Elitism in Rugby
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Re: Elitism in Rugby
The best kids tend to get offered scholarships and move to private schools. not too big a mystery as to how that could skew the number a bit. Not aware of this happening with other big sports in the uk, excerpt potentially cricket.
Re: Elitism in Rugby
You have clearly never seen Ehizode try to play rugby!
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Absolutely. It is the Cote development model of sports participation. Early specialisation can produce excellence, but at the cost of burnout and high drop off in participation. By contrast, sampling more sports with later specialisation reduces the drop off rate. To be fair the more enlightened parts of the RFU are fully on-side with this.
On the OP question, of course there is elitism in rugby (there is a confusion on the thread. The dictionary definition of 'elite' is different to the socio-political concept of 'elitism', which in the pejorative is where power and influence are held by a limited number of people by virtue of wealth, social position, profession etc. to the exclusion of others). In a 'socially just' society, those with ability and ambition would have the opportunity to succeed regardless of background etc.
But opportunities do not fall equally. There are public schools whose rugby staff are level 3 coaches; they have physios for matchdays and rehabilitation; strength and conditioning suites with a dedicated S&C coach; access to video analysis. One near me even has a 3G all weather pitch. In comparison a state school might have an enthusiastic teacher willing to run rugby as an extracurricular activity for an hour or two a week.
So it isn't surprising that the 7% that can attend public schools have their abilities maximised and the 93% do not?
I can't remember which geneticist said this (Jones possibly): " the most important heritable characteristic is wealth"
Re: Elitism in Rugby
So having debated this, does Genge have the right to moan?
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Of course Genge has the right to moan, for people in state schools post-16 there is always the Hartpury route or University, but for obvious reasons only a very few people will be able to go to Hartpury and not everyone is academically gifted enough to go to University, this is why the RFU and the Government need to do more to get the best out of a very talented population that are not getting the opportunities or exposure.
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Yes that's also my view.JP14 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:18 am Of course Genge has the right to moan, for people in state schools post-16 there is always the Hartpury route or University, but for obvious reasons only a very few people will be able to go to Hartpury and not everyone is academically gifted enough to go to University, this is why the RFU and the Government need to do more to get the best out of a very talented population that are not getting the opportunities or exposure.
At the end of the day if you're English then you just want England to maximise their potential and be the best that they can be.
You can't pick what you think are the best potential players at 15 years old in rugby, there are just too many variables.
Re: Elitism in Rugby
The most important thing for me, if our club and country are going to be successful at any sport, is to encourage as many kids to play sport and then choose those with the natural attributes you require to focus on.
If our talent pool only consists of kids from a selective education background we are by definition ruling out the majority of kids in the country … barmy.
Schools aren’t the answer to encouraging more kids to play sport as they do not have the resources to do so. If sports want more people taking part then they need to encourage it.
If our talent pool only consists of kids from a selective education background we are by definition ruling out the majority of kids in the country … barmy.
Schools aren’t the answer to encouraging more kids to play sport as they do not have the resources to do so. If sports want more people taking part then they need to encourage it.
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Some of the answers on here are examples of why I despair for Society in the UK at times.
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Why?
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Another interesting article from Maro Itoje on the differences between Soccer / football and Rugger ~ a good read!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48860547
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48860547
Re: Elitism in Rugby
I am working to a different definition as in:h's dad wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:54 amelite
noun
1.
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society
You might be happy with your surgery carried out by somebody dragged off the street at random but if I was to need a surgeon, I would like to have an elite one. The same goes for pretty much any aspect of life.
Referring to the most powerful or rich within a particular group, place, or society.
Rather than the most talented.
i.e., we don't want a society that gives much better opportunity to the most powerful or rich.
Clear?
Do you disagree?
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Took you long enough, I thought (hoped) this was dead and buried. I would suggest that, subject to reasonable moral and legal safeguards;ourla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:00 amI am working to a different definition as in:h's dad wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:54 amelite
noun
1.
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society
You might be happy with your surgery carried out by somebody dragged off the street at random but if I was to need a surgeon, I would like to have an elite one. The same goes for pretty much any aspect of life.
Referring to the most powerful or rich within a particular group, place, or society.
Rather than the most talented.
i.e., we don't want a society that gives much better opportunity to the most powerful or rich.
Clear?
Do you disagree?
i) if you become rich and powerful through your own efforts, good luck to you
ii) if you luck into being rich and powerful but have no talent, you are unlikely to stay that way
iii) if you have the talent you have some chance of achieving riches and power
It's not a perfect system of course, at least not in the short term,, but what is?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Re: Elitism in Rugby
Strange reply which seems to miss the point of the discussion or the point I was making. Eh ho.h's dad wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:23 amTook you long enough, I thought (hoped) this was dead and buried. I would suggest that, subject to reasonable moral and legal safeguards;ourla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:00 amI am working to a different definition as in:h's dad wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:54 am
elite
noun
1.
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society
You might be happy with your surgery carried out by somebody dragged off the street at random but if I was to need a surgeon, I would like to have an elite one. The same goes for pretty much any aspect of life.
Referring to the most powerful or rich within a particular group, place, or society.
Rather than the most talented.
i.e., we don't want a society that gives much better opportunity to the most powerful or rich.
Clear?
Do you disagree?
i) if you become rich and powerful through your own efforts, good luck to you
ii) if you luck into being rich and powerful but have no talent, you are unlikely to stay that way
iii) if you have the talent you have some chance of achieving riches and power
It's not a perfect system of course, at least not in the short term,, but what is?
Re: Elitism in Rugby
This really needs moving to chat. I was making the point that I consider your point to be putting the cart before the horse and that I consider it appropriate to reward talent wherever it comes from, even if it is perceived by some to have had a leg up. I don't consider being rich or powerful in itself to be a sin and that generally those who do have either a very flawed dogma or simply suffer from envy and jealousy. Eh oh.ourla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:08 pmStrange reply which seems to miss the point of the discussion or the point I was making. Eh ho.h's dad wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:23 amTook you long enough, I thought (hoped) this was dead and buried. I would suggest that, subject to reasonable moral and legal safeguards;ourla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:00 am
I am working to a different definition as in:
Referring to the most powerful or rich within a particular group, place, or society.
Rather than the most talented.
i.e., we don't want a society that gives much better opportunity to the most powerful or rich.
Clear?
Do you disagree?
i) if you become rich and powerful through your own efforts, good luck to you
ii) if you luck into being rich and powerful but have no talent, you are unlikely to stay that way
iii) if you have the talent you have some chance of achieving riches and power
It's not a perfect system of course, at least not in the short term,, but what is?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game