Which 2 countries of the 14 at the Cricket World Cup provided 55% of the players? In fact, add two more from the 14 and tell me which ones delivered 85% of the players

Lol

[i"The game-wide study of grassroots participation revealed that a total of 908,000 people aged over 14 played cricket in teams – with a further 792,000 people playing cricket informally in the garden or on the beach."[/i

Why have you taken the Sport England figures for some sports and not others? The Sport England figures aren't brilliant (they don't include under 16's and disproportionately favour sports like athletics and cycling) but the calculations are at least constant when using figures from the same source. So why take the 400k figure for tennis but not the 148k figure for Cricket?

Did it not suit the argument?

English and Australian born players made up 55% (185) of the 336 players....there is a detailed list somewhere on here in a RLWC thread......you saying you disagree is hardly a defence!

Australia, New Zealand, England, France and PNG were the only sides with a majority of their players born in the country they were representing........Ireland had not one player born in Ireland, there were 2 Italians, 2 Scots, 2 Cook Islanders, 8 welsh, 9 Samoans, 8 Tongans, 12 Fijians, 6 Americans. Outside the top 5, 49 players in 9 teams were "local" whilst 167 were ringers. 167 ringers + the 45 in the England and Australian squads is 212....which is 63% of the entire list of players.

There was one player from Ireland actually, but I agree there were too many heritage players in the tournament. Countries like the USA and Italy could have picked more locals, were it not for stupid bans on certain players and I disagree with the common belief that if you're Australian, you must be good at RL. My beef is that the heritage aspect only comes up with RL, but you see Cricket teams (like England for example) with several heritage players, yet no one says a thing, but RL is continuously mocked over it.

How did we get here from 'BBC and RL'?


As for the BBC website/news channels, has no one ever noticed that RL drops down the rankings during the off season every year?


Tis true.

No there wasn't.....6 Aussies, 1 Kiwi and 17 English Born players.


Yep......Australia, New Zealand, England, France and PNG delivered 85% of the players......and 2017 will be exactly the same

+ This guy And pigs will fly...

Gutterfax, but he isnt a troll.............

possibly because that isnt his name......

20% of England's last Rugby Union World Cup squad weren't born in England or the UK, compared to 4% in the England Rugby League squad.
It's obviously a game in decline and anything that's good about it should be mocked and ridiculed because it doesn't immediately solve any and all issues in the game.

That sort of sense has no place here!

Anywho, RL on the BBC website has always been pretty good considering they have very few rights to broadcast it

First up, 20% or even 30% is a tad better than 100%. The only countries that had more than 50% of their squad "home born" were England, Australia, France, New Zealand and PNG......that means 9 International teams had less than half of their squads as locals, but instead relied on heritage players......Italy and Scotland had 2 each FFS.....SO 91% ringers.....puts the Union squad with players born in British Military facilities into perspective don't you think?

Secondly, I wasn't ridiculing the sport. I was responding to the irrational demands that RL "deserves" to be given national and international exposure, which are totally without merit. RL on the pitch is fantastic, but off the park it is a shambles....pointing this out is not mocking or ridiculing anything, it s pointing out facts.

If the BBC were to promote RL back to its sports landing page for international viewers, what would we expect to see? Bradford, the WCC a few years back in total and continued disarray? London moving to a ground that holds 5k and giving up all revenue streams other than the SKY money? Clubs from down the pecking order taking loan players from the big 4? The sport still unsure of its make up or even the consequences of finishing last or second last THIS YEAR? Maybe they could announce this years international Schedule so UK based RL fans can book their seats for the games in England?

Yeah! It's good news central at red Hall......let's all hope the BBC get back to promoting the game soon

Except its not facts is it. As I just pointed out. You can take stats and twist "facts" to back up whatever point you want to make. Just as you did a while ago when you posted the average attendances of different clubs. You twisted those "facts" to suit your argument. In the same way you and William did with the World Cup ticket sales and the double headers. You were ridiculing the World Cup and the RFL before it had started.

This is the problem, you often have a decent point, but you let that point get hidden in diatribes against anything that happens in RL. Your post above a perfect example. People are saying they want RL to be on the BBC international website, a reasonable request from fans of the game wanting the most exposure possible, yet all you do is ridicule it and the game. You point out all the negatives yet none of the positives like Salford's rise, the upcoming World Club Challenge in Australia for the first time in decades, the highly successful recent World Cup, they could all be on the BBC international website alongside the negative stories. But you wouldn't say that, because it doesn't fit your argument.