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.

I agree with the last sentence entirely, which is why the OP about the nanny state annoys me so much. I was reasonably good at all sports, but never quite good enough to be in the PE teacher's (a Brian Glover type bully) gang, so was never encouraged or coached. My daughter was never a natural at sport, it is only as she has got older when her strength & stamina has started to tell that she has started to excell (compared with her peers who complain about walking 100m). Before she was put in goal at hockey or football or out of the way at netball. To an extent where she hated PE & was somethimes reduced to tears. But hey, fu ck those that aren't the best, let them eat cake & get obese.

It seems my post about the nanny state has created some healthy debate. Tigertot, your arguments are very compelling. Good luck to your daughter with her cross country.

The majority of the after school sports activities at my son's primary school are run by an outside company and have to be paid for. Most of those are non competitive. At his age I was involved in the football team playing against other schools (fondly remember chasing the ball down the slope at daisy hill). Fortunately he gets his competitive fix from rugby and cricket but that's outside school.

Cheers. At her first race she was the only one without spikes & proper kit. Spikes for cross country - WTF? She was also advised she needed new trainers as hers were too small. Kerching, £100.

The non-competitive aspect of school sport has always rankled with me. Why are we not allowed to teach kids how to win gracefully as well as lose gracefully? Heaven forbid that someone gets upset coz they lose a game. That's life. Non-competitive sports at school do the children no favours imo.

Strange, as I have not come across a school where that is the norm, every school I have attended or my partner or daughter attended have competitive PE. The first priority of school however should be to give kids some physical activity & instill some teamworking, not to teach them to win at all costs. The winning mentality & skills coaching should come from the after school training, which sadly doesn't seem to exist at schools anymore. The following is a quote from a thread on VT & shows why there is a gulf in quality with down under & is nowt to do with schoolsI have a perspective on this as I played a lot at senior amateur level, and gained all the coaching qualifications that existed in England... I now live and work in Sydney

I have two boys who were just 12 & 13 when we emigrated to Australia in 2008.. we lived in the wilds of north yorkshire so neither had experience Rugby League before we arrived here.... we joined a nice little club in the Cronulla Sharks catchment area and the kids started training... every training session was fitness, strength, ball work, team formations for plays and kicks.. I watched the kids from under 8 to first grade do the same twice, sometimes 3 times a week... first season the under 14 team got smashed...

another season of skill, drill and fitness saw my two lads play in and win the under 15 grand final... and my youngest son played in the district school final a few weeks later...

I am really excited as to what they will achieve next year, but that is down to the league and club structure, the coaching and the intensity of the sport even at that age group...

within 30 minutes walk of my home there are 4 or 5 clubs which all have the same structure...in the Cronulla area there are about 20 clubs with the same structure... each age group fights for the right to represent the area in their age group against other areas... the competition is fierce!

all the professional players at the sharks are allocated a club in the area and the head coach may send them to play for and or do some coaching for that club...

Adam Cuthbertson and Mark Lennon both pulled the club colours on this season, and had to work hard to make an impact.

yes we need the aussie structure in our players but that has to be from a young age and in a very competitive environment.'"