So scotland are better than england- YEAH RIGHT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2012/01/why_scotland_are_better_than_e.html

the most retarded article on BBC i have ever read.

thoughts?

omg i just realised Italy have scored more tries than scotland in the last 10 years, i did learn something out of the article- unbelivable

I quite liked it and even though the stats are crude they do make a basic point - that England should be doing better. With more professional players we should be winning more and this is an important point not to be overlooked. I have read consistently how relegation makes premiership clubs play a negative game. Is this true or just an excuse? If clubs did not fear relegation would they really concentrate on technique and attacking play over results? Surely we just need improved coaching of our premiership clubs to turn things around?

the overall point is ok, howveer why is he turning it into a war between nations.(i know why- so people will read the blog- its more than crude mind- esp for the BBC)

Why hasntt he included the world cup?

why is he using turnover per win rather than turnover per registered player then per win.

Its an article that invalidates its point due to the ridiculas use and /or ommitance of stats. Stats are only as good as the user.

Looks 100% accurate to me.

the problem with the topic isnt just that is screwed with crazy use of stats, but its seriously patrinising to the scots. Dont tell me you are pleased of the way you play- dont get me wrong us english arnt either.

Clearly a long and laboured-over article answered by a few short mocking phrases plagued by bad grammar. The content is basically heralded in the title

Sooooo.....why aren't Scotland better than England, in the terms that Mr Fordyce employs of course?

Scot Abroad wrote:Looks 100% accurate to me.

Well then your either drunk, being silly or just plain stupid.

If England won every game in the last 10 years, they would still only be 3rd!!!!

Knowsit17 wrote:Clearly a long and laboured-over article answered by a few short mocking phrases plagued by bad grammar. The content is basically heralded in the title

Sooooo.....why aren't Scotland better than England, in the terms that Mr Fordyce employs of course?

i think you missed the point pal- read the article- its the use of stats that is laughable- we all know that england are not doing enough with its player pool

mystiroakey wrote:the overall point is ok, howveer why is he turning it into a war between nations?

hmm, at a guess, so that guys like you will respond to it?

i think your right- its also why i titled my thread in the same way- so peops like you would respond

mystiroakey wrote:i think your right- its also why i titled my thread in the same way- so peops like you would respond

Eh? What's "people like you" ever done to you?

Ah well, there ye go, got me hook, line & thingy. But aren't you missing TF's main point? That England simply squander resources (by almost any way in which you care to measure it)? Stats, damned lies, and all, it is a genuine point imo

we suck when it comes to the size of talent pool, however the guys use of stats are a total joke

So more interestingly, strokey, just in case you fancied being positive for a change, what would you do to sort things as Supremo of English Rugby? (a detailed, thoughtful answer wouldn't go amiss!)

not very good at them when it comes to rugby, sorry, golf on the other hand!

however i am eternerly optimistic about the future, the truth is even if we were no.1 in the world we would still get the 'your only that good because of your bigger population and player pool' so the fact is we can never win.

All we have to worry about is improving. The truth is its only about how good you are. How could any team ever compete pound for pound with the all blacks when it comes to population, its all abit cliche in truth and not worth worrying about.

i think its just down not having the right management in place...get someone really good in now and you'll see us get much better....

Before a Ball is kicked THAT is a BIG statement,Scotland at home are a difficult side to beat.England have had some very nasty injury problems for this one,it
is a whole new setup.
Scotland if they have a problem is scoring tries,two years ago they frightened
England by running at them.BUT for injuries to key Scottish Players they would have won rather than just drawing.
These games are always a scrap Scotland enjoy the role of underdogs,usually with a conservative game plan.They can be devilishly hard to beat,Because they
are at home they shoud be favourites.

That game 2 years ago Scotland did a lot of very good things - tackled their hearts out - competed furiously all over the pitch - made England look stupid etc - but they could be playing now and they still wouldnt have scored a try. For all the endeavor they had the cutting edge of a haggis

The argument that clubs deliberately play badly to avoid relegation strikes me as odd. Newcastle have been pushing this to new extremes this year,yet look like they finally will get the chop.

That aside, the first line of the article is quite honest, the headline is ridiculous and not really what its about. Its just the same old "less resources" moral victors argument. Gatland was trotting this one out all last year to placate the grumpy welsh fans.

Apparently England should be embaressed that they have strong grassroots rugby and a massive non professional game. It seems its a failing we should all be ashamed that we dont just have an artificial professional set up which is on welfare from other Unions and which only a small percentage of the population gives more than passing regard to. Yes everyone in England should hang their heads in shame that they manage to run a profitable Union without leaching.

Yes Scotland are better than England because no-one there cares about rugby.
England, your audience and participation has failed the world.




Bout time they managed to beat Scotland in Murrayfield mind.

lostinwales wrote: - made England look stupid etc -

Im pretty sure England are more than capable of doing that without Scotlands help

lostinwales wrote: For all the endeavor they had the cutting edge of a haggis

Remind me again, how many tries did they score against Wales that year?

I wouldnt know I am only exiled in this place - I actually support England

I do like some of the Welsh team but my main interest in them comes in listening to the local radio sports phone in after they loose for the comedy value

Complaining that Tom Fordyce's writing is limited and a bit annoying isn't too far away from complaining that 101 Dalmations has got a lot of dogs in it.

I actually enjoy a lot of the articles he has written - just not this one

tongue in cheek article. no need to take it seriously...

tongue in cheek article- really?

more like he isnt getting the required hits to get his bonus- so here comes sensationalist tabloid style journalism based on little facts to reel people in(the scottish to make them feel better, the english that like to think we are rubbish and need to find excuses, the english that get wound up with articles slagging us off, inetelegent people that actually understand how to 'use' stats,the rest of the world that love to read about how england going through the mill!

put england in a title in a derogative way and guess what you get views- from all sides.

anyway fair play- its his job at the end of the day, and i am sure it has had the deserved effect!