Sports which are just too posh, rich and over-represented at the Olympics

First topic message reminder :

Swimming/Gymnatics - have too many medals on offer
Equestrian/Yachting/Shooting etc. require loads of dosh to just get on the first step (and I'll include the Pole vault in that)
And filthy rich sports like football, tennis, golf, rugby and basketball should never even have a sniff of Olympic participation - well, not the multimillionaires anyway. If the Olympics ain't the pinnacle of the sport, then they shouldn't be in.

Crimey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:What even is your point mysti?

]

You come on here calling me forign and then making stuff up. I certainly didnt say kids should be forced to play sports. i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level rathering than concentrating so much on football , and rugby isnt even played in the schools around here. Is that simple enough for you...Seriously what the heck is your point?

You want all schools to have the facilities to offer all sports? That is unrealistic. The reason schools do football more than anything else, is because football is more popular. Why do you think all schools should offer all sports? What would that achieve? "All schools" providing football hasn't led to the England national football side to any glory.

I didn't call you foreign, I just said that I thought you were foreign.

no i dont want every sport offered, i just want abit more rugby and cricket played at certain state schools around london rather than football football football!

Say what you mean then.

You said:

mystiroakey wrote:i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level

My question is why do you want more rugby and cricket played in certain state schools around London? What would it achieve?

GSC wrote:Or it could be argued we focussed on sports with the greatest amount of competition to give us a chance in them.

well those would be the running athletics events- which we clearly do try at but its just so much harder to achieve golds in these basic sports over the lesser particpation ones like cycling and rowing..

I think we need to look at why swimming only recieves the same as cycling though. Because there are so many medals in the swimming events it is surely one to pump into due to the rewards being so great

Crimey wrote:Say what you mean then.

You said:

mystiroakey wrote:i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level

My question is why do you want more rugby and cricket played in certain state schools around London? What would it achieve?

i have answered these points before.

Can you answer why you keep making stuff up?

Swimming is one of the top 4 most funded, not sure what more we should do. Bit of a silly comment.

At my schools, rugby is played more than footie...

You haven't answered why you want people to play those sports, other than to make people not think they are elitist, which they aren't...

What have I made up? I make a habit of quoting your points, because you will often accuse me of making things up, so I will always address exactly what you say.

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:Say what you mean then.

You said:

mystiroakey wrote:i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level

My question is why do you want more rugby and cricket played in certain state schools around London? What would it achieve?

i have answered these points before.

Can you answer why you keep making stuff up?

When have you answered what it would achieve?

Crimey wrote:You haven't answered why you want people to play those sports, other than to make people not think they are elitist, which they aren't...

What have I made up? I make a habit of quoting your points, because you will often accuse me of making things up, so I will always address exactly what you say.

Crimey you are constanly making stuff up- just admit it mate. You cant just come on here putting word after word into my mouth and expect a decent debate

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:Say what you mean then.

You said:

mystiroakey wrote:i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level

My question is why do you want more rugby and cricket played in certain state schools around London? What would it achieve?

i have answered these points before.

Can you answer why you keep making stuff up?

When have you answered what it would achieve?

It would acheive more participation from different backgrounds realting to a more diverse playing field and a better utilisation of the population and an overall better national team- I have mentioned it quite a few times on here. If kids dont get the chance to play they enviably never play the game.This is proved by the background of our rugby players today. We need to at least offer these sports to the population.

What background are these rugby players then?

All public and private school eductaed

Remeber i am talking about england- not wales or scotland!

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:You haven't answered why you want people to play those sports, other than to make people not think they are elitist, which they aren't...

What have I made up? I make a habit of quoting your points, because you will often accuse me of making things up, so I will always address exactly what you say.

Crimey you are constanly making stuff up- just admit it mate. You cant just come on here putting word after word into my mouth and expect a decent debate

I asked you to give an example of me making stuff up, the fact that you haven't suggests that I haven't made anything up.

I have mentioned everyone on the previous page. look for yourself

mystiroakey wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:Say what you mean then.

You said:

mystiroakey wrote:i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level

My question is why do you want more rugby and cricket played in certain state schools around London? What would it achieve?

i have answered these points before.

Can you answer why you keep making stuff up?

When have you answered what it would achieve?

It would acheive more participation from different backgrounds realting to a more diverse playing field and a better utilisation of the population and an overall better national team- I have mentioned it quite a few times on here. If kids dont get the chance to play they enviably never play the game.This is proved by the background of our rugby players today. We need to at least offer these sports to the population.

I don't think you've ever put it that succinctly, maybe it got lost in translation when you were trying to tell everyone that states schools don't play rugby despite a bunch of us going to state schools that did.

And Crimey has countered this point by evidencing our rubbish national football team.

Why do we need people from different backgrounds playing rugby? Will it help us do better in the sport if we have people from different backgrounds playing rugby?

Saying that you want people from different backgrounds playing rugby, because people from different backgrounds can play rugby is a circular and unconvincing argument really.

Well thats BS for a start.

Where I come from (Leicestershire) Rugby is far bigger than football (atmosphere at Welford road is far better than any at the KP) and rugby was routinely played more than football.

Just because Rugby players come across as intelligent and well spoken compared to footballers doesn't make them posh.

I just want it to be accesable to all. When we look at Aus for instance they dont have these class divides with sport. It means they can utilese there population better

We don't have a class divide, and our sports are pretty much roundly better than Australia across the board atm.

If you're good enough you play. You're talking crap Myst.

You're not answering the question, just saying you want it to be more accessible so it is more accessible.

What is the benefit of spending money, that the education system doesn't have, on making schools provide more rugby and cricket?

We dont have a class divide. Do you lot even come from this country??

This is becoming ludicrous

Kindly demonstrate said class divide in sports

Crimey wrote:You're not answering the question, just saying you want it to be more accessible so it is more accessible.

What is the benefit of spending money, that the education system doesn't have, on making schools provide more rugby and cricket?

Did you read my point about balham council spending 10 mill quid on astroturf pitches when there kids only want to play cricket. Yet they spend nothing on that!

We are spending money- just wrongly

There is still clearly a class divide, or at least a gradient, in sport. Though I would say it was more a regional gradient

GSC wrote:Kindly demonstrate said class divide in sports

ermm let me think

Our national footballers compared to our national rugby players!!! that was tough.

next question?

That didn't demonstrate anything.

Try again.

It did to me.

If you cant understand the class divide then - well i am not sure what to say!

You named 2 teams. How does that demonstrate anything?

The proportion of rugby players who are privately educated compared to the same ratio in football players would imply a class divide. The real question we should be asking is "why?" I would venture that it is because of what our parents have exposed us to in our late childhood/early teenage years but I can't really back that up

Anyway lads i am off home- good debate!

I wish there was no divide - But in my mind there clearly is.

the olympics has shown us how successfull we can be at sport- time for our main sports to look into ways of utilsing our talent more effectively

Change the attitudes of the players, which seem subpar in many cases? That's what Lancaster is doing and it seems to be helping to a degree

I know people that have trained with the tigers youth team, none of them close to being considered upper class. My school also produced a scotland rugby player and Luke Wright.

Its stereotyping based on the fact that our rugby players actually sound intelligent and well mannered, which is as much to do with parenting etc than schooling.

I think that across the population of the UK though, GCS, biased as it is by London, more rugby players are "posh" than football players

Probably. Though again, that comes into more than just schooling. Its a pretty ludicrous argument just to say we aren't giving everybody a fair chance to play though.

On the flip side, surely we must get more upper classes into football surely?

GSC wrote:Kindly demonstrate said class divide in sports

Think we're back to where we started........at least 3 pages ago!

That would only be fair, GSC!

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:You're not answering the question, just saying you want it to be more accessible so it is more accessible.

What is the benefit of spending money, that the education system doesn't have, on making schools provide more rugby and cricket?

Did you read my point about balham council spending 10 mill quid on astroturf pitches when there kids only want to play cricket. Yet they spend nothing on that!

We are spending money- just wrongly

Using one example of spending money does not prove anything.

As well as the fact that football is a winter sport, cricket a summer, so they can both be played in schools easily.

One 10 million pound example which nullifys your argument..

You argue why should we spend on sport in school.It's a ludicrous argument at best but really a non argument because we do spend on sport in school..

Crimey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:You're not answering the question, just saying you want it to be more accessible so it is more accessible.

What is the benefit of spending money, that the education system doesn't have, on making schools provide more rugby and cricket?

Did you read my point about balham council spending 10 mill quid on astroturf pitches when there kids only want to play cricket. Yet they spend nothing on that!

We are spending money- just wrongly

Using one example of spending money does not prove anything.

As well as the fact that football is a winter sport, cricket a summer, so they can both be played in schools easily.

We played cricket on our astro-turf at my state school only the school team got to play on the proper wickets on the playing field.

mystiroakey wrote:One 10 million pound example which nullifys your argument..

You argue why should we spend on sport in school.It's a ludicrous argument at best but really a non argument because we do spend on sport in school..

No, he's saying why should we spend money providing evey sport possible and to a high enough level to develop 'stars' at state schools where funding is tight.

Most schools, particularly state schools which you want to target, cannot afford to provide football, rugby and cricket, which is what you propose.

Personally I was outraged my school didn't have a custom made sailing lake and equipment

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:One 10 million pound example which nullifys your argument..

You argue why should we spend on sport in school.It's a ludicrous argument at best but really a non argument because we do spend on sport in school..

No, he's saying why should we spend money providing evey sport possible and to a high enough level to develop 'stars' at state schools where funding is tight.

who suggested that?

we offcourse should bring every sport possible- possible is the operative word here tophat

And the lack of an F1 track in my school was always a matter of discontent for us. They said our fees only paid for F2 cars. Not. Bloody. Good enough

Crimey wrote:Most schools, particularly state schools which you want to target, cannot afford to provide football, rugby and cricket, which is what you propose.

the ones in bsouth london that i mentioned with one of the poorest representations in london spent 10 mill quid on football pitches that dont get used. Do I have to spell it out to you.

Offcourse they can provide these sports.

Anyway they just need to use the same pitches!! - all you need is different golas for rugby!! what most schools that play it do!

When i was at juniour school almost every school in the area went down the local park to play sport on anyway- All the schools utlised the same pitches- they dont even need there own!

I am not sure why this is hard to work out!

I was disappointed we were reduced to playing handball on our state of the art basketball courts.

They can't provide all three of them to a decent standard.

I still fail to see the advantage of providing all the sports to the schools.

Don't know if anyone saw this from a couple of days ago that breaks down the medal count by state and private education:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablog/2012/aug/06/team-gb-medal-winners-background#school

I know just how you guys feel, I was gutted when I found out that my school was getting rid of the canoe slalom.