IRB's WWC today

First topic message reminder :

Not sure if anyone is aware, or interested, but the pool stages of the Womens World cup is on today, with Aus playing SA, Eng playing Samoa, and France v Wales.

In reality England and NZ should compete to win the cup, but you never know as a few nations have improved rapidly lately.

As usual I have no representation in the World cup, but i'm used to that now, and will just enjoy the rugby.

I like watching womens rugby, it's inevitably slower, and less physical but skillsets have improved massively over the last few years, and it makes for an entertaining game.

Good luck to every lady involved

Even in the amateur days England's men were generally treated better than our women are today when it came to getting time off for international duty.

Many found (or were found) very accommodating employers. Martin Johnson's autobiography was quite revealing in that respect.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Even in the amateur days England's men were generally treated better than our women are today when it came to getting time off for international duty.

Many found (or were found) very accommodating employers. Martin Johnson's autobiography was quite revealing in that respect.

 
I think there is a twist to what you're saying...
 
I believe what you are saying is true... but additionally that players went into specific professions which gave players allowances themselves. Bath used to be great at finding players cushy jobs in things like PR (i recall both Guscott and Clarke did that for British Gas back in the day). It served 2 purposes, the company got familiar faces assigned with their product and the players got generous allowances.
 
Jon Webb however had no such luck. He missed training, matches etc because he was a surgeon... and that came first. If you wanted a top flight job you had to sacrifice.
 
I believe the RFU did nought to help the players, it was up to yourself. McGeechan had to take unpaid leave I think during the Lions tours of 89 & 93 when he was a PE teacher in Yorkshire.
 
In those days rugby was a hobby and I assume that is what it is like today in woman's rugby. The difference is that millions would watch chaps like Guscott, winterbottom, Carling etc. It made business sense for firms to throw them into the spotlight. Female rugby players do not have that type of exposure unfortunately. The business world is very transparent, it was then and it is now.

fa0019 wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:Even in the amateur days England's men were generally treated better than our women are today when it came to getting time off for international duty.

Many found (or were found) very accommodating employers. Martin Johnson's autobiography was quite revealing in that respect.

 
I think there is a twist to what you're saying...
 
I believe what you are saying is true... but additionally that players went into specific professions which gave players allowances themselves. Bath used to be great at finding players cushy jobs in things like PR (i recall both Guscott and Clarke did that for British Gas back in the day). It served 2 purposes, the company got familiar faces assigned with their product and the players got generous allowances.
 
Jon Webb however had no such luck. He missed training, matches etc because he was a surgeon... and that came first. If you wanted a top flight job you had to sacrifice.
 
I believe the RFU did nought to help the players, it was up to yourself. McGeechan had to take unpaid leave I think during the Lions tours of 89 & 93 when he was a PE teacher in Yorkshire.
 
In those days rugby was a hobby and I assume that is what it is like today in woman's rugby. The difference is that millions would watch chaps like Guscott, winterbottom, Carling etc. It made business sense for firms to throw them into the spotlight. Female rugby players do not have that type of exposure unfortunately. The business world is very transparent, it was then and it is now.

Yep. Generations of old boys brought up in a tradition of looking after the current boys, as it were. Something that just isnt present in the Womens game yet

It happens all the way down to grassroots too. I remember a mate of mine at uni who was the star of the uni rugby team at the time. Bumped into an old boy when out shopping for a new pair of boots, on finding out the old boy without hesitation went into his wallet and said, its on me mate.
 
I have a number of similar stories but its one of the things which makes the sport special, something you don't see in other sports.

Should be a good final.

If England continue to play like they did v Ireland then I can't see beyond them. Hopefully peaking at the right time after a fairly average set of group games.

France will be kicking themselves that they couldn't convert at least one of the two tries towards the end. They've got a really good forward game and (especially) maul but seem a bit limited in terms of attack. There were plenty of times they should have spread the attack but went tight (though I guess that worked very well against the Aussies).

One more to go Red Roses

The final is just about to start.

Good luck England.

It's been a close match but Scarratt has just gone over for a try with not much left on the clock. That looks the win.

The whistle has gone. 21-9. Canada couldn't break England's defence but kept in touch on the scoreboard for long periods. England scored a try in each half, and that proved the difference.

Yes, well played England. But very hard luck to Canada, they kept well in touch for the whole game. They just could not break England's defence.

Well played England World Champions. It has been along time coming.

Excellent stuff!

Well done to the Red Roses. Canada just wouldn't go away but that Scaratt individual effort sealed it.

Alphonsi (as usual) was very impressive at the breakdown in and defence. The English scrum-half is very nippy!

Canada strong at the scrum and like to keep the ball alive but lacked a bit of organisation and penetration against a very good English defence.

Delighted for the English ladies to finally get the World Cup win.

That's the juniors and the ladies now. It's up to the men to stand up next year

Well done England! I would take Maggie Alphonsi at Ulster, she's pretty handy...

Notch wrote:Well done England! I would take Maggie Alphonsi at Ulster, she's pretty handy...

I have said it before, pound for pound she is probably the best English, if not British player going of either gender. Simply amazing lady, great personality off the pitch as well.

Jimpy wrote:Well done England, comiserations Ireland.

Reading this thread does please me (apart from the obvious tired, hackneyed and rather dull argument about professionals v amateurs) - because a recurring theme amongst some posters on 606v2 with regards to the women's game was that rugby was a sport for men, women shouldn't be playing such a rufty-tufty sport, that the skill levels were poor, the pace was slow and the contacts half hearted.

Most of us are able to appreciate it for what it is - a fast and skillfull game, with plenty of physicality and plenty of scoring. The women's game is growing in stature and rightly so. The absence of hecklers on this forum sees them put back in their narrow minded boxes.

England to win at a canter on sunday, they're fired up and ready.

As predicted.

Jimpy wrote:

Jimpy wrote:Well done England, comiserations Ireland.

Reading this thread does please me (apart from the obvious tired, hackneyed and rather dull argument about professionals v amateurs) - because a recurring theme amongst some posters on 606v2 with regards to the women's game was that rugby was a sport for men, women shouldn't be playing such a rufty-tufty sport, that the skill levels were poor, the pace was slow and the contacts half hearted.

Most of us are able to appreciate it for what it is - a fast and skillfull game, with plenty of physicality and plenty of scoring. The women's game is growing in stature and rightly so. The absence of hecklers on this forum sees them put back in their narrow minded boxes.

England to win at a canter on sunday, they're fired up and ready.

As predicted.

  

Interesting read today that the English were amateurs with Waterman even quitting her job to prepare. Put that in contrast to Canada who had professionals such as Magail Harvey and it shows just what they had to do. Fantastic.

Well done England ladies. They've been there or thereabouts for a good few years now-good reward for all the effort they put in and the tenacity they showed to keep such high standards.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting read today that the English were amateurs with Waterman even quitting her job to prepare. Put that in contrast to Canada who had professionals such as Magail Harvey and it shows just what they had to do. Fantastic.

How about just congratulations all round, including all the other teams who actually made it a cracking tournament to watch, this sport is definately progressing, and without the mighty Canadian pro's winning it lol

Notch wrote:Well done England! I would take Maggie Alphonsi at Ulster, she's pretty handy...

I met her once down at Hartpury College on one of my daughters England training camps.

It is frightening how toned & ripped she is, yet still a damn good looking woman. If she says your having it... trust me... your having it.

Metal Tiger wrote:

Notch wrote:Well done England! I would take Maggie Alphonsi at Ulster, she's pretty handy...

I met her once down at Hartpury College on one of my daughters England training camps.

It is frightening how toned & ripped she is, yet still a damn good looking woman. If she says your having it... trust me... your having it.

 
If you're looking for a my dads bigger then your dad's fight... hell, we've got caster semenya.

Neutralee wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Jimpy wrote:Well done England, comiserations Ireland.

Reading this thread does please me (apart from the obvious tired, hackneyed and rather dull argument about professionals v amateurs) - because a recurring theme amongst some posters on 606v2 with regards to the women's game was that rugby was a sport for men, women shouldn't be playing such a rufty-tufty sport, that the skill levels were poor, the pace was slow and the contacts half hearted.

Most of us are able to appreciate it for what it is - a fast and skillfull game, with plenty of physicality and plenty of scoring. The women's game is growing in stature and rightly so. The absence of hecklers on this forum sees them put back in their narrow minded boxes.

England to win at a canter on sunday, they're fired up and ready.

As predicted.

  

Some think Jimpy lacks humility... not so... he's just confident & passionate   

fa0019 wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

Notch wrote:Well done England! I would take Maggie Alphonsi at Ulster, she's pretty handy...

I met her once down at Hartpury College on one of my daughters England training camps.

It is frightening how toned & ripped she is, yet still a damn good looking woman. If she says your having it... trust me... your having it.

 
If you're looking for a my dads bigger then your dad's fight... hell, we've got caster semenya.

I'm not familiar with that particular lady?

Do tell.

Neutralee wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting read today that the English were amateurs with Waterman even quitting her job to prepare. Put that in contrast to Canada who had professionals such as Magail Harvey and it shows just what they had to do. Fantastic.

How about just congratulations all round, including all the other teams who actually made it a cracking tournament to watch, this sport is definately progressing, and without the mighty Canadian pro's winning it lol

Indeed congrats to all teams involved. Think this tournament may change a fair few perceptions of womens sport which is great. To beat a team with some pros and with a player quitting their job is going the extra mile. When the big spending French clubs are getting negative comments I think its only fair to highlight what these women have done for free.

Having watched some of the game, can the England men have a few sessions with the ladies backs coach.

Also, can Scarrett have a sex change (no offence meant) she looks far more inventive than any 13s we have in the men's squad.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Having watched some of the game, can the England men have a few sessions with the ladies backs coach.

Also, can Scarrett have a sex change (no offence meant) she looks far more inventive than any 13s we have in the men's squad.

 
What another one? She used to be called 'Bob'.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting read today that the English were amateurs with Waterman even quitting her job to prepare. Put that in contrast to Canada who had professionals such as Magail Harvey and it shows just what they had to do. Fantastic.

How about just congratulations all round, including all the other teams who actually made it a cracking tournament to watch, this sport is definately progressing, and without the mighty Canadian pro's winning it lol

Indeed congrats to all teams involved. Think this tournament may change a fair few perceptions of womens sport which is great. To beat a team with some pros and with a player quitting their job is going the extra mile. When the big spending French clubs are getting negative comments I think its only fair to highlight what these women have done for free.

I will join you as far as congratulating the ladies, and some of the pro players could take a look at some of these girls dedication and commitment, not to mention ability and talent and ask themselves 'Am I really that much more effective as a pro?'

As far as big bad Canada being overcome by the English minnows goes, I was clearly mocking you!

Yup. Stick to thinking England having all the advantages when it was the opposite. Not surprised.

Who said England had all the advantages? I just stated that Canada are not the world power while England were the minnows! England were heavy favourites for a good reason, they are the better team, and they finally won a RWC, which they have deserved.

There was no David v Goliath battle that you make out there was!

Neutralee wrote:Who said England had all the advantages? I just stated that Canada are not the world power while England were the minnows! England were heavy favourites for a good reason, they are the better team, and they finally won a RWC, which they have deserved.

There was no David v Goliath battle that you make out there was!

I think you will find this is the second RWC they have won,.They beat the USA in the second completion in 1994 I think.

No, just a team of amateurs vs one with professionals (at least some). Still the best 2 sides in the comp.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Neutralee wrote:Who said England had all the advantages? I just stated that Canada are not the world power while England were the minnows! England were heavy favourites for a good reason, they are the better team, and they finally won a RWC, which they have deserved.

There was no David v Goliath battle that you make out there was!

I think you will find this is the second RWC they have won,.They beat the USA in the second completion in 1994 I think.

Apologies, my WRWC history needs brushing up clearly lol. Did they beat a fully pro USA team in 1994 too, being the huge underdog, with X factor style sob stories throughout as 7.5 suggests they won this one   

No. Just think the point about England having the pros needs to be corrected.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. Just think the point about England having the pros needs to be corrected.

I don't think anyone accused England as being professional, moreso they were being applauded for the RFU allowing there preperation to be as professional as possible. Great success starts on the planning board, and is then implimented better than every one else.

to be honest I wouldn't want the game to be forced into professionalism unless there are strong roots and demand for it.
 
It has to be able to support itself rather than be a drain on the men's game and their resources and only for equality reasons only.
 
The game has to grow and sure if some players can go professional great but I can imagine their will be a whole media outcry as female rugby players get paid 20k a year compared to their fellow males on 300k a year.
 
Say the game requires 30 pro female players which the RFU must supplement by say 30k each. Well thats near 1MM eur right with probably little additional revenue gained from the woman's game itself. Unions profit margins aren't exactly strong. The mens team may cost say 10MM eur to unions but I imagine the money they get back from them is huge.
 
The difference is, the demand from TV, gates receipts and shirt sales of male players will be in a different planet compared to the females game.
 
The best thing to do is get the exposure of the sport increased, get girls play the game in schools, promote the opening up of female teams at more amateur clubs and provide funding for those at the top to compete with the best from other nations.

fa0019 wrote:to be honest I wouldn't want the game to be forced into professionalism unless there are strong roots and demand for it.
 
It has to be able to support itself rather than be a drain on the men's game and their resources and only for equality reasons only.
 
The game has to grow and sure if some players can go professional great but I can imagine their will be a whole media outcry as female rugby players get paid 20k a year compared to their fellow males on 300k a year.
 
Say the game requires 30 pro female players which the RFU must supplement by say 30k each. Well thats near 1MM eur right with probably little additional revenue gained from the woman's game itself. Unions profit margins aren't exactly strong. The mens team may cost say 10MM eur to unions but I imagine the money they get back from them is huge.
 
The difference is, the demand from TV, gates receipts and shirt sales of male players will be in a different planet compared to the females game.
 
The best thing to do is get the exposure of the sport increased, get girls play the game in schools, promote the opening up of female teams at more amateur clubs and provide funding for those at the top to compete with the best from other nations.

Pretty sure the RFU wouldn't pay a single Euro to allow the ladies go pro...

Sorry couldn't resist lol

Neutralee wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. Just think the point about England having the pros needs to be corrected.

I don't think anyone accused England as being professional, moreso they were being applauded for the RFU allowing there preperation to be as professional as possible. Great success starts on the planning board, and is then implimented better than every one else.

Great Aukster.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. Just think the point about England having the pros needs to be corrected.

I don't think anyone accused England as being professional, moreso they were being applauded for the RFU allowing there preperation to be as professional as possible. Great success starts on the planning board, and is then implimented better than every one else.

Great Aukster.

If he did I didn't see it apologies. Clearly he's wrong though   

Neutralee wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Well done the English Roses. The predicted walkover happened as it logically should, given it was professionals v amateurs.

The ladies game is more brutal than skillful, especially when one side don't wear make-up.

Rubbish. Who are the professionals?  The England women all have day jobs outside of rugby.

Aren't there at least 7/8 girls in there on the RFU payroll as DO's or something similar? Also there are a lot of girls studying through RFU funding, allowing their training schedules to be pretty comprehensive. Then there are a few teachers and unskilled girls.

Taking nothing away from the English girls though, just fantastic, their skill levels are a world apart from the rest of the worlds, even the kiwi's. What they are doing is very very right!

Can't see beyond England now after that, I think they'd give most championship sides a go!

sure you didn t see it GE.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Well done the English Roses. The predicted walkover happened as it logically should, given it was professionals v amateurs.

The ladies game is more brutal than skillful, especially when one side don't wear make-up.

Rubbish. Who are the professionals?  The England women all have day jobs outside of rugby.

Aren't there at least 7/8 girls in there on the RFU payroll as DO's or something similar? Also there are a lot of girls studying through RFU funding, allowing their training schedules to be pretty comprehensive. Then there are a few teachers and unskilled girls.

Taking nothing away from the English girls though, just fantastic, their skill levels are a world apart from the rest of the worlds, even the kiwi's. What they are doing is very very right!

Can't see beyond England now after that, I think they'd give most championship sides a go!

sure you didn t see it GE.

So let me get this straight, your point being against somebody elses argument, not mine, I agree with you on your point about English ladies not being professional, moreso I offer an apology for doubting your points that somebody else called them professionals and your response is to argue over wether I saw the remark or not? All this above is not enough for you?

I think you really need to assess why your here!

Im here to talk about rugby. I doubt your sincerity due to your previous posts guess its boy who cried wolf.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Im here to talk about rugby. I doubt your sincerity due to your previous posts guess its boy who cried wolf.

Well if for one second you let go of the grasp that I am who you beleive I am and just read my comments about all nations, you'll find I slate pretty much all tier 1 teams equally, well thats not true, as the English threads far outweigh any others so i've probably slated them more.

Fine ill go with it. Ill accept you re not GE and Imsorry for suggesting you were. Who do you support and where do you come from?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fine ill go with it. Ill accept you re not GE and Imsorry for suggesting you were. Who do you support and where do you come from?

I generally support all forms of Rugby union, especially outside of tier 1 teams who for me are way too elitist. I do have a soft spot for munster, having lived there, and have developed a very distastefull opinion of the whole of Welsh rugby, not in it's entirity just the last 100 years or so lol (Friend of mine being from Cardiff).

As to where I'm from, I'm a Pangaean, although I do consider myself of British heritage. I have however no rugby affiliation to any tier 1 nation, but also don't really have a nation to support, I am what one would call a soppy b#####ks, as in I have 1 foot in the UK and the other in my homeland, I have duel nationality and a British passport that I don't use, except for purchasing property.

I don't like to give my original nationality out for one reason, all points made tend to be invalid when it is determined where one comes from, if an IRishman makes a valid claim about the internaational season not being truly fair, it's because his teamloses to SH teams a lot, if a South African mentions the influx of SA talent to British shores he's just whinging, even when a nationality doesn't directly effect an opinion there is a 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon style discussion where an agenda is determined and valid points are dismissed.

Hope this helps, and please judge me on what I say, not who you think I am (I'm guessing he wasn't a particularly nice guy, or well regarded considering he had many accounts and bans etc)

No he was quite like you actually. Hence why people doubt you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No he was quite like you actually. Hence why people doubt you.

Not sure why you would think i'm anything but honest and critical. Go check every comment I post, I have been pretty much anti every tier 1 nation, but probably mostly toward England and NZ as they are the popular threads right now.

What a coincidence.

This is all just going way off topic. But however hard someone tries and hides it, and however odd it seems when all we see is typed characters not handwriting you can detect individual styles. That plus some wind up threads, however 'subtle' suggests a former obsessional poster may just be back among us. I look forward to be proved wrong, but I doubt it.

lostinwales wrote:This is all just going way off topic. But however hard someone tries and hides it, and however odd it seems when all we see is typed characters not handwriting you can detect individual styles. That plus some wind up threads, however 'subtle' suggests a former obsessional poster may just be back among us. I look forward to be proved wrong, but I doubt it.

Sadly I have to prove nothing, if you think it make a request to the mods, when they respond and tell you I cannot be him then take it as red. I expect this from the likes of Cyril, 7.5 and the likes, they offer little in the way of rugby debate and just want every thread as a slanging match, but you seem to be far more knowledgable.

Not that it means too much, but the obsessed people with who I am all seem to be English, how come I can go into the NZ threads and slate them, and the worst I get is a thorough debate. Those 2 nations are the hot topics right now, yet 1 group of fans just can't accept criticism, and find it easier to attack me.

Now now play nicely.

Neutralee wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Neutralee wrote:Who said England had all the advantages? I just stated that Canada are not the world power while England were the minnows! England were heavy favourites for a good reason, they are the better team, and they finally won a RWC, which they have deserved.

There was no David v Goliath battle that you make out there was!

I think you will find this is the second RWC they have won,.They beat the USA in the second completion in 1994 I think.

Apologies, my WRWC history needs brushing up clearly lol. Did they beat a fully pro USA team in 1994 too, being the huge underdog, with X factor style sob stories throughout as 7.5 suggests they won this one   

No, but they did beat the current WRWC holders, as the USA had beaten England in the 1991 final. NZ have some reason didn't compete, probably the weather was too much like home as it was held in Scotland.

Having read the threads through since my last post, I have to agree with a number of people, it looks like GE has a twin brother when it comes to the style of his posts and in particular his answers.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Neutralee wrote:Who said England had all the advantages? I just stated that Canada are not the world power while England were the minnows! England were heavy favourites for a good reason, they are the better team, and they finally won a RWC, which they have deserved.

There was no David v Goliath battle that you make out there was!

I think you will find this is the second RWC they have won,.They beat the USA in the second completion in 1994 I think.

Apologies, my WRWC history needs brushing up clearly lol. Did they beat a fully pro USA team in 1994 too, being the huge underdog, with X factor style sob stories throughout as 7.5 suggests they won this one   

No, but they did beat the current WRWC holders, as the USA had beaten England in the 1991 final. NZ have some reason didn't compete, probably the weather was too much like home as it was held in Scotland.

Having read the threads through since my last post, I have to agree with a number of people, it looks like GE has a twin brother when it comes to the style of his posts and in particular his answers.

I'm not going to reearch you, or check where your from but I am going to bet your another disgruntled Englishman? Why is it I have slammed NZ and get nothing but debate, but you dare mention anything about England and you ust have an agenda?

I have nothing against England, the English, I am heritaged from there, why is it every comment made is either from bias Celts, random europeans, or former anti English posters from NZ... jeez. I actually wish I was the ghost, it'd be more fun!