The West Ham Fan Forum | More like the terraces than the family stand!
https://forum.westhamonline.co.uk/
eusebiovic wrote: ↑01 Feb 2025, 17:56 Careful Leonard,
You're going to upset the society of prejudice against brayers...MOO!
F 129 Row66" wrote: ↑04 Feb 2025, 18:32 Probably stating the obvious but, all the most gifted kids at sport wanted to play football and cricket. The game is played by steroid fuelled, fat, posh blokes. Not that much skill required, just catching an egg shaped thing, running and crashing into people. The scrum is an appalling display of brute strength and homo-eroticism. Mind you it's 20 times more exciting than American rugby, but that's saying very little.
.Alwaysaniron wrote: ↑07 Feb 2025, 16:42Rugby is brilliant at international level. Anybody failing to understand it is clearly as thick as fuck and has the IQ of a fucking brain dead lobotomised Sloth.
Leonard; you're clearly a fucking deranged thick cսnt. (Meant without malice)
Alwaysaniron wrote: ↑07 Feb 2025, 16:42Rugby is brilliant at international level. Anybody failing to understand it is clearly as thick as fuck and has the IQ of a fucking brain dead lobotomised Sloth.
Leonard; you're clearly a fucking deranged thick cսnt. (Meant without malice)
Swiss. wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 12:10southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 09:17 Don’t dislike rugby union (league is better - ball in play more often), but never really played it. We told our PE teachers we had no interest in playing it at school - just wanted to play football and cricket. They agreed!
What I do find odd is just how bad England are at union. About the third/fourth best team in Europe - which is vastly inferior to the southern hem sides. Considering there are only ten “decent” or better rugby playing nations in the world, quite how England contrive to be so utterly shit at the sport on a regular basis is genuinely beyond me.
They’ll finish below Ireland and France, and possibly Scotland, again this year. Add NZ, South Africa, Australia and possibly the Argies (on occasions) on top, too, and it’s embarrassing.
Posh people are fucking useless.Southbank . I agree reference England being usless now for like 20 years in the Six Nations. You can maybe argue that every team except Italy wants to beat us more than any other. However in the WC we have been far more successful. In fact has any European country ever eliminated us? Maybe Wales I'm not sure.
Council Scum" wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 13:26southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 13:08Swiss. wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 12:10Southbank . I agree reference England being usless now for like 20 years in the Six Nations. You can maybe argue that every team except Italy wants to beat us more than any other. However in the WC we have been far more successful. In fact has any European country ever eliminated us? Maybe Wales I'm not sure.Swiss - you’re absolutely right: England have tended to perform well at World Cups - certainly relative to their year-on-year achievements.
But you could argue that one World Cup win is not great for the country that has the highest number of registered clubs and teen/male participants globally, and an RFU (at least, although not clubs) that is resource rich.
I’m no expert - it’s not a sport I read much about - but it strikes me that it’s a poorly run sport, professionally, in England and that far smaller states - NZ and Ireland (currently) most notably - achieve more on a lot less. In NZ’s case, of course, considerably more.
I’d be interested to hear what the well-informed rugby mob think lies behind that (I’m sure there are many reasons: cultural, finances etc). But realistically there are 10-12 “decent” rugby playing nations globally - including the likes of Italy, Samoa and Fiji. It’s quite an achievement by England to be regularly around the bottom 50% of those states. Few would argue that, since 2003, SA, NZ, Australia (up and down), France and Ireland have been stronger more regularly. Wales, too, at times.
Perennial under-achievers, England.Could also be that our players play twice as many games as all the other international players, as such we get constant injuries and tiredness
southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 16:10Council Scum" wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 13:26southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 13:08Swiss - you’re absolutely right: England have tended to perform well at World Cups - certainly relative to their year-on-year achievements.
But you could argue that one World Cup win is not great for the country that has the highest number of registered clubs and teen/male participants globally, and an RFU (at least, although not clubs) that is resource rich.
I’m no expert - it’s not a sport I read much about - but it strikes me that it’s a poorly run sport, professionally, in England and that far smaller states - NZ and Ireland (currently) most notably - achieve more on a lot less. In NZ’s case, of course, considerably more.
I’d be interested to hear what the well-informed rugby mob think lies behind that (I’m sure there are many reasons: cultural, finances etc). But realistically there are 10-12 “decent” rugby playing nations globally - including the likes of Italy, Samoa and Fiji. It’s quite an achievement by England to be regularly around the bottom 50% of those states. Few would argue that, since 2003, SA, NZ, Australia (up and down), France and Ireland have been stronger more regularly. Wales, too, at times.
Perennial under-achievers, England.Could also be that our players play twice as many games as all the other international players, as such we get constant injuries and tirednessI don't know enough about the fixture lists for each country's players, but I'm prepared to accept that England probably overplays its top-level players. We do it with other sports, too, so we have form!
But that can't be the only reason for poor performances. For example, they've regularly lost their opening fixture of the Six Nations in recent years (immediately bursting the bubble of City bankers' expectations!) - and that's at a point when there has generally been a fair amount of prep time for games, and when other teams have had similar amounts of rest and prep time. At that point, injuries I get, tiredness I don't.
To an outsider looking in, it seems that England produce a general quality of player below where they should be given their resources and numbers. Some talented players, sure. But never enough of them at any one time. That golden generation under Woodward seemed to be the exception. That pack (Johnson, Dallaglio, Back, Hill, Kay etc) was phenomenal.
Better rugby fans than me will know why that's the case.
Council Scum" wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 13:26southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 13:08Swiss. wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 12:10Southbank . I agree reference England being usless now for like 20 years in the Six Nations. You can maybe argue that every team except Italy wants to beat us more than any other. However in the WC we have been far more successful. In fact has any European country ever eliminated us? Maybe Wales I'm not sure.Swiss - you’re absolutely right: England have tended to perform well at World Cups - certainly relative to their year-on-year achievements.
But you could argue that one World Cup win is not great for the country that has the highest number of registered clubs and teen/male participants globally, and an RFU (at least, although not clubs) that is resource rich.
I’m no expert - it’s not a sport I read much about - but it strikes me that it’s a poorly run sport, professionally, in England and that far smaller states - NZ and Ireland (currently) most notably - achieve more on a lot less. In NZ’s case, of course, considerably more.
I’d be interested to hear what the well-informed rugby mob think lies behind that (I’m sure there are many reasons: cultural, finances etc). But realistically there are 10-12 “decent” rugby playing nations globally - including the likes of Italy, Samoa and Fiji. It’s quite an achievement by England to be regularly around the bottom 50% of those states. Few would argue that, since 2003, SA, NZ, Australia (up and down), France and Ireland have been stronger more regularly. Wales, too, at times.
Perennial under-achievers, England.Could also be that our players play twice as many games as all the other international players, as such we get constant injuries and tiredness
southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 13:08Swiss. wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 12:10southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑03 Feb 2025, 09:17 Don’t dislike rugby union (league is better - ball in play more often), but never really played it. We told our PE teachers we had no interest in playing it at school - just wanted to play football and cricket. They agreed!
What I do find odd is just how bad England are at union. About the third/fourth best team in Europe - which is vastly inferior to the southern hem sides. Considering there are only ten “decent” or better rugby playing nations in the world, quite how England contrive to be so utterly shit at the sport on a regular basis is genuinely beyond me.
They’ll finish below Ireland and France, and possibly Scotland, again this year. Add NZ, South Africa, Australia and possibly the Argies (on occasions) on top, too, and it’s embarrassing.
Posh people are fucking useless.Southbank . I agree reference England being usless now for like 20 years in the Six Nations. You can maybe argue that every team except Italy wants to beat us more than any other. However in the WC we have been far more successful. In fact has any European country ever eliminated us? Maybe Wales I'm not sure.Swiss - you’re absolutely right: England have tended to perform well at World Cups - certainly relative to their year-on-year achievements.
But you could argue that one World Cup win is not great for the country that has the highest number of registered clubs and teen/male participants globally, and an RFU (at least, although not clubs) that is resource rich.
I’m no expert - it’s not a sport I read much about - but it strikes me that it’s a poorly run sport, professionally, in England and that far smaller states - NZ and Ireland (currently) most notably - achieve more on a lot less. In NZ’s case, of course, considerably more.
I’d be interested to hear what the well-informed rugby mob think lies behind that (I’m sure there are many reasons: cultural, finances etc). But realistically there are 10-12 “decent” rugby playing nations globally - including the likes of Italy, Samoa and Fiji. It’s quite an achievement by England to be regularly around the bottom 50% of those states. Few would argue that, since 2003, SA, NZ, Australia (up and down), France and Ireland have been stronger more regularly. Wales, too, at times.
Perennial under-achievers, England.