DoubleD

Yes but they’re still a significant step down from England Academy

He realised union is sh!t and full of embellishment. You can’t polish a ######

I hope so too but think he needs his head switched on to do so. He had a lot of potential but has been slipping down the leagues. Not sure if he’s full time with the Bulls. He’s definitely still young enough to make it as you say

Glad to hear, I think that in general this is an excellent compromise and step forward. Really like the idea of Irish based assistants and the aspirational quotas still mean that you should have a strong balanced team, with upto 11 heritage players. I also like the clause that the domestic quota can be lowered if the coach and board agree that there aren't enough domestic players of sufficient quality to play the game (eg. vs Tier 1 teams). It ensures Ireland should remain competitive regardless but puts an onus on the coach working together with the RLI to reach a consensus on the greater good for the game in Ireland. The only query I have is what are classed as domestic players? For example, if Mikey Russell signs up permanently for Coventry, is he no longer classed as a domestic player? Because if so, that would seem to defeat the point of the objective. Surely the classification should be based on the players origin. Anyway, it's great to see. I think there are genuinely a lot of good things happening in Ireland and this is another step forward in hopefully allowing that to develop further

Absolutely, I couldn't have put it better myself

Yes I don't think we're miles apart in thoughts on this. Ref. Sport England though, their mandate is to gain an increase in participation in sport and they've got a strong focus on female participation to try and break the perception that sport for girls is not cool etc. so if they see a significant increase in participants, then ultimately they are achieving their aims and getting a return on investment. I think the argument about women's rugby etc is that the game perhaps doesn't need to be of the same standard, as it is to some extent appealing to a different market. I am not sure on this, and would be interested in some proper market research but there maybe some people (perhaps predominantly female) who will have a preference to watching female rugby rather than male. There'd also likely be greater potential sponsors/commercial revenue going into Top level women's rugby than possibly 2nd tier or 3rd tier men's rugby. So there is that attraction to growing the game. I don't think anyone is expecting the standard of women's rugby to be even close to the men's but it will improve and I don't think anyone would be put off by it, never to return. In fact, it 's more likely to get them intrigued and look out for SL when it's next on. I have no issue with it being promoted as part of the WC2021, which is a festival of rugby, bringing together wheelchair rugby as well. It ties it all in nicely but no one is fooled into thinking what is the main event. It's just as well you posted this on the Women's forum and not the Any Other Business part, as you'd have the band of wet liberals and left wing socialists crawling all over you like a rash

Everything's the RFL's fault, don't you know that by now?

It's certainly good to see him back in rugby but he has a long way to go to reach his potential, and may never do so. The game is littered with great prospects at this age, who never kick on. He had already slipped down the pecking order at Cas before he left for union. I haven't seen a lot of the lad to judge but his game is based around a strong running game. I'm not sure he has enough other attributes to make a top half as yet, which is why Trueman usurped him in the Cas team. I hope he goes well, but I remember have big hopes for Elliot Minchella at Leeds and sadly he's faded to obscurity of the lower leagues

The question is, why can France compete against England at u16 level but then only be at the level of England community team at u19 level?

I think the reality is that Sport England are financing this because they want to see more girls in sport, as it's not seen as 'cool' for girls to play sport in school etc. So they're trying to change perceptions for 50% of the population. That is a large market to aim for. Participation is certainly growing in the women's game off the back of it (although you would expect it to), so you could say those aims are being achieved by the funding provided by Sport England. There's not masses of RFL money going into it. There's definitely a case for saying the RFL are jumping on the bandwagon, along with the SL clubs because they've shown little interest in women's RL before, probably because of the lack of return that you point out. However, i do think some sports like cricket are showing that there's a market out there. Perhaps less so for spectators (although some women's internationals do get reasonable crowds) but more because commercial partners/sponsors are keen to back it, as it's positive PR. A lot of it is spin at the moment, and i definitely agree it's all driven by the media and political correctness blah blah blah but I equally think we should take advantage of it and support the women's game to reach the level that it should. What that level will be, i'm not sure, but it should certainly aim to be on a par with Championship rugby in terms of interest. The skill level is another matter, and that's one of perception. It's obviously going to be on a lower level, but that's because the playing base is so low at the moment. When more athletes come through, it should rise significantly. It should also be said the Australians (jillarooos) and Kiwis (Ferns) are a long way ahead and if you watch some of their games, you might be impressed. Lastly, and not to take this off in a tangent, but i do agree that the media etc is obsessed with this whole equality thing, which is pathetic. Things should be done on merit and the return they produce from the market. The bug bear for me is the equal pay argument for men and women in tennis majors. It's not like the women are badly paid but they play fewer sets and I imagine generate less interest in terms of viewing spectators/tv viewers/sponsors so why should they automatically be given the same pay? If i produced less return in my job, why should i expect the same pay?

I’m sure Jon will really value your opinion

I regularly have 360 degree reviews thanks. Did they ever tell you that you should retire?

I understand your point, and certainly there is an element of ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ but that is because Sport England are funding and pushing the development. It’s a big growth area for the sport as well, and commercial partners and sponsors are more interested in backing the female side as well. It’s a long way from ever being close to the men’s game, but it’s coming from a low base and is really still to find it’s level

So then, he’s realised the grass isn’t greener..............good to see him back. I wonder if seeing the development and progress of Trueman has encouraged him

They’d have to locate the international forum first 😉