It's all interconnected isn't it? For a lot of kids participating in sport is the desire to be the next Wayne Rooney, 'cos he's loaded and has a fit wife. If you're not into sport, you probably want to be on the Cowell Factor or in High School Musical or Glee. Or you want to be Coleen. Follow your dreams!

Yes, they're just the type of person I encourage my daughter to aspire to. A serial adulterer, an uncaring exploiter of the talentless. As long as you are splashed across the front of cheap magazines you are successful.

It's all a product of social inequality, which increased at its highest rate under the previous Tory government but continued to increase under the New Labour government (and probably is continuing now). Everyone should read 'The Spirit Level' by Wilkinson and Pickett - provides indisputable evidence of how the quality of life for everyone gets worse due to more uneven distribution of wealth in society.

Always thought that was a no brainer anyway.

You couldn't lend us a tenner, could you?

I think you should lend me one!

My post was a sarcastic response to the stupid tabloid blame of the nanny state for all the ills of our sports teams. As Thatcherite goals of selfishness, greed & winning were pushed more & more, & losers failures were those people in their 30s on public transport, you would expect the winning mentality to transfer to the pitch. My daughter is at Bradford's 'top performing state school' (league tables), she gets 1 hour PE one week, 3 hours the next - an average of 2 a week. There is absolutley no after school training (there might be for some of the sports she isn't doing, I'm not sure). She was picked for the cross country team a few weeks ago, despite never having run one, they could barely scrape a team together. She did very well, & if they win the next tournament qualify for the nationals. This is the standard of school sports today.
It appears to me the sports that do well in this country tend to be the ones where normal club, weekly games, are sacrificed. Sports like cycling, rowing, athletics, gymnastics now seem to have elite athletes with international coaches & endless lottery funding. Even sports such as cricket have players who never represent their clubs anymore. The costs of running RL clubs, development & tours are massive, with priority (rightly) being given to trying to expand the game out of the heartland & simply keeping the heartland afloat. The last full tour to Aus was 92, we need to be taking 40 players down under where players like Cudjoe, Briscoe etc can play in midweek teams & learn the intensity required to move up to the next level & not be responsible for losing sudden death internationals. We need to send our coaches, assistant coaches as well to learn the standards needed & to spread that knowledge through the semi-pro & amateur leagues. We just can't afford it. Blaming it on a mythical nanny state or claiming the RFL 'haven't got a clue' annoys me almost as much as the evil b1tch herself.

As I remember school sport wasn't much better in the 70s and 80s. I don't recall ever getting any skills coaching at anything past trapping a football. The teachers tended not to bother with the less gifted and if you had any talent it was up to you and your family to seek out coaching. Much of that was before the national curriculum so staff had time for out of hours sports too.

IIRC we got about 4 hours a week PE in the 70s. Plus there was plenty of after school practice. The quality of the coaching was very poor admittedly, but it did have the benefit of a healthier teenage population who were used to outdoor pursuits.

Aye there was only a couple of fat kids in my year at school.

Trouble was if you had any talent if often went nowhere. I was pretty much one of the best swimmers in the school yet the only training we ever got involved swimming loads of lengths and nowt else. I remember one competition over at Guiseley where I came in about 4th out of 8th and the teacher said "oh you were outclassed today!" and that was it. Nothing else. It was same in the footy and rugby teams too.

One good thing that happened a couple of years later was that the rugby team refused to play any more union (it was the only option when I was there unfortunately). The PE teacher (a union man) said he wouldn't swap to RL. In the end he did and the school got an RL team. He was hopeless though, he just used to pick the biggest lads whether they wanted to play or not. A lot of them hadn't a clue what they were doing and weren't given any coaching. Enthusiasm counted for nowt, you had to be a big lad.

Was it a Mr MacNamara?

Unless you get very lucky teachers tend not to be the answer.

I reckon I got maybe two hours a week of PE through middle and upper school as it was then. Through middle school aged 9-13 we only had our class teacher for PE. That invariably meant rounders, netball or some sort of running.

At that age I'd started playing football and got into the school football team through the trials. Complete shambles though as I was 9/10 and having to play on a full size pitch against lads aged upto 11 as we only had one teacher willing to run a team and it was the turn of the year above!

All training of any level came from parents who ran junior teams. No real training or qualifications, just a desire for their lad to be in a team.

I was lucky enough to be quite good and taken on by Bradford Boys, then Bradford City and also play a couple if times for West Yorkshire. Even then there emphasis wasn't really on skills, more on winning. That did change at City when we got to 15/16 but then they'd already decided who they wanted to stay on until 18. All the lads over 6ft who were generally stronger than the rest but not as technically gifted.

I do wonder if the same lads would have been taken on when City were in the Premiership, where skill and ability is required more than brute srrength and height such as it is in the lower leagues.

What? What did I do?

I dont remember having that many PE lessons at schools. But at primary school we played football, cricket or rugby morning break, dinner time and afternoon break. Being in one of the school teams was a really big deal. The teachers, mainly women, didnt do much in the way of coaching but were massive sources of encouragement. Our headmistress was a nun who was photgraphed by the Daily Mirror bellowing at us during a match (she made Fergie look timid).

I dont think the quality of coaching at schoolboy level is that big a deal. Its more about creating an environment in which sporting participation is encouraged.