in response to the question - i think the poster has a point. We (or england anyway... i am scottish) are simply missing out on a number of top athletes while large groups of ethnic minorities have such limited participation in RL. Some sports are quite honest and open that afro-carribean players offer a higher level of natural athleticism and in basketball for example, a number of european countries actively hunt for black players.

the poster makes the point that the NRL is full of polynesians, and he is correct. If GB (england) want to compete, they need to 'mine the seams' to get players from wherever they can. in the uk, the best athletes will gravitate to football (money) and the best rugby athletes to union (money). union has been signing a lot of great RL athletes (as opposed to great RL players) for some time, and so RL needs to get a handle on getting guys in from other 'non traditional' backgrounds. Polish guys... west indian guys.... both are large ethnic groups in the UK, and offer good levels of athleticism. Irish guys.... close to home, a big 'rugby culture' nowadays, and incredibly sport-orientated compared to their uk counterparts.... should also be recruited. And... south asians.... while not naturally built in general for collision sports, are a huge ethnic group in the RL heartlands, so will inevitably through sheer numbers unearth 1 or 2 good players if their participation in RL could be nurtured.

Encouraging the growth of RL among all these groups will pay dividends for Rugby League.

good thread, and a good point to raise.

I think the OP needs to learn the difference between opinion and fact.

Spot on - no further discussion required, unless it's about how junior clubs can do more to ensure they're accessible to all sections of society.

utter nonsense. Blacks are typically more explosive 'power' athletes as they have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle. White europeans tend to have a higher amount of slow twitch muscle - allowing more absolute strength, but less explosive power.

If you honestly believe that all ethnicities are athletically equal, then ask yourself this:
why is the nrl (and super rugby, all blacks etc) full of polynesians? Why has the tiny island of american samoa seen some 60 players to the nfl.... more than many american football heartland areas with 100 times the population.???

Simply put, samoans (and tongans, cook islanders, nouvelle caledoniens etc) are blessed with an incredible ability to put on muscle, as well as a natural explosive power. they typically are big, but with a relatively low centre of gravity... ideal for rugby league (and union, nfl etc). They are rarely taller than about 1.92-1,93 metres, so no big gangly blokes. (unlike fijians... melanesians... who can be taller)

these guys have evolved over centuries, whereby their diet (heavily composed of taro) allows them to assimilate this carbohydrate based food in a way that westerners cannot.... they effectively process root vegetables in a way that we process protein.

if you honestly believe that your average pasty white, skinny 5 foot 7 northener... (or glaswegian, londoner... etc) can match these guys in terms of natural athleticism, then you are having a laugh. they can train hard though, and improve their physique, strength, power, pace. But... the polynesians (and often afro-caribbeans too) have a big natural advantage. who was the last white bloke to win the 100m olympic gold? scotsman alan wells in 1980. 32 years ago.

in the previous 4 nations (the one down under...) englands backline looked totally outsized, outmuscled and outpaced by a bigger, more athletic, stronger more imposing aussie 7. The gap closed slightly this year (2011), but was still noticeable - right across the park.

he was not being racist at all. what is racist about that - it is like saying that japan are at a disadvantage at basketball, as their players are generally not as tall. Scotland is at a disadvantage against jamaica at sprinting... our athletes are not as naturally quick/explosive.

the same can be said about Rugby League. New zealanders are aware of this... the 'white flight' in kids rugby union as white parents stop their kids playing as their polynesian counterparts are bigger, faster and far stronger... despite being the same age.

Pseudo-biological stereotypes which perpetuate a mythical heirarchy of race are racist, yes.

- 8 big fast polynesians, 4 agressive abrasive physical maoris, and 1 little white bloke with 6 on his back... the 'brains of the operation'. In keeping with the racial sterotyping, the new zealanders will also be laughing at your team for being weedy, slow and fat.

The editor of the NZ herald doesn't think such thoughts are racist. while people on here are hand wringing, they go with an editorial: www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... id=3584192 "european teenagers vs bulkier polynesians"

The editor of the NZ herald doesn't think such thoughts are racist. while people on here are hand wringing, they go with an editorial: www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... id=3584192 "european teenagers vs bulkier polynesians"

Does anybody know what the participation percentages are in comparison to the UK population? I would hazard a guess that the percentage is slightly higher than the population percentage which is around 8% I think. If each starting 13 has more than one player from a BME background then they'll be above that average.

I'm in agreement though about the issue of participation at lower levels of the game and in coaching set ups as well.

So the natural conclusion to reach would be that 30 years ago White Europeans were genetically different, right? I mean, that's the reasoning we're employing here, aren't we? A causes B; B exists; therefore A is the cause.

Consider this statement, which is also backed up by results. 'Dentists are genetically predisposed to play Rugby Union.' A causes B; B exists; therefore A is the cause. You might wish to respond to that statement, which is presented as a "fact", with the counter argument "the amateur status of the game favoured an interest from participants from a particular socio-economic background, of which dentists were a part", thus showing that my statement was a gross misrepresentation and simplification of the multiplicity and complexity of dentistry.


Long distance running has nothing to do with racial traits. (In fact, it's worth pointing out that races are artificial (man-made) categories and do not exist naturally. One could argue with just as much legitimacy that blue eyes or ginger hair represented categories of humans.) It is to do with hemoglobin-oxygen affinity which is altered with exposure to different altitudes.


My opinions aren't formed by anything lefty or pc-mad, rather scientific and academic literature.

You can also extend this theory to social class because it exists there and it's why RL players will always be better than RU players. Sons that come from a long line of tough men tend to be tougher than sons that come from a long line of, say, members of the gentry. It doesn't explain though why the West Indies haven't produced any great fast bowlers for twenty odd years.