This entry is now closed for comments.
492 it’s skewed as usual due to the plethora of your fellow Welsh trolling the site. My point was never a correlation between population and success. It was a rebuttal of yet another Welsh troll’s claim that Wales has a greater talent pool that it nurtures. My facts disprove his claim, that’s all. As for your “moot” claim, rubbish. Even if true developed players are legal, seemples.
@486"3SF’s compared to England’s 4 finals (including 1 victory)."I'm unsure how MT welcome return has skewed to Eng v Wal records at the WC as a litmus test for correlation between a country population and it's historical rugby success but your argument is moot because whatever Eng has achieved since 2011 is now shrouded in doubt due to $arrie$ supplying the so many "developed" Eng players
@488 And New Zealand with just 1 million more people than Wales have contributed even more. Perhaps if Wales spent more time trying to match NZ rather than us (who so many of you consider inferior or underachievers anyway!) perhaps you wouldn't all feel so downtrodden!
@489 it’s not lack of ambition is it. It’s a lack of good grace by refusing to acknowledge England’s achievements. Sadly on here, it’s an all to common trait from our Welsh neighbours.
PWL. To come here and have a dig at England and gloat about how great the Welsh are. You have yet to win a World Cup, not won the Five/Six Nations outright the most, not recorded a win against the All Blacks since 1953, 16.7% in wins against the springboks, 27% to the Wallabies, to suggest that the Five/Six Nations is more interesting shows the lack of ambition from yourself as a Welsh fan.
485..I agree.NZ have produced more amazing players than anyone else. But all I'm saying is there is more to rugby than the WC. Wales with 5% of the population of England and a fraction of the wealth have contributed a lot to the sport. If you want to talk WC, Wales have played England 3 times at WC, Wales won 2, England 1, try count 7-2 to Wales.
@420 Spesh - if AWJ breaks a leg he'll simply jump up & say to the physio "don't worry I've got another one" ... & he'd still be one of the best locks around
Ah the 1970’s. Wales hasn’t moved on has it, still stuck in the 70s. 3SF’s compared to England’s 4 finals (including 1 victory). Your trolling countryman/woman claims Wales has a far greater talent pool that it nurtures. My point is, if this is so true how come you haven’t beaten England’s record at the pinnacle of the sport? Maybe I’ve missed something, maybe I’ve exposed the troll’s ineptness.
@484 For a small population New Zealand have produced some amazing players for considerably longer than Wales and have managed to make the most of it in RWC's! Ah but of course they have a bigger population than Wales as well haven't they?!
483...Abject failure? 3 SFs. Better than Ireland! But, my point is rugby doesn't begin and end with the WC. For a small population, Wales have produced some amazing players in the past, who never played in a WC, because it wasn't invented. In 1970s..Wales had Gareth, Gerald, BJ, Merv, JPR, etc..immortal players in the times when the only thing England won was the wooden spoon.
@478 Which 'lucky break' was that then? The 'luck' that you always predict England to lose by many (and Owen Farrell/Itoje someone else to get red carded!) but your predictions are always out!
Here come the rest of the Celtic trolls. @480 what does that even mean. Do you speak English? PWL I’m sure you find the 6N more interesting than the WC....maybe your players think the same. It might explain the abject failure of Welsh rugby at the WC.
479..Fyi...there's more to rugby than the WC. The sport existed for 100 years before inaugural WC in 1987. I find 6N/5N far more interesting and unpredictable than WC!
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments