Agreed. It's a major bugbear of mine. I think TV commentary and news could be seriously improved in this area.

I remember when John Monie was introduced as Ray French's co commontator in the late 80s and it was a revelation compared with his predecessor's (Murphy) contribuition. We need another leap forward like that on TV and in print, I'm not sure that most journos really understand the modern game.

I see tvoc's stats confirm that average points are lowering. I guess we need to give it more than a year to see if it's really working in the way we want. I just hope we stick with it rather than changing again.

England RU has by far the widest base in RU but that FACT does not give them a higher pyramid of achievement.

A World cup win in 2003 and a World cup final in 2007. What the hell do you want from them man?

wider than whom ???????? South Africa Australia New Zealand Wales Ireland Scotland ???????

Wider than each of those according to [url=http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question55548.htmlthis[/url

IIRC 2003 was their only win and their first final since 1991. Given that, based on the 2003 figures, they have more than 50% more players than all the other 5 countries in the 6 nations, they don't really punch at their wiight never mind above it.

They dont have Veterans or Masters or Old Boys teams in those countries



The pro game only counts

Their only win, the cup wasn't around until 1995.

BUT, and this is a big BUT. There is a huge difference between RUGBY and Rugby Union. What the por's play is a world away from the traditional game the rest of us play. It really compare quite badly.

I remember watching them in the 1991 final against Australia. I think NZ wan the firts in 1997.

Do other countries not have amateurs.

I never understood Union and do you know what, I still don't.

Yeah I think you're right, although I reckon you meant 1987.

On the question of amateurs I'll stick my neck out a bit.

Yes they do, BUT. No other country that plays Rugby union has such a solid public school system. No other country has such an enormous programme of rugby in schools. Other countries have effective administrations that encourage the use of local clubs.

So when it comes to numbers of participants on any given weekedn the figures in the UK are massively swayed by a portion of players who have no desire to play the game but are obliged to as part of their educational development.

For a lot of people this enforced participation is actually a detractor from the Rugby playing game becuase as soon as they get out of it, they stay out. Bit like me being made to eat liver and onions/bacon. I'd rather muff Subo than do that again.

You're right re 1987 as opposed to 1997.

My argument was against the assertion thatr a wider base meant higher achievement with the statement FACT included. I just proved it wasn't the case. The intention wasn't meant as an in depth analysis of the needs of sections of society to participate in sport to further their careers but hey ho.

As far as I'm concerned, from an International game point of view, more important than building the base is to ensure that there is adequate room at the top table for the players who offer the potential, rather than relying on journeymen players from rival countries to detract from the top clubs responsibility to help develop the players that allow them to exist.