To be fair, Argentina more than contributed to bringing down the standard. There was a point where they had a man advantage and hoofed the ball off the park rather than keep it in the hands.

Surprised how little game time Anthony Watson is getting, given Sevens is made for a player with his strength, footwork and pace.

I can see the men mirroring the women's result and finishing fourth, losing both their games today.

The running lines from most sides in 7's is appalling. So many times they needed to just draw the man to create a huge over lap, or straighten up to hit a hole, or even just run at the gap but they spread these long looping passes while stood flat allowing the defence to slide across.

Yep agree with this, the passing and attacking play is pretty rubbish.

A choice as to whether I wanted to contribute to Graham Norton's pension pot, or to pay for Inverdale's sycophantic RU ramblings might be nice. If I don't think Sky/Virgin/Amazon etc is giving value for money I simply cancel my subscription & choose another provider who meet my needs more fully. I thought only fascist or communist regimes had State TV.

The BBC has outgrown its usefulness in these days of consumer choice.

except it hasn't as evidenced by the countries outside the UK who dont have a strong well-funded public service broadcaster who receive not only an inferior product from their public broadcasters, but also an inferior product from their commercial broadcaster.

The BBC drives up standards across the board.

Also, something that Mr Murdoch may not of have explained to you, the BBC isnt a state broadcaster. It is a public broadcaster. It doesnt belong to the government, it doesnt belong to the state. It belongs to me, you and everyone else.

The BBC offers great value for money, it offers high quality output, is a british institution, is the envy of the entire world, and is respected and trusted throughout the entire world, i can see exactly why Mr Murdoch and the far-right press barons that own most of our media output are hugely threatened by it.

Do you know, the way you have written that, one could almost be forgiven for believing that you were stating a fact.



Does anyone remember the standard of sports (of all kinds) coverage pre-Sky? - so there's one area for starters where they have not driven up standards (you might want to revise your use of the phrase "across the board" above?)
Costume dramas & natural history are the only things they appear pretty decent at. Wow wee. Oh, and using other people's money.
Whilst the BBC were critically important to world news pre-1980s they are now only as relevant as any other independent news broadcaster. CNN led the way to 24-hour news channels, online news was not pioneered by the BBC.
If we were having this debate in 1968 I think you would have a good argument; not in 2016.



My "State TV" comment was said tongue-in-cheek.





Oh that is hilariously patronising

If it belongs (even in part) to me, then why can't I demand that they switch it off to my household as I do not want to watch it, thus saving me the cost of the licence fee. Do not tell me they can't. If I don't pay my Sky bill, my screen would soon appear blank. There is the technology, just not the will, as they know millions of households would choose not to watch BBC programmes.



Purely subjective & misses the point entirely. It doesn't matter if it's good value for money or not, nor whether it offers high quality output. Should someone feel that it might not be, what option do they have? Other than getting rid of all radios & TV's from their house? At least Mr Murdoch doesn't demand everyone has to pay to watch ANY television programmes. He lives & dies by the quality of his output. Not so the BBC.

You can choose not to receive the BBC. Switch the TV off and then you won't need a licence.

Bbc as usual creaming their pants over"rugby" the standard is e, players like Kallum Watkins Greg Inglis, Tom briscoe etr etr would rip up those teams.

Shame our game has become so inept at promoting it self

I am stating it as fact, if i were American for instance I would have less live sport, fewer platforms to watch it and commercial interruptions.

Did you know that the BBC's production and technical expertise means that other countries are paying for the BBC's coverage of the olympics?
And yet BBC worldwide sells over £1b worth of programming per year to other broadcasters.
And yet the BBC is regularly seen as more trusted by both Britons and those in other countries.

But it is hugely wrong so needed correcting.
You can choose not to receive it, you can choose not to benefit from the infrastructure and industry it created.

The invisible hand of the market doesnt exist. Sometimes we can have better things and cheaper than when profit isnt the sole priority and when sales arent the arbiter of success. Profit is not an indicator of quality.

There is a professional 7's circuit with high quality coaches and very specialised players competing. Simple fact is that most watching it don't understand what's going on. Too many remembering 20 odd years ago when Wigan rocked up and at an amateur domestic tournament that was widely considered a bit of fun by Union clubs.
There are reasons they run the angles they run and why they throw long flat passes. Also, anyone noticed how the breakdown is reffed? It's brutal so you can't get isolated with the ball - especially in a game where possession is everything. Some of the comments in this thread are what I would expect an ignorant rah rah to come out with after watching a game of rugby league.
Also, criticism of the "quality" on offer is highly ironic considering the total cack dealt up by "Super"league and in particular, Leeds, this year.
Anyone who is surprised that John Inverdale is positive about the sport he commentates on needs to take some tablets. Inverdale gets in my t1ts as well but it's his sport, what the f*** do you expect him to say?

Looks like GB will come away with at least a silver now after "upping their game" to beat SA.

Typical "you don't know what you're talking about" response when someone criticises.

The attack again still wasn't good, and I'd say South Africa were actually the better team but GB did produce some very good stops in defence.

And I didn't say I was surprised by what Inverdale said, just mentioned what he did say. Eddie and co sprout stuff like that every week and I don't see anyone defending them saying "oh what do you expect them to say?"

Also didn't realise that Leeds having a poor season meant I was unable to critique any of the Olympic sports I watch. I hope Leeds perform well in 2020 so I'm allowed to watch the 2020 Olympics.