England are champion talent wasters: Henry

This England team is pretty run of the mill. Luckily it's only Scotland. Looking forward to Ireland/Wales, always good to watch. In fact all three matches are going to be fun.

Given He's not scored many for a while the basic description would be "a shedload!!" :)

What's another 100k between friends. I wonder what that equates to in Pounds per goal?

Well, lads, soccer is actually the most popular junior sport in New Zealand, too.

The 01 Lions were, I remind you, playing the world champions of the time. Sure ,they'd never lost to Australia before but they'd also only played one good Australian team before. And they would've lost that series if Campese hadn't had a meltdown behind his goal line in the decider.

Scarily I just checked and found I was quoting old figures - he's currently getting 250,000 per week (about what the very best rugby players get in a year) and mitchk I've no idea mate - I'm guessing he buys Bentleys for each of his race horses;)

spends it on hair plugs and funding his mrs TV career.

'The RFU are always accused of not spreading the game to the state schools out of snobbery, while they would say that it hasn’t spread and the state schools haven’t wanted it.' They're not accused of this. This simply isn't true. Totally made up. I can think of countless state schools that play rugby in my local borough (the biggest borough in London). Rugby is ever increasing.

Clearly you've never been either...

145,000 pounds per week! I wonder what that actually feels like to earn that much. I mean, what does Rooney actually think when he sees his pay? You couldn't spend that much money Every week could you?

I think Henry is right about wasting talent if people like Ben Foden we're actually given the ball we might just win;).... Just to be clear to those asking questions about schools and such - the figures of 700.000 players etc are missleading - Rugby is not played that often in the majority of schools as football is the "national sport" (unfortunately). A lot of secondary schools play rugby maybe 2 or 3 sessions out of 10 - the rest of the time its football, hockey, track and field ect. Most kids play rugby by joing the team and doing it in their own time. Also bear in mind a lot of those 700,000 registered players are 20-30 something vaguely fat lads that give it a lash every saturday before going to the pub. Really very different to countries like NZ where a rugby ball is chucked into the pram;) The comparive wealth of the ERFU compared to others is just down to population size and fan bases - compared to football Rugby is tiny in the UK with nothing like the financial clout (just to put it in perspective Wayne Rooney is being paid £145,000 per week)....

Really? The '01 lions tour comes to mind...... It's also clear to anyone watching rugby that Australia seriously lacks talent

It may not seem it, but soccer is by far the bigger sport in South Africa among the majority of the population.

He's got nothing on Deans tho ....

"New Zealand is the only country in the world really where Rugby has uncontested dominance." So you'v never been to South African then? kpm. Or are you just being ignorant.

henry is pretty good at wasting talent too!!

Sam England has far more private, though called 'public' schools than most countries: 7% of the population go to these. Rugby is mostly played in these schools so it has no relationship to the ubiquity of rugby in New Zealand schools. However, as the population of England is eleven times the size, the number of players is still considerable. The RFU are always accused of not spreading the game to the state schools out of snobbery, while they would say that it hasn't spread and the state schools haven't wanted it. New Zealand is the only country in the world really where rugby has uncontested dominance, and in my opinion if there were a Super team in South Auckland and maybe North Harbour to pillage the league youth ranks, thereby eliminating that sport, then it would have really no contest whatsoever.

KPM I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the game in England but your answer is a reasonable and logical explanation about the difference in playing numbers and quality players. Is rugby played at all schools or the majority of schools like it is in NZ? I'd imagine there are several well known rugby schools in England where much of the talent that progresses through the ranks is produced. Judging purely on the England U20 teams performances over the past 3 years, the youth of England are getting much better every year and that can only be a good thing. What happens to them once they sign to clubs is another story.

Rene Ranger, good player, big strong, fast but lacks a rugby brain and consistency. ranger still has a chance but has to prove himself Hosea Gear- was hard done by missing the WC but it was a close call between him and guildford. i backed gear Liam Messam- has had more than enough opportunities to cement a black jersey but has never been any good at test level Victor Vito- needed to change his game and has done it well. he plays harder and simpler now SBW - isnt a rugby player. ted got as much out of him in his short rugby career as any coach could've. SBW came to NZ too late and didnt learn rugby quick enough i dont understand how these players careers were ruined by henry (considering the millions that SBW makes). in professional sports u have to perform. its not like henry dropped cullen and andrewMerhtens at the height of their powers like robbieDeans did @ the 2005 WC

Last IRB on England had them on 700K+ Registered players.