Mac wrote-
Quote:Six foot and eighteen stone.
Some six-four. Some smaller.
I've met rugby players on a good few occasions. And the "some" at six-four are the norm. The "some" at six foot are a minority.
I'll go with six-two and 18 stone.
What is the size of the recruitment base at those levels. Almost anyone who is that size can play in a rugby team if he wants to. The recruitment base is tiny compared to football and cricket. Especially in R Union who are the ones I've met. A small recruitment base means only one thing- the sporting talent is downplayed. Not eradicated but downplayed. Not one England rugby union player I have ever seen would get into an England football or cricket shirt even if he was smaller and lighter. The skills required are beyond their capacities.
Hence it is a game mainly requiring brute force and aggression and is popular with those who like to identify vicariously with such qualities from their armchairs or a seat in the stands. Horserace jockeys are miles tougher despite having an even smaller recruitment base.
If you watch a women's football match, as I do now and again for laughs, the commentators often say a player is "fast" but they only mean in relation to the other players.
Owen would never have scored that goal against a good side. Those two defenders were wooden.
Hey Mathos- the England football manager said that he had watched the cricket today. I think your hatred of cricket is an affectation which betrays a lack of interest in sport. No sportsman would talk about cricket the way you do. A love of sport, and I love rugby too, transcends the facile jingoism of home-townitis.
I don't suppose you saw that Indian bowler who, when he caught the dolly catch off his own bowling appealed to the umpire with arms outstretched. Sarcasm in action. The Indians were very badly served by the umpires all summer.
