Exactly my point.

There are just short of 1m registered cricket players, with the remainder playing it recreationaly, which has never stopped rugby proclaiming that rugby league is played in khazakstan because some kid found a rugby ball on the beach and threw it to his friend. 148,300..dear lord. At least do some research.

I await your response, debunking my figures.

Kind Regards

King James

Quote ="Lebron James"which has never stopped rugby proclaiming that rugby league is played in khazakstan because some kid found a rugby ball on the beach and threw it to his friend. '" Eh? 148,300 see here: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/25346493.

Quote ="Lebron James"which has never stopped rugby proclaiming that rugby league is played in khazakstan because some kid found a rugby ball on the beach and threw it to his friend. '" Eh? 148,300 see here: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/25346493.

Quote ="Pinkerton"Eh? 148,300 see here: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/25346493.'" www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-in ... icipation/ Regards King James

Quote ="Pinkerton"Eh? 148,300 see here: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/25346493.'" www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-in ... icipation/ Regards King James

If we're counting all forms of a sport then let's compare oranges with oranges and include touch footy/rugby in the RL participation rates as it is a form of RL. Woohoo, RL is a global game played by millions of people!

Which 2 countries of the 14 at the Cricket World Cup provided 55% of the players? In fact, add two more from the 14 and tell me which ones delivered 85% of the players

Lol

[i"The game-wide study of grassroots participation revealed that a total of 908,000 people aged over 14 played cricket in teams – with a further 792,000 people playing cricket informally in the garden or on the beach."[/i

Why have you taken the Sport England figures for some sports and not others? The Sport England figures aren't brilliant (they don't include under 16's and disproportionately favour sports like athletics and cycling) but the calculations are at least constant when using figures from the same source. So why take the 400k figure for tennis but not the 148k figure for Cricket?

Did it not suit the argument?

I don't know because I didn't watch it and I'm not going to look through the various squads to count up where they were all from and then do a %. I saw the Ireland team featured on Sky Sports News and there were a few Aussies accents, so it's not just RL where they have Australians playing for other countries.

55% from two countries? Really? Seeing as the French, PNG, NZ, Fiji and Wales had many homegrown players in their ranks, I'd disagree.

English and Australian born players made up 55% (185) of the 336 players....there is a detailed list somewhere on here in a RLWC thread......you saying you disagree is hardly a defence!



Australia, New Zealand, England, France and PNG were the only sides with a majority of their players born in the country they were representing........Ireland had not one player born in Ireland, there were 2 Italians, 2 Scots, 2 Cook Islanders, 8 welsh, 9 Samoans, 8 Tongans, 12 Fijians, 6 Americans. Outside the top 5, 49 players in 9 teams were "local" whilst 167 were ringers. 167 ringers + the 45 in the England and Australian squads is 212....which is 63% of the entire list of players.

There was one player from Ireland actually, but I agree there were too many heritage players in the tournament. Countries like the USA and Italy could have picked more locals, were it not for stupid bans on certain players and I disagree with the common belief that if you're Australian, you must be good at RL. My beef is that the heritage aspect only comes up with RL, but you see Cricket teams (like England for example) with several heritage players, yet no one says a thing, but RL is continuously mocked over it.

How did we get here from 'BBC and RL'?


As for the BBC website/news channels, has no one ever noticed that RL drops down the rankings during the off season every year?


Tis true.

No there wasn't.....6 Aussies, 1 Kiwi and 17 English Born players.


Yep......Australia, New Zealand, England, France and PNG delivered 85% of the players......and 2017 will be exactly the same




A strong RLIF that stands up to the NRL and individual countries would be a start....



Hmmm....I suspect if any other sport had 35% of the teams supplying 85% of the players then that sport would get slammed. Even more so if some of the players were able to switch countries in between tournaments

Quote ="gutterfax"No there wasn't.....6 Aussies, 1 Kiwi and 17 English Born players. '" + This guy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matty_Hadden Quote ="gutterfax"Yep......Australia, New Zealand, England, France and PNG delivered 85% of the players......and 2017 will be exactly the same '" + Wales and Fijians (barring they qualify of course.) We don't know who's going to qualify yet, so we don't know who will be from where. I thought RL was only played in three countries though, will we have to include France and PNG now as well? Quote ="gutterfax"A strong RLIF that stands up to the NRL and individual countries would be a start....'" And pigs will fly...

Quote ="gutterfax"No there wasn't.....6 Aussies, 1 Kiwi and 17 English Born players. '" + This guy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matty_Hadden Quote ="gutterfax"Yep......Australia, New Zealand, England, France and PNG delivered 85% of the players......and 2017 will be exactly the same '" + Wales and Fijians (barring they qualify of course.) We don't know who's going to qualify yet, so we don't know who will be from where. I thought RL was only played in three countries though, will we have to include France and PNG now as well? Quote ="gutterfax"A strong RLIF that stands up to the NRL and individual countries would be a start....'" And pigs will fly...

Quote ="Pinkerton"+ This guy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matty_Hadden'" Hayden wasn't in the squad.....the RLWC site is incorrect and incomplete. (surprised???).....I really can't be d doing it all again but believe me, 55% aussie English and 85% 5 countries are correct figures..... Quote ="Pinkerton"+ + Wales and Fijians (barring they qualify of course.) We don't know who's going to qualify yet, so we don't know who will be from where. I thought RL was only played in three countries though, will we have to include France and PNG now as well? Quote France and PNG....where we have a grand total of 1 professional team.....in France, which has a Union salary cap that makes the NRL look like tiddlywinks. PNG is = Japan in union...except Japanese union is professional and financially cashed up... Quote ="Pinkerton"+ And pigs will fly...'" '" '" ...there lieth the problem. In union (and soccer and cricket), the dog still wags the tail...in league, it has always been the other way around!

Quote ="Pinkerton"+ This guy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matty_Hadden'" Hayden wasn't in the squad.....the RLWC site is incorrect and incomplete. (surprised???).....I really can't be d doing it all again but believe me, 55% aussie English and 85% 5 countries are correct figures..... Quote ="Pinkerton"+ + Wales and Fijians (barring they qualify of course.) We don't know who's going to qualify yet, so we don't know who will be from where. I thought RL was only played in three countries though, will we have to include France and PNG now as well? Quote France and PNG....where we have a grand total of 1 professional team.....in France, which has a Union salary cap that makes the NRL look like tiddlywinks. PNG is = Japan in union...except Japanese union is professional and financially cashed up... Quote ="Pinkerton"+ And pigs will fly...'" '" '" ...there lieth the problem. In union (and soccer and cricket), the dog still wags the tail...in league, it has always been the other way around!

Gutterfax, but he isnt a troll.............

possibly because that isnt his name......

20% of England's last Rugby Union World Cup squad weren't born in England or the UK, compared to 4% in the England Rugby League squad.
It's obviously a game in decline and anything that's good about it should be mocked and ridiculed because it doesn't immediately solve any and all issues in the game.

That sort of sense has no place here!

Anywho, RL on the BBC website has always been pretty good considering they have very few rights to broadcast it

First up, 20% or even 30% is a tad better than 100%. The only countries that had more than 50% of their squad "home born" were England, Australia, France, New Zealand and PNG......that means 9 International teams had less than half of their squads as locals, but instead relied on heritage players......Italy and Scotland had 2 each FFS.....SO 91% ringers.....puts the Union squad with players born in British Military facilities into perspective don't you think?

Secondly, I wasn't ridiculing the sport. I was responding to the irrational demands that RL "deserves" to be given national and international exposure, which are totally without merit. RL on the pitch is fantastic, but off the park it is a shambles....pointing this out is not mocking or ridiculing anything, it s pointing out facts.

If the BBC were to promote RL back to its sports landing page for international viewers, what would we expect to see? Bradford, the WCC a few years back in total and continued disarray? London moving to a ground that holds 5k and giving up all revenue streams other than the SKY money? Clubs from down the pecking order taking loan players from the big 4? The sport still unsure of its make up or even the consequences of finishing last or second last THIS YEAR? Maybe they could announce this years international Schedule so UK based RL fans can book their seats for the games in England?

Yeah! It's good news central at red Hall......let's all hope the BBC get back to promoting the game soon

Except its not facts is it. As I just pointed out. You can take stats and twist "facts" to back up whatever point you want to make. Just as you did a while ago when you posted the average attendances of different clubs. You twisted those "facts" to suit your argument. In the same way you and William did with the World Cup ticket sales and the double headers. You were ridiculing the World Cup and the RFL before it had started.

This is the problem, you often have a decent point, but you let that point get hidden in diatribes against anything that happens in RL. Your post above a perfect example. People are saying they want RL to be on the BBC international website, a reasonable request from fans of the game wanting the most exposure possible, yet all you do is ridicule it and the game. You point out all the negatives yet none of the positives like Salford's rise, the upcoming World Club Challenge in Australia for the first time in decades, the highly successful recent World Cup, they could all be on the BBC international website alongside the negative stories. But you wouldn't say that, because it doesn't fit your argument.

Dr Marwan seems less than ecstatic with ticket sales...so a new owner is hardly headline news when all he's done is assemble a team that might avoid bottom this year.


a one off club game in Australia......hardly headline news.

2 months ago......it's hardly news!



...no, none of the three things you have said are CURRENT or NEWSWORTHY.......and as for an argument, the BBC have made their decision, as did the Guardian with their 10 sports moments. Because they don't favour RL the more insecure amongst us spit their dummy's out......it is not the responsibility of the media to promote the game.......it is down to the RFL, the clubs and the fans. Whining is not promoting by the way!

The BBC seem to think it is, they have World Cup stories still on the RL page.
I know YOU think a successful RL World Cup isn't newsworthy but most other RL fans do think it is. There are stories out there Gutters, not to mention its the off-season with fewer stories, why would YOU only put the negative ones on? Why do YOU think it would be a negative for RL to have higher exposure?

That you dismiss the World Club Challenge and Salford so easily is very silly, and unfortunately just adds to the appearance that you don't care what is actually happening but would rather just say everything is terrible.

No-one has said it's the responsibility of media to promote the game. It is the responsibility of media to accurately represent and report the game. Especially a part of the media paid for with public money. Whether RL deserves to be on the international site is debateable, its hardly unreasonable for some to think it should be though is it?

But then that wouldn't fit your everything is terrible agenda now would it?

How dare you, a rugby league off season should be creating as many headlines as a union season ... Or a football season .., or the Winter Olympics - it's not therefore rugby league, and all who run it are an embarrassment ...

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty that's wrong with the game, some on the pitch issues and plenty off it, but I can see the positives out there as well as the negatives.

Can all these derailed threads just be merged into one? I'm sick of reading RU v RL posts day after day after TBH.

Either that or give the troll a polite reminder there's a separate forum for other sports.

Or just ban him and make everyone's day.