Yes the average age of England's starting line up was 24.6 and for Wales it was 25.93. But you choose to miss the point or get lost in the fog. Where Wales built the platform and created all the extra possession, field position and penalties was from the scrum and in partucular from the front row where they had a clear advantage in both age, experience and number of caps. Their props have an average age of 32, and will be the Lions first choice props, while ours have an average age of 23.5. This was a crucial difference.

I think it is not in doubt that we will loose some of our top stars to Union as it offers higher earnings, more glamour and the chance to perform on a genuine world stage in front of huge crowds.

Whilst I would agree with you regarding the Ashton and Tuilagi I think the rest of the England backs are playing important roles and have had good tornaments. Barritt's role in particular is misunderstood. He may not be the most creative centre but he is a very astute player whose main job is to lead the outside defence as he has done so well for his club side Champions and current league leaders Sarcens. He is a formidable tackler quick to the breakdown and wins turnovers. I understand he is usually the 2nd name on the teamsheet. Farrell has made the fly half position his own for now and again has shown he has the abilty to lead the side around the field and he will be rewarded with a Lions place this summer.

But if you pack are being beaten up front you cannot expect the backs to impress on the back foot.

Indeed. I'll be in Reading on Saturday along with over 20,000 to watch London Irish play their yearly St Patricks Day party fixture (and it is a colossal booze up with bands playing in the car park, Guiness turn up with a mobile bar and big screen outside the ground).
600 of the people in the stadium will be kids and their parents from the minis tournament they run brilliantly (and we enter) in the morning - all future little fans.

Well tvoc you have admitted to knowing nothing about Rugby Union but there is no need to keep proving it quite so often.....I really do believe you!

I think it is also worth noting that the advantage at scrum time was more to do with Wales doing better at playing the odds in the scrum lottery. the ball almost never comes out of a scrum in international matches now, it has become an exercise in the referee deciding which of the 5 or 6 offences from both sides that even I can spot he is going to penalise this time. This has been a problem throughout the 6 Nations this year, and Wayne Barnes in particular seems to have a problem with believing that the crowd want to see more of him. Wales committed the same offence at every single scrum - pushing too early - but were not penalised once. Their experience centred on being canny enough to quicly realise how far they could bend the rules and in which areas. England displayed no ability to change tack when it became clear that what they were doing was irking the ref. It's misleading to suggest that England were out-scrummaged. they were out-penalised.

It's a great credit to the RU marketeers that the scrum debacle completely ruining the on-field product even for those who are into RU, they are still pulling in enormous crowds and bg TV audiences.

What's there to know Juan, was it Wales 30-3 England.

Do I even want to know why the referee was insisting on which blade of grass the scrum is set on. If ever there was a sport invented for pedants that referee should be officiating at it.

Your excuses for England appear to include being put off by having the roof closed and not everyone in Cardiff loving them. I do hope those dastardly Welsh supporters weren't also whistling when master Farrell was kicking at goal - now that wouldn't be very sporting.

The scrums are a joke, and a not very funny one at that. Up until relatively recently the purpose of the scrum was to restart the game. The contest between the front rows decided wether you got clean, quick, controlled posession you could do something with, or crap that put you under pressure (also remember until recently backs could line up at the back feet of the scrum not 10 yards back as they are now, so if the ball came out the back of a retreating scrum you got ball and defender at the same time). It's now an attempt to win penalties.
What happens now is that hookers don't hook the ball. It's fed and the attacking scrum walks over it with a full 8 man shove. This is one of the reasons why there are sooooo many free kicks for early engagement, the idea is to have your pack get the early shove just as the ball comes in which is usually the moment of engagement - once you start going forward it's difficult to stop. The scrum half does not wait even a fraction of a second after engagement to put the ball in. The rule states the scrum must be stable and not moving and you cannot push before the ball comes in - I think referees have had collective amnesia in this regard.
I believe referees give too many scrum penalties and don't understand what's happening. If you get the opposing scrum in a mess and going back the advantage is already there - the back rows are stuck trying to shore it up and you get ball going forward - there is no need for a penalty for anything other than dangerous play or if the scrum is deliberately stopped near the try line to prevent a certain score. How penalties can be given before the ball even gets in the scrum is also a mystery to me - unless it's dangerous play it makes no sense - the game hasn't even restarted.
Get the ball out and play f*****g rugby.

This.

I haven't played in school, but in my day (God I sound old) if the ball came out of the pile of players all was good. If it was your scrum that had been demolished and you were unfortunate enough to be playing 8,9 or 10 then good luck to you doing anything with it with the opposing 6 and 7 in your face.

Well I thought Referee Steve Walsh gave us nothing and Wales got all the 50/50 calls. He also could have penalised Wales for diving in off their feet at every ruck to kill the ball.

But like I said their experience in the front row was crucial and they had too much power and weight for us in the tight. Cole was a big disappointment on the day and as Sir Clive woodward said "the way Adam Jones and Gethin Jenkins tore into the England front row was the difference" I don't think our pack was helped by the delayed put in either but on the day we were outplayed in all departments by the best performance from a Welsh side for many a year.

RL fans constantly moan about the 'purity' of our game, and cannot understand why the whole world doesn't recognise the superior product. A good close game of RL is IMO the best sporting event going. Sadly good quality, close games seem to be getting rarer and rarer.

I'd argue that a lot of the 'problems' with RU as a spectacle to RL fans are exactly what makes RU a big international attraction. England's outside backs would be absolutely hammered by the All Blacks at RL, as would Wales' slightly better bunch. But RU is a sport that allows teams with very different strengths to generally compete, which is half of what makes any sport an exciting spectacle. So what if no tries are scored in an 18-15 kickfest? Its still a close game. Which means excitement for a lot of spectators.

Meanwhile in RL we see lesser teams - such as England - get ruthlessly exposed because the the game doesn't allow one team to negate a better attacking side. We regularly see 30+ points put on opponents in both SL and the NRL (with more complete blowouts in SL). RL is a completely unforgiving sport.

IMO we either have to accept the reality, or if the sport as a whole wants to do something about it, change the rules far more in favour of defences and even - shock, horror - reintroduce means to compete for the ball (allow any and all stripping of the ball, tacklers able to rake the ball at the play the ball, even reintroduce contested scrums etc).

The latter will never happen of course, primarily because the only nation it would help would be England.

So that would mean something like 20% of the game watching somebody kick at goal.
Add the numerous scrums and resetting of the scrums you could have 40% or more of the game just watching goal kicks and scums.
I almost forgot the constant kicking to touch to waste even more time with the line outs.

How exciting !

There is only one interntional team worth watching in the world and thats the All Blacks as they play the game more like RL i.e.pass the ball and create tries with flair and skill.The Welsh team of the seventies also played with grreat attacking flair.

I'm not saying its exciting for me, but the very closeness of the scoreline is what keeps people interested and hyped, and what ensures international RU continues to be big (as well as just being an event). If all RU internationals ended up with scorelines like 30-3, interest would be far less even if more tries were scored.

The problem for RL is that matches between England and Australia are generally not that competitive. Schofield's record for GB was something like 2 wins out of 16 against Australia, but there were a lot of close losses in there as well. People saw that and reacted to it. Australia were better than GB, but not by a massive amount.

Nowadays I almost go to watch England vs Aus just hoping for a close scoreline, never mind an England win. The last two tests I attended in Brisbane GB got absolutely hammered. But there were plenty of tries so that must mean it was great to watch? Not. It was cringeworthy.

Quite right, all of that.

But the biggest moaners about RU always point to the number of tries in a game and then back-pedal when you point out those facts to them - truth is they just like a good moan but can't justify it even to themselves, I don't particularly like basketball or tennis, so I don't watch them and I don't constantly carp on about them either.

I'm just waiting for someone to mention the war...

Rugby without tries is not Rugby. Please don't try to chocolate coat it in anyway.

I'm not sure it's neccessarily about the number of tries, but the intent of the play. In RU there is a sense at times that teams are building toward getting a kickable penalty/drop goal, rather than working space to use to secure a try. No better evidence than advantage being played in kickable range and rather than going flat out for a try we see a rushed drop goal attempt. Professionalism/conservatism?
For me RL is a much better sport to watch and play. I love the full blooded hits rather than a big fella taking contact whilst looking for the ground and all his mates jumping in to help.

Just my opinion of course.

Number of tries does not come into it, nor what I said. The purpose should be to score tries though, and that is what Rugby League does at all times. Infact in the majorite of cases now Rugby League players do not take penalties at goal anymore, and instead choose to press home the advantage. Nobody can say the same with Northern Hemisphere Union.