• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

"Britain doesn't have any creative no.10's in football because of Rugby"

Thingimubob

First XV
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
2,854
Country Flag

Wales

Club or Nation

Cardiff

Stumbled across this on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30463120

Basically Pat Nevin goes on about how Britain can't seem to produce a creative no.10 in Football like Messi and Pele, because the UK's second sport is rugby...

I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but the jist of his argument seems to be "rugby is just thumping each other, chucking it up the guts and kicking into space, so there's not a lot of intricacy in it" - Spain's second sport is Basketball, which has a lot more back and forth ball movement - similar to "tipi-taca" meaning apprently they learn more about where their team mates are than they would playing rugby.

Wondering what you guys reckon, as I can't help but think that this is a load of rubbish. I get what he means about the similarities between Basketball and Tipi Taca, but he's definitely missing shed loads by saying "there's not much intricacy" to rugby.
 
I was going to post this too.

1) Rugby might be the second sport, but I would guess that a very small proportion of top level English football players have played any decent amount of RU or RL. The failing is with their coaches (and the climate - I **** you not).

2) Yes, the kicking game in rugby is largely territorial, so not quite the same as kick-passing in football. But the fundamentals of the passing game (which you'll do far more of than kicking) are very, very similar to basketball.


In short, he's talking ********.

The quality of British rugby players on the other hand....
 
Last edited:
1) Rugby might be the second sport, but I would guess that a very small proportion of top level English football players have played any decent amount of RU or RL. The failing is with their coaches (and the climate - I **** you not).

On top of that, it's unlikely the 5' 6" Iniesta, Xavi and Messi etc were spending a great deal of their time playing basketball as a 'second sport', just as hardly any English players would have played more than primary school touch PE session before getting signed up to academies. This is one of the most BS England football theories I've seen in a long while, it has no relevance at all, many of those elite footballers probably didn't even have second winter sport at all.
 
Also, in terms of rugby not being intricate, his argument comes from breaking it down into it's most basic concepts, as if to make it seem less impressive.

I could do the exact same with literally anything:

  • Football is kicking a ball around and through a couple of posts.
  • Cricket is whacking a ball with a bat and running.
  • Boxing is hitting people.
  • Chess is moving a few pieces about.
  • Archaeology is digging old stuff up.
  • Writing music is putting a few noises together.

I don't think I should need to convince any of you that there is intricacy in rugby... :p
 
Exactly. I doubt the kids in EPL academies do much in their lives in general other than play or prepare to play football, let alone play other sports.
 
Well, first of all, the Spanish football style is Tiki Taka, not Tipi Taca ! ;-)

And secondly, I would say that English rugby does not steal creativ players to English football for one signle reason : you have no creativ players in any sports ... English sport is based on physical opposition and fighting spirit ! I'm not criticizing anything saying this ! And to prove it, I would say, having a lot of creativ players in France, we never won the RWC ! English did with their 2003 unbeatable scrum ! Can you tell me who was the last English football creativ top player ? Certainly Gascoigne, 20 years ago ...
 
I think people are being a little too quick to dismiss this.

First, I do find it very plausible that some of these guys did have major involvements in other sports. Danny Care, Jordan Crane, and probably a lot of others who I can't recall off the top of my head were in academies at one point. Phil Neville was a seriously well rated young cricketer - as was Joe Hart, although a bit less so - Victor Moses swam competitively until he was at least 11/12. Rooney boxed most nights until he was 15. Now, yeah, sure, there comes a point when you've got to pick between sports, but until that point, there's plenty of kids that just want to play sport as much as they can. Could that bleed into their approach? Arguably, yeah.

I'm not sure what Rats is saying when he says the fundamentals of rugby's passing game are the same as basketball. Are you referring to the technical hand motions? If so, I think you're missing the crucial point, which is basketball involves looking for people moving into space on a 360 arc; rugby does not have that, but it is there in football.

I mean, I can see quite a few flaws in what he's saying, but what common second sport in England teaches movement the same way basketball does?
 
before i start let just state that i am a England fan when it comes to internationals. i have always support the Eglish national team and i am a Man Utd fan aswell...

in saying this... I think the issue with English Football is their league... it is the biggest league in the world and probably the most watched aswell...

The league is very very competitive and there are too many foreigners playing in this league. If you have foreigners playing in a league it kills off your local talent and prohibits them from growing as their is a lot of money involved.

The league is very very competitive and rivalries are huge... today gerrard is hating on lappard in a pool vs chelsea game... tomorrow they are team mates for england...

i think English players do not have a lot of flair but they are creative... i think there are a few creative no10 around eg. Wayne Rooney (debatable), Jack Wilshere, Adam Lallana, Raheem Stirling, ross barkley, James Milner


isnt Football the no1 sport in England over rugby :?
 
the man talks through a hole in his backside.

i doubt there is any of scotland's top football players that have even touched a rugby ball, christ they have a hard enough time getting a touch of a football!

by his logic England, France, Scotland, Italy and Argentina should produce the best kickers in rugby because football is the most popular sport. we all know they're not any better than the rest.
 
Last edited:
Manipulating space/defenders with ball in hand is very similar in rugby/basketball IMO, obviously except for the forward pass.
I reckon more schoolkids play basketball than rugby anyway... even then, how many times as a kid at school did you play/see people play anything other than 5-a-side or 1-touch in your breaks?

I would argue that rugby is perhaps more similar than basketball is, because in BB you can't pass into space... the ball will probably just roll/bounce out of bounds.
You have to account for space that the ball may be passed/kicked into and the opposition may follow.
 
Last edited:
I have no clue to the popularity of other sports amongst kids. Obviously football was king - my school was a rugby school through and through, never had a football team, but virtually every break/skived lesson was spent playing football. I guess a crude form of handball was the second most popular sport (by some distance), that or violence. But, despite have admitted my cluelessness, I strongly doubt kids in most schools play a particularly high amount of basketball.

I would also have to point out that, in my experience, manipulation of space wasn't as highly valued as a really big kid at 12 for a lot of schoolboy rugby... but that's another matter.
 
So... England aren't creative in soccer because Rugby? Isn't soccer the game of 0-0 draws and penalty shoot-out lotteries to decide matches? Flipping this on its head, maybe England aren't creative in Rugby because of soccer? Soccer is relatively minor in NZ and Australia, so maybe our rugby team is more creative, because the influence of a dull sport like soccer is minimalised by the existence of free-flowing high scoring sports like League and Australian Football?
 
So... England aren't creative in soccer because Rugby? Isn't soccer the game of 0-0 draws and penalty shoot-out lotteries to decide matches? Flipping this on its head, maybe England aren't creative in Rugby because of soccer? Soccer is relatively minor in NZ and Australia, so maybe our rugby team is more creative, because the influence of a dull sport like soccer is minimalised by the existence of free-flowing high scoring sports like League and Australian Football?

Well, in SA, though soccer is a clear first among the total population amongst the majority of whites who tend to lean strongly towards rugby and who still dominate the sport (cricket being the summer favorite) you'll struggle to find many who would follow a soccer match bar world cup play-offs. The common perception is that our brand of rugby is not creative so maybe a specifically Oceanic thing?
 
Was thinking about this a bit more, and two other thoughts come to mind: England also lack creativity in the halves in rugby league, a problem that has made it almost impossible to beat Australia in any competition in decades, and two, rugby also happens to be the second sport of a country called Argentina - who are responsible for a soccer player named Messi that most seem to think is more than a little creative.

So perhaps it's more to do with British culture?
 
So perhaps it's more to do with British culture?

Definitely.

Rugby and Football are our winter sports and they are played on bogs by most kids it has a far greater effect on our ability to play those games than a lot of people think IMO.
 
In Soccernomics, one of their major claims is that the English football team is too lower class. Basically, the profession of most of the player's parents were builders, carpenters and the like. In Germany their football team was made up of a lot of middle class players. I think that the existence of rugby could be one reason for this difference.
 
In Soccernomics, one of their major claims is that the English football team is too lower class. Basically, the profession of most of the player's parents were builders, carpenters and the like. In Germany their football team was made up of a lot of middle class players. I think that the existence of rugby could be one reason for this difference.

Not sure I buy that. You only have to look at where some players from Brazil, Uraguay, Argentina etc come from, to see that a lower class doesn't hurt football chances. If anything it seems players from a lower class seem to excel. There's a bit of a mean joke that football players from Manchester etc are better than down South, cause that's all they have.
 
I'm not sure I buy it either but if you read the book it is a convincingly made argument. One large part of British culture is their pub culture. Correct me if I'm wrong but this occurs more in the lower classes. The authors say that the players basically take this attitude with them as football players because this is what their parents did. Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo were perhaps once considered equal talents. One of them smokes and drinks and has scored a lot of goals; the other doesn't smoke or drink and has become one of the best players in the world ever. The point is also made that the British lower classes are suspicious of foreign ideas and education in general. This is why England doesn't produce many thinkers of the game.
 
I'm not sure I buy it either but if you read the book it is a convincingly made argument. One large part of British culture is their pub culture. Correct me if I'm wrong but this occurs more in the lower classes. The authors say that the players basically take this attitude with them as football players because this is what their parents did. Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo were perhaps once considered equal talents. One of them smokes and drinks and has scored a lot of goals; the other doesn't smoke or drink and has become one of the best players in the world ever. The point is also made that the British lower classes are suspicious of foreign ideas and education in general. This is why England doesn't produce many thinkers of the game.

Possibly true - but I'd argue that pitch conditions and a professional league that values imported players so highly is equally as important. If you look Germany and the Bundesliga, they have a lot of key combinations playing together. Yes they import players, but you don't often hear of them signing big name foreign players. Instead they give their own players preferential treatment and it continues into the national team. The English team have a league full of foreign players. The selection of the team is almost always Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United - regardless of form. They have a professional league of 20 teams per season, 8 teams contribute to the current national team, and the current top two teams have 2 player playing for England (Joe Hart and Gary Cahill). I think the Premier Leagues lack of interest in promoting English talent is a big reason why they struggle.

I don't think there is any doubt Gareth Bale is a world class player (maybe not Messi, Ronaldo or Ibrahimovic but pretty damn close). Can't imagine that Wales working class culture is any different from Englands.
 

Latest posts

Top