why are we so **** at sport
Posted by: scottyhammer on 13 November 2006
hi all,
our footie team is crap our rugby team even worse and as for the ashes coming back with our cricket team,dont make me laugh !
we are really going to show ourselves up when we hold the olympics as were crap at track n field also.
so heres the question...why?
heres my reasoning SCHOOLS yep we dont play enough sport at school. what reasons do you think why we are so pathetic at sport.
scotty
our footie team is crap our rugby team even worse and as for the ashes coming back with our cricket team,dont make me laugh !
we are really going to show ourselves up when we hold the olympics as were crap at track n field also.
so heres the question...why?
heres my reasoning SCHOOLS yep we dont play enough sport at school. what reasons do you think why we are so pathetic at sport.
scotty
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Derek Wright
My theory
The average height above sea level of the UK is significantly lower than the successful sporting nations. Hence the UK competitors do not develop the same level of stamina as people living at higher altitudes
eg the average height of the US is about 2000 feet.
The average height above sea level of the UK is significantly lower than the successful sporting nations. Hence the UK competitors do not develop the same level of stamina as people living at higher altitudes
eg the average height of the US is about 2000 feet.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Bob McC
We probably play too much competitive sport at ridiculously early ages before any skills have been properly developed. I wonder if France's rise to soccer eminence is down to the innumerable soccer schools, skills clubs, holiday courses that are run throughout France for kids either free or dirt cheap. NOTHING to do with schools either.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by u5227470736789439
The British are the most natural amateurs in the world. As Flanders and Swann observed, "The Others Practice!"
Fredrik
Fredrik
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by PJT
quote:Originally posted by scottyhammer:
hi all,
our footie team is crap our rugby team even worse and as for the ashes coming back with our cricket team,dont make me laugh !
we are really going to show ourselves up when we hold the olympics as were crap at track n field also.
so heres the question...why?
heres my reasoning SCHOOLS yep we dont play enough sport at school. what reasons do you think why we are so pathetic at sport.
scotty
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
We probably play too much competitive sport at ridiculously early ages before any skills have been properly developed. I wonder if France's rise to soccer eminence is down to the innumerable soccer schools, skills clubs, holiday courses that are run throughout France for kids either free or dirt cheap. NOTHING to do with schools either.
I'm with Bob. One look at our national teams shows a lack of the basic skills needed to play the game. We cannot pass the ball whether it's football or rugby we play. This is down to us not teaching the basic skills, just chucking a ball onto a field with two teams of aimless kids and watching them run around for an hour or so until it's time to go home.
There is no real structure in place to teach our kids these basic skills before they take the field to kick lumps out of each other.
Mark
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Deane F
What's so important about your national teams being the best? I mean, there are a lot of countries in the world and you guys are just one of them. So why is it a sign of failure when you don't happen to be the best?
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by scottyhammer
deane,
i dont mind us not being the best BUT i do mind us being the worst!!
i still say schools are very much part to blame.
my daughters school has sold off most of its land i.e.( the pitches)and like so many other schools especially in the greater london area.
scotty
i dont mind us not being the best BUT i do mind us being the worst!!
i still say schools are very much part to blame.
my daughters school has sold off most of its land i.e.( the pitches)and like so many other schools especially in the greater london area.
scotty
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
What's so important about your national teams being the best? I mean, there are a lot of countries in the world and you guys are just one of them. So why is it a sign of failure when you don't happen to be the best?
I think you're right there Deane. We do seem to have an inflated view of where we should be in the world sporting order. But doing well in the international sports arena does instil a sense of national pride and induce the feelgood factor. The aussies always seem to excel at sport to an extent that's disproportionate to their population. They even beat us at football last time we met. What's left? Darts?!!
We're just a little bit low at the moment because our rugby team's crap, our football team is underperforming again and we are about to get thumped in the ashes.
It's just the return of the status quo I suppose.
Mark
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by acad tsunami
The UK had it easy for a long time - the first to have an agricultural revolution followed by the first industrial revolution creating wealth which led to wealthy public schools which invented many sports and their pupils instead of working down mines or in farms or factories had the leisure time and facilities not known anywhere else in the world. After the second word war this advantage was lost and the UK now plays on a far more level playing field shared by most nations in the world. Britains do not possess superior DNA so any excellence must come from 'nurture' - the nurtering has to be better than other countries and here numbers and money come into play - this is why the US succeeds and the UK fails - other reasons are that UK football players are over paid spoilt brats. China will whack the world from now on in a number of sports but this is based mostly on numbers and their fascist view of their inate superioity which will mean vast funds will be directed at their atheletes for the next olympic games. The most succesful countries in the world based on par capita results are Australia and New Zealand.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
The UK had it easy for a long time - the first to have an agricultural revolution followed by the first industrial revolution creating wealth which led to wealthy public schools which invented many sports and their pupils instead of working down mines or in farms or factories had the leisure time and facilities not known anywhere else in the world. After the second word war this advantage was lost and the UK now plays on a far more level playing field shared by most nations in the world. Britains do not possess superior DNA so any excellence must come from 'nurture' - the nurtering has to be better than other countries and here numbers and money come into play - this is why the US succeeds and the UK fails - other reasons are that UK football players are over paid spoilt brats. China will whack the world from now on in a number of sports but this is based mostly on numbers and their fascist view of their inate superioity which will mean vast funds will be directed at their atheletes for the next olympic games. The most succesful countries in the world based on par capita results are Australia and New Zealand.
I'd agree with most of that Mr Tsunami.
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by acad tsunami
Mark,
You can call me Acad.
Acad
You can call me Acad.
Acad
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Bob McC
Acad
forgive my cynical view but the US succeeds in sports that
A) they've invented and no one else plays
and
B) they use a variety of drugs to succeed in
forgive my cynical view but the US succeeds in sports that
A) they've invented and no one else plays
and
B) they use a variety of drugs to succeed in
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Mark,
You can call me Acad.
Acad
grazie
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Acad
forgive my cynical view but the US succeeds in sports that
A) they've invented and no one else plays
and
B) they use a variety of drugs to succeed in
Bob,
You are forgiven. You can be as cynical as you like about America as far as I am concerned. I love the way they refer to the 'World Series' in baseball and how they changed the ball and court shape for squash. Some years ago a group of 'soft' ball squash players from the UK went to the US to play in the US Open 'hard' ball squash Championships - none of the UK players had played hard ball before but one of the UK players (not the best)had to play the 7 times 'World Champion' (an American - no one else plays this silly game) and thrashed him even though the UK player had NEVER played hard ball before! Soft ball is dynamic and the tactics almost chess like whereas hardball is just mindless and aggressive - I wonder why?
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by rackkit
quote:Originally posted by scottyhammer:
hi all,
our footie team is crap our rugby team even worse and as for the ashes coming back with our cricket team,dont make me laugh !
we are really going to show ourselves up when we hold the olympics as were crap at track n field also.
so heres the question...why?
heres my reasoning SCHOOLS yep we dont play enough sport at school. what reasons do you think why we are so pathetic at sport.
scotty
Tv, computers, PS3's/Xbox'x, MP3 players, mobile phones, school runs, Maccy D's, Coca Cola...
Posted on: 13 November 2006 by joe90
England sux at football because the league is full of foreigners. There's no chance for local lads to develop their skills at the highest levels.
I'm in favour of imposing a rule that there be no more than three foreign nationals in any club team. We'd still love the game - even more so since it would be our lads booting it in, not Portugese/Germans/Swedes/Italians/Spaniards/Brazillians/Australians.
Not that I have anything against those people at all but it's no good for English soccer...
I'm in favour of imposing a rule that there be no more than three foreign nationals in any club team. We'd still love the game - even more so since it would be our lads booting it in, not Portugese/Germans/Swedes/Italians/Spaniards/Brazillians/Australians.
Not that I have anything against those people at all but it's no good for English soccer...
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Steve S1
quote:England sux at football because the league is full of foreigners. There's no chance for local lads to develop their skills at the highest levels.
Sorry Joe, I don't follow that logic. There is no doubt that the standard in the Premier League has improved as a result of attracting the best players (wherever they are from).
The idea that top sides would rather pay over the odds for established foreign or English stars than sign promising talent is, in my view, hard to justify.
The fact that there is a paucity of young talent coming through has more to do with the other points made here. It's about how much we are prepared to invest in youngster's development and about the way we teach them to play.
Whenever I see a raw talent in England it seems there is immediately a rush to knock that out of him/her and make them conform to some coaching "system" or other.
All that bollox we heard about not having an England No 9. As if not having a big lump up front has ever done Brazil any harm. How about 11 gifted players and plenty of time to play together? That might help.
Steve.
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by gone
I don't think we are so crap at sport. We are just crap at some sport. Take a look at the British Olympic sailing programme - we are the best in the world by a margin, and no small thanks to the lottery. So it's down to money? Possibly. Probably. But let's not get into the trap of knocking ourselves just because the high profile sports are going badly. It's cyclic anyway - remember how happy everyone was when the Ashes were won, and the rugby world championship was ours - are memories that short?
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Rasher
We're pretty good at music. If I had to choose, it'd be music. The rest of Europe are still doing Abba look-alikes. It's okay to be bad at something.
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by scottyhammer
nero,
lets face it we (england) were very lucky to win the rugby world cup with virtually the last kick of the game and the ashes victory was bloody great. i for one loved every minute BUT boy did we ride our luck ! in both of your pointers am i the only one who thinks that the best team overall lost on both occasions.
and before you all slam me as anti england, im not. you couldnt meet a more patriotic englishman than me! but come on be honest now and forget the minimal success we have occasionally - WE ARE CRAP AT SPORT !!
scotty
lets face it we (england) were very lucky to win the rugby world cup with virtually the last kick of the game and the ashes victory was bloody great. i for one loved every minute BUT boy did we ride our luck ! in both of your pointers am i the only one who thinks that the best team overall lost on both occasions.
and before you all slam me as anti england, im not. you couldnt meet a more patriotic englishman than me! but come on be honest now and forget the minimal success we have occasionally - WE ARE CRAP AT SPORT !!
scotty
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Rasher
I'll sum it up:
Tim Henman
Tim Henman
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by scottyhammer
good example rasher! typical glorious loser - which we seem to love.
scotty
scotty
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by northpole
Coming from N Ireland I observed over several years the 5, now 6, Nations rugby. England have massively greater resources - numbers of players and money pouring into the game than the other home nations and yet they failed to convert the potential into thorough team play.
I only watch casually, not knowing half the rules etc, but it seemed to me that when Will Carling and that group focussed on team play and tactics, the performances were transformed and thy swept most of the (admittedly home nations) opposition aside. This focus, combined with leadership and game plans are what seem to have evaporated so painfully recently culminating in Argentina playing England off the pitch at Twickenham.
As for football, I believe there is an element of harm caused by the numbers of foreign players in the Premiership. But this pales into insignificance next to the iprma dona behaviour of most of the players who, it seems to me, earn more money than they know what to do with and regard this as an entitlement to succeed on the international stage without having to bother with the basics of organising a team. This combined with woeful coach leadership and a posse of English press constantly telling them how superior they are in the run up to competitions is cringe-inducing to watch. Some recent games England have gone out with a plan and when that didn't work they tually seemed to stop, fold their arms, scratch their heads and watch the opposition beat them!! I believe the talent is there, but England fail completely in harnessing that talent through disciplin and leadership.
Phew - feel better for that!!
Peter
I only watch casually, not knowing half the rules etc, but it seemed to me that when Will Carling and that group focussed on team play and tactics, the performances were transformed and thy swept most of the (admittedly home nations) opposition aside. This focus, combined with leadership and game plans are what seem to have evaporated so painfully recently culminating in Argentina playing England off the pitch at Twickenham.
As for football, I believe there is an element of harm caused by the numbers of foreign players in the Premiership. But this pales into insignificance next to the iprma dona behaviour of most of the players who, it seems to me, earn more money than they know what to do with and regard this as an entitlement to succeed on the international stage without having to bother with the basics of organising a team. This combined with woeful coach leadership and a posse of English press constantly telling them how superior they are in the run up to competitions is cringe-inducing to watch. Some recent games England have gone out with a plan and when that didn't work they tually seemed to stop, fold their arms, scratch their heads and watch the opposition beat them!! I believe the talent is there, but England fail completely in harnessing that talent through disciplin and leadership.
Phew - feel better for that!!
Peter
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Steve S1
quote:am i the only one who thinks that the best team overall lost on both occasions.
Certainly for the rugby you are. England outperformed Australia in that final. Only the SA referee's rather eccentric penalising of the England front row prevented a larger margin.
As for being lucky in the Ashes, the team that plays best at important moments wins a series. I could agree with you if you were talking a single game. Each side has big players and Warne is exceptional, without him, it wouldn't have been as close.
Steve.
Posted on: 14 November 2006 by Steve S1
quote:I'll sum it up:
Tim Henman
Typical of the type of middle class wimp that English tennis produces. The Scot, Murray, looks a better player - he doesn't like losing.
Steve.