater amounts of injury in the body areas receiving the hits - head, neck and torso.

I know a guy who coaches in one of the rugby schools and he says that they pay out a fortune in physio fees each year.

GLaDOS

eyescreamcone wrote: »

The cardiac incidents which have happened in soccer could happen in any sport in my opinion.

I seem to remember one or two incidents with GAA players a few years ago? Players collapsing anyway, not sure if it was cardiac problems. At a fairly young age as well.

Naomi00

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Do you think broken legs, arms and collar bones are as common in soccer as rugby??
If so then you are mistaken at best.

Also, I have never ever heard of anyone ending up in a wheelchair after a soccer injury.

The biggest problem in soccer at the moment is the cardiac incidents (Fabrice Muamba etc)

If you broke your finger might I suggest u keep it out of your ass in future.

There's worse injuries in horse racing and they're a lot more common.

And as for the last line...wtf?


It's funny how this thread is turning into the go-to thread for people in AH with a chip on their shoulder to complain about every aspect of a sport they've no interest in..

eyescreamcone

Would you prefer if we just turned up and agreed with you that everything about rugby is good and great???
You're not in clongowes wood college now

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Would you prefer if we just turned up and agreed with you that everything about rugby is good and great???
You're not in clongowes wood college now

Or you could stop obsessing about a sport you say you are not interested in. It's fine not to like it, but it's the snobbery about it that annoys me. You could make an equally intelligent argument that soccer is a load of shyte because many fans are skangers. But that wouldn't say anything about soccer per se, would it? Same thing with rugby.

marienbad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've been following the reporting of the research into severe depression in former American footballers which they believe may be related to concussions incurred during their careers - this may be related to the shorter lifespans. I also wonder they control for the lifestyles of these players post-retirement - an astonishing number of them blow their fortunes within 5 years of finishing the game.

That is so true Monty , reminiscent of the great boxers of past times.

Mal-Adjusted

pajunior wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement, of course anyone can just walk onto a pitch and play any sport, he will not be in any way competent though.

for soccer it's possible. will he be as good as everyone else there, of course not but he's make an astronomically better account of himself than either GAA sports or Rugby. it's just such a simple game to play. probably one of the reasons for it's massive success around the world.

eyescreamcone

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

for soccer it's possible. will he be as good as everyone else there, of course not but he's make an astronomically better account of himself than either GAA sports or Rugby. it's just such a simple game to play. probably one of the reasons for it's massive success around the world.

Soccer is easy to play - the rules are simple and in a kickaround situation it can be self reffed. Most fouls can be called easily.
However, when you step up a level from a park kickaround Joe Soap is usually lost when offside is introduced.

As for Rugby, it is often not obvious to people in the know when a foul has been made. Often penalties are given in one direction with fans screaming for it to be given in the opposite direction.
I'm surprised that there is not more criticism of rugby refs from players and managers after games as there sometimes is in soccer. But then again maybe rugby is much harder to ref due to the complicated laws.

eyescreamcone

I would imagine that gaelic football would be very easy to play with little knowledge of the game.
Catch it.
Don't run too far with the ball in your hands.
Kick it towards the other teams goal.

No offsides or very technical rules like rugby.
(Very simplified version)

Hurling is as simple but the skill of rising the ball and hitting it is very difficult to master if not learnt at a young age.

eyescreamcone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Or you could stop obsessing about a sport you say you are not interested in. It's fine not to like it, but it's the snobbery about it that annoys me. You could make an equally intelligent argument that soccer is a load of shyte because many fans are skangers. But that wouldn't say anything about soccer per se, would it? Same thing with rugby.

I'm not giving out that rugby is for posh people. I'm giving out that working class lads have been under represented in the national team for a long time. This is still the case. The development system remains undemocratic and biased towards people with money to send their kids to rugby schools (most are fee paying).

If Jonah Lomu was born in Ireland it would be more likely that he would become a GAA full forward than a rugby international.
Some posters are saying that these problems are being addressed.
Maybe because I'm not at the coalface, the supposed elimination of this issue is not obvious to me. Especially when I look at the origins of the present international squad.

thomond2006

I love rugby, but I like football too. There are problems with both sports which tarnish them, rugby has poor refereeing and messy scrums that take up a portion of the match while football has issues with simulation and diving, along with a general distastefulness towards officials and to fellow clubs/professionals.

I don't like when people call football players "pussies" simply because they dive. They feign injury because they get away with such gamemanship, if more contact was tolerated I'd say they could take the punishment.

Unfortunately when I watch football, I'm mostly watch ROI so that tends to turn me away. But I remember Euro 2008 was an insanely good tournament with some classy football played.

I don't like how many people **** on other sports because they don't like/respect them, to each his own.

ormond lad

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I'm not giving out that rugby is for posh people. I'm giving out that working class lads have been under represented in the national team for a long time. This is still the case. The development system remains undemocratic and biased towards people with money to send their kids to rugby schools (most are fee paying).

If Jonah Lomu was born in Ireland it would be more likely that he would become a GAA full forward than a rugby international.
Some posters are saying that these problems are being addressed.
Maybe because I'm not at the coalface, the supposed elimination of this issue is not obvious to me. Especially when I look at the origins of the present international squad.

Yes people who didnt go to the blackrocks, terenures, pbc corks etc were under-represented on provincial and national sides for years but things are changing. The development system isnt perfect but has improved. Look at the Leinster academy, at the moment 4 of 18 didnt go to a rugby school at all which at nearly 25% isnt too bad and is an improvement on the past and that figure will improve in the future as more and more work is put into the youths game in leinster(where there is more kids registered in the youths game than the schools). As you say yourself, you are not at the coalface and cant see the work being done to improve rugby being played in non traditional areas

eyescreamcone

If 4 out of 18 at academy level is progress, then it'll be an issue for a long time to come!

Yamanoto

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I'm giving out that working class lads have been under represented in the national team for a long time. This is still the case.

You cannot force folks to engage with a sport - they either will or they won't. What you can do is put structures in place to develop the game in non-traditional areas, but it's a long term process. Working class kids will continue to gravitate towards Soccer and GAA in far greater numbers, as there's a deep-rooted cultural affinity for those sports that no amount of investment will budge.

For the sport to survive in the meantime, it's patently within the games best interests to continue to utilise talent from wherever it emerges - most likely the majority from fee paying private schools.