Why?

by emack2 Tue 20 Jun 2017, 8:44 pm

The Junior RWC has just been played,for those involved the the greatest moments of there life.
Tv and paper coverage was abysmal.in case you missed it NZ beat England in the final 64-17.
Many teams were weakened by players being with their Senior Squads devalueing it somewhat
two days later and no reports in papers WHY Doh

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 20 Jun 2017, 8:49 pm

I've been glued to it. Scotland had a tremendous campaign.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 20 Jun 2017, 9:34 pm

There was a report on the final in my paper yesterday.

by lostinwales Tue 20 Jun 2017, 11:02 pm

Its the same with the Women's game. England just beat Canada Australia and NZ in NZ. It is reported but you do have to look really hard to find it. Compare and contrast the coverage of the average sneeze by the average footballer....

by robbo277 Tue 20 Jun 2017, 11:10 pm

lostinwales wrote:Its the same with the Women's game. England just beat Canada Australia and NZ in NZ. It is reported but you do have to look really hard to find it. Compare and contrast the coverage of the average sneeze by the average footballer....

Key word there.

by TrailApe Wed 21 Jun 2017, 9:36 am

The problem this year was that the JRWC was covered by ITV and they only aired the final stages and if you are in UK you couldn't look in on the live IRB feed as obviously it was under licence to ITV.

Highlights were available though, but as already stated, Fledgeport Strollers vs West Auckshire in the first round of the rent-a-van cup will always get precedence in the UK. Rugby is a very niche sport in the UK.

by Gooseberry Wed 21 Jun 2017, 9:42 am

Most Unions don't even take it that seriously as you point out. The best U20s players are already withbtheir national squads....especially the ones who are already short because if the Lions.

It has been in the papers, and on the radio news albeit sparingly and I'm sure if England had won there would've been more coverage. But it's no great shock a big fuss hasn't been made over something that's a relatively minor competition.

by LordDowlais Wed 21 Jun 2017, 10:12 am

It has been S4C since the start.

by BamBam Wed 21 Jun 2017, 10:24 am

Do newspapers even matter anymore? If i want to read about a topic, I put it into Google.

Who cares which of yesterdays news is printed on fish and chip paper

by Exiledinborders Wed 21 Jun 2017, 10:46 am

Gooseberry wrote:Most Unions don't even take it that seriously as you point out. The best U20s players are already withbtheir national squads....especially the ones who are already short because if the Lions.

I do not think that is true that unions do not take it seriously. This year is different because, as you point out, it is a Lions year. Therefore the summer touring teams from the Lions countries have much more of a development feel to them and so the U20 squads are weakened. Most years however the U20s squads are pretty much the best of their age group.

by emack2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 10:47 am

I view papers online Times/Telegraph are now subscription only.As to a
Minor Tournament when England won we never heard the last of it.Pity
it isn`t once in 4years THEN maybe it would get the coverage that it
deserves.
Look thru the past sides of all nations and see the progressed into club
and test sides Hug

by BamBam Wed 21 Jun 2017, 10:49 am

Oh, was this just another way to tell everyone how great a country on the other side of the world are at rugby

Right thumbsup

by Gooseberry Wed 21 Jun 2017, 10:55 am

LordDowlais wrote:It has been S4C since the start.

Which goes to show how unimportnat it is

by marty2086 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 11:00 am

Many teams weakened?

Ireland took one eligible player, I think Wales were the same and don't think Scotland took any. So tht leaves England who still got to the final

by BamBam Wed 21 Jun 2017, 11:02 am

I thought Ireland had a massive injury list, something like 10 players who would have been involved

England were missing the 5 who got called up to the full squad, plus another 6 or so through injury I think

by cascough Wed 21 Jun 2017, 11:04 am

Surely it's just simple supply and demand?

Women's football is a particularly emotive one because of the equality issue and leads to people perhaps looking deeper for answers than they need to.

Could it just be as simple as, not enough people want to watch or read about these things?

I don't enjoy reading about what a footballer got up to at the weekend, but it would appear I'm in the minority. I hate Gogglebox, but I have to concede that since so many people appear to love it, Channel4 bosses have got good reason to keep putting it on.

by marty2086 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 11:04 am

Yip Irelands first 2/3 fly halves were out injured and I think two more got injured during the tournament

by Gooseberry Wed 21 Jun 2017, 11:11 am

I dont think last years got a significant amount more coverage, I had to look up to fiond out that New Zealand came 5th then. Im sure that made the front pages of the Herald.

by robbo277 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 12:00 pm

Gooseberry wrote:I dont think last years got a significant amount more coverage, I had to look up to fiond out that New Zealand came 5th then. Im sure that made the front pages of the Herald.

Last year's naturally got more airing here because we hosted it.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:04 pm

Disagree entirely that an u20s wc should only be held every 4 years. This is about development and doing it that way deprives a lot of players of the experience. I'm fine with the coverage being relegated though I'd like to see all matches covered on TV even a lesser channel. Important to remember that this is a youth comp I wouldn't really want to see it splashed on the front pages that's not what this is for.

by BamBam Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:06 pm

I doubt emack would be as bothered if the country where he resides won the tournament rather than the country he arbitrarily chose as being his team

by Cyril Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:14 pm

BamBam wrote:I doubt emack would be as bothered if the country where he resides won the tournament rather than the country he arbitrarily chose as being his team

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:18 pm

I agree bam. Who wins isn't really important. It's nice to see england continue to be the team to beat the point of this is to develop so rather than see players called up to full national squads as negative it is quite the opposite. Given the 15 20 whatever players england did well to get that far but it'll still be the handful of players that will hopefully push on.

by Gooseberry Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:21 pm

The other thing to bear in mind is that half the winning team this year will end up representing someone else

by XR Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:23 pm

I watched a few games on EIR Sports through wink wink nudge nudge means.

Samoa v Argentina was a very entertaining game.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:24 pm

Gooseberry wrote:The other thing to bear in mind is that half the winning team this year will end up representing someone else

There's usually a few future Welsh or Scottish internationals in the England team too Wink

by **profitius** Wed 21 Jun 2017, 1:32 pm

The interest for this just isn't there.

BamBam wrote:I thought Ireland had a massive injury list, something like 10 players who would have been involved

17 players were missing at one stage. Probably averaged 14 or 15. I think players might be pushing themselves too much too soon.

by sensisball Wed 21 Jun 2017, 2:04 pm

I certainly hope England had a huge number away with the senior squad because they were totally outclassed in the final. England looked big and strong but devoid of much ability compared with the AB's. They appeared considerably weaker than previous squads but still made the final which I guess is indicative of the good health of age grade rugby down south.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 2:06 pm

They had loads out. Not sure the pack was bigger and stronger however. The pack were ok bar mercer who was excellent. Lineout a mess the scrum little better.

by The Great Aukster Wed 21 Jun 2017, 2:08 pm

profitius wrote:The interest for this just isn't there.

BamBam wrote:I thought Ireland had a massive injury list, something like 10 players who would have been involved

17 players were missing at one stage. Probably averaged 14 or 15. I think players might be pushing themselves too much too soon.

Tend to agree. Ireland don't have the numbers to compete consistently at this level.

by BamBam Wed 21 Jun 2017, 2:10 pm

Would have been a lot better with Isiekwe running the lineout, and Currys/Evans on the flanks.

Add Cokanasiga as another power carrier in the backs and it instantly looks a lot stronger

by marty2086 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 2:13 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
profitius wrote:The interest for this just isn't there.

BamBam wrote:I thought Ireland had a massive injury list, something like 10 players who would have been involved

17 players were missing at one stage. Probably averaged 14 or 15. I think players might be pushing themselves too much too soon.

Tend to agree. Ireland don't have the numbers to compete consistently at this level.

Throw in the coach leaving a few months before hand too, it was a complete mess for Ireland going in

by **LondonTiger** Wed 21 Jun 2017, 2:36 pm

sensisball wrote:I certainly hope England had a huge number away with the senior squad because they were totally outclassed in the final. England looked big and strong but devoid of much ability compared with the AB's. They appeared considerably weaker than previous squads but still made the final which I guess is indicative of the good health of age grade rugby down south.

It was the smallest squad England have ever selected for this tournament. Did not see the final, but in every other game England were smaller, but more skillful than their opponents.

by Welly Wed 21 Jun 2017, 3:21 pm

sensisball wrote:I certainly hope England had a huge number away with the senior squad because they were totally outclassed in the final. England looked big and strong but devoid of much ability compared with the AB's. They appeared considerably weaker than previous squads but still made the final which I guess is indicative of the good health of age grade rugby down south.

England was missing something like 12/13 players in the end who would be considered in the main 23.

Including ones with Premiership experience in
Isiekwe - 2 prem games (1 start and 1 bench)
B Curry - 14 prem games (5 starts and 9 bench) + 3 Champion cup games (3 bench)
T Curry - 10 Prem games (5 starts and 5 bench) + 5 champions cup games (1 start + 4 bench)
Evans - 14 prem games (4 starts and 10 bench) + 6 Champions Cup games (1 start + 5 bench)
Maunder - 13 prem games (4 starts and 9 bench) + 5 Champions cup games (2 starts + 3 bench)
Brophy-Clews - 15 prem games (5 starts and 10 bench)
Shilcock - 10 Prem games (10 starts)

by Gooseberry Wed 21 Jun 2017, 3:34 pm

In terms of England they pretty much always do well in this, their record is head and shoulders above everyone except New Zealand who are another level again (exccept for last year when they came fifth ...just thought Id mention that again).
As it stands that translates to the world 1 and 2 in the rankings, so maybe the fruits of years of investement in adcademy rugby is paying off for the seniors finaly. Theres still some way to go to better New Zealands school culture and national obsession with the game though.

by Cyril Wed 21 Jun 2017, 3:48 pm

Gooseberry wrote:In terms of England they pretty much always do well in this, their record is head and shoulders above everyone except New Zealand who are another level again (exccept for last year when they came fifth ...just thought Id mention that again).

England have won 3 out of the last 5 (and were runner-up in the other 2). NZ were another level this year (they were brilliant in the final) but England have a better record in recent years.

by Welly Wed 21 Jun 2017, 3:52 pm

I would say at U20's England have caught up to NZ on the whole.

England has made it to the last 5 finals on the trot winning 3 titles. NZ have only made it to the final twice in the last 5 years (Admittedly beating England both times).

by emack2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 7:55 pm

As usual the trolls pick on me for Supporting the same side for 63years.
Cyril crawl back under your stone laughing

.When the Baby Blacks bother
about developing a pack they win these things.
England?RWC junior or senior wins v NZ 0 the ultimate chokers laughing

I didn't start this thread for what you think?but wind me up I`ll respond Doh

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 8:01 pm

Perhaps you should rise above and respond to some of the points?

by emack2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 8:32 pm

Was very impressed by France comeback in their SF,bit disappointed with
the Baby Boks.If you look back I`ve complained of lack of coverage in
previous years.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 8:34 pm

So you're not prepared to respond then?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 8:35 pm

Though is this the real emack using their instead of there?!

by emack2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 9:36 pm

England considering the numbers missing did very well to make the Final,
and have indeed over the last few years dominated the tournament.
NZ was also missing a lot of players injured or on Senior duty,Ireland
for me were very disappointing.
After knocking NZ out last year expected big things of them this year
Caught up?if both teams were at full strength who knows but this is
the best NZ team since2011.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Jun 2017, 9:54 pm

Course or was it then discounts the teams which have won since.

by BamBam Thu 22 Jun 2017, 10:04 am

emack2 wrote:As usual the trolls pick on me for Supporting the same side for 63years.
Cyril crawl back under your stone .When the Baby Blacks bother
about developing a pack they win these things.
England?RWC junior or senior wins v NZ 0 the ultimate chokers
I didn't start this thread for what you think?but wind me up I`ll respond

I commend you for glory hunting for 63 years, its quite impressive commitment to picking the side that always wins

by Gooseberry Thu 22 Jun 2017, 10:34 am

You respond even when we dont wind you up, no-one really cares either way....its still just background noise.

by Sponsored content