Unpopular Opinions

verylonglegs

Women's football is missing an opportunity and taking the lazy way out if it became a female carbon copy tagged on to the men's game. It would be rubbish and very dull if it just ended up with the same clubs, the same rivalries domestically and in Europe as we already have. It would be far more interesting if there was only one Manchester team, one Sheffield, one Bristol team etc where they had their own unique identities. Get your own history, don't steal another.

ballysmate

Women's football is shite and the BBC should stop pushing it.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

'Woke' is just this generation looking at the previous generation and deciding which parts of popular culture and ways of life they don't want to keep

Previous generations did the same. They called it the 'looney left' and 'pc gone mad', but progress continued and we look back amazed at the attitudes which prevailed scarcely believing what passed for comedy, what views were mainstream and that what seems normal now could ever have been controversial

Future generations will do the same.

That's life, you're just of the previous generation now so it feels uncomfortable.

I don't think you should tar the whole of 'this generation' with the same brush.

ddraver

verylonglegs said:

Women's football is missing an opportunity and taking the lazy way out if it became a female carbon copy tagged on to the men's game. It would be rubbish and very dull if it just ended up with the same clubs, the same rivalries domestically and in Europe as we already have. It would be far more interesting if there was only one Manchester team, one Sheffield, one Bristol team etc where they had their own unique identities. Get your own history, don't steal another.

See also, cycling...

morstar

Agree re womens sport.
I think this whole idea of parity is flawed. True equality would be the sports that women actually participate in in great numbers being promoted rather than traditionally mens sports that women don't have grass roots representation in.
Push netball and hockey more if you want to build a genuine professional sports structure that empowers women rather than assuming equality means having/being the same as men.
Invest in womens football, rugby and cricket at the grass rots level if you think accessibility is a genuine issue. If they naturally build strength in depth, the professional side of the game will evolve naturally (With its own club structures as said already) and the demand side will look after itself.

Womens athletics and tennis are elite sport and people will pay good money to see world class athletes perform. The quality is there because the participation is there.

Ben6899

Women's football needs to be played on a pitch about 85%* size of the current men's FA regulation dimensions.

Same for the frame of the goal.

Then it'd play better and look less stretched all the time.

*remember Highbury?

lesfirth

morstar said:

Agree re womens sport.
I think this whole idea of parity is flawed. True equality would be the sports that women actually participate in in great numbers being promoted rather than traditionally mens sports that women don't have grass roots representation in.
Push netball and hockey more if you want to build a genuine professional sports structure that empowers women rather than assuming equality means having/being the same as men.
Invest in womens football, rugby and cricket at the grass rots level if you think accessibility is a genuine issue. If they naturally build strength in depth, the professional side of the game will evolve naturally (With its own club structures as said already) and the demand side will look after itself.

Womens athletics and tennis are elite sport and people will pay good money to see world class athletes perform. The quality is there because the participation is there.

You have not said anything unpopular there.

morstar

lesfirth said:

morstar said:

Agree re womens sport.
I think this whole idea of parity is flawed. True equality would be the sports that women actually participate in in great numbers being promoted rather than traditionally mens sports that women don't have grass roots representation in.
Push netball and hockey more if you want to build a genuine professional sports structure that empowers women rather than assuming equality means having/being the same as men.
Invest in womens football, rugby and cricket at the grass rots level if you think accessibility is a genuine issue. If they naturally build strength in depth, the professional side of the game will evolve naturally (With its own club structures as said already) and the demand side will look after itself.

Womens athletics and tennis are elite sport and people will pay good money to see world class athletes perform. The quality is there because the participation is there.

You have not said anything unpopular there.

You say that...

Said the same about womens cycling on here a couple of years back and it really isn't popular. Womens cycling is apparently only weak because the opportunities aren't there. I fundamentally disagree with this argument. The opportunities for professionalism come from a strong foundation of participation which creates stronger competition.

I like ice hockey, but the UK (mens) game is weak due to low participation. Many attempts to invest and make it professional have consistently failed as the grass roots doesn't support a fully professional game. Womens cycling is no different. It is hard for the truly elite participants in a weak sport but it is no different to any other past time. Supply and demand.

pblakeney

morstar said:

lesfirth said:

morstar said:

Agree re womens sport.
I think this whole idea of parity is flawed. True equality would be the sports that women actually participate in in great numbers being promoted rather than traditionally mens sports that women don't have grass roots representation in.
Push netball and hockey more if you want to build a genuine professional sports structure that empowers women rather than assuming equality means having/being the same as men.
Invest in womens football, rugby and cricket at the grass rots level if you think accessibility is a genuine issue. If they naturally build strength in depth, the professional side of the game will evolve naturally (With its own club structures as said already) and the demand side will look after itself.

Womens athletics and tennis are elite sport and people will pay good money to see world class athletes perform. The quality is there because the participation is there.

You have not said anything unpopular there.

You say that...

Said the same about womens cycling on here a couple of years back and it really isn't popular. Womens cycling is apparently only weak because the opportunities aren't there. I fundamentally disagree with this argument. The opportunities for professionalism come from a strong foundation of participation which creates stronger competition.

I like ice hockey, but the UK (mens) game is weak due to low participation. Many attempts to invest and make it professional have consistently failed as the grass roots doesn't support a fully professional game. Womens cycling is no different. It is hard for the truly elite participants in a weak sport but it is no different to any other past time. Supply and demand.

That was the reasoning behind the Murrays going to Spain for tennis.
If your sport can't support you in your location move or give up.
I imagine that view will be unpopular. Doesn't make it wrong.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

morstar said:

lesfirth said:

morstar said:

Agree re womens sport.
I think this whole idea of parity is flawed. True equality would be the sports that women actually participate in in great numbers being promoted rather than traditionally mens sports that women don't have grass roots representation in.
Push netball and hockey more if you want to build a genuine professional sports structure that empowers women rather than assuming equality means having/being the same as men.
Invest in womens football, rugby and cricket at the grass rots level if you think accessibility is a genuine issue. If they naturally build strength in depth, the professional side of the game will evolve naturally (With its own club structures as said already) and the demand side will look after itself.

Womens athletics and tennis are elite sport and people will pay good money to see world class athletes perform. The quality is there because the participation is there.

You have not said anything unpopular there.

You say that...

Said the same about womens cycling on here a couple of years back and it really isn't popular. Womens cycling is apparently only weak because the opportunities aren't there. I fundamentally disagree with this argument. The opportunities for professionalism come from a strong foundation of participation which creates stronger competition.

I like ice hockey, but the UK (mens) game is weak due to low participation. Many attempts to invest and make it professional have consistently failed as the grass roots doesn't support a fully professional game. Womens cycling is no different. It is hard for the truly elite participants in a weak sport but it is no different to any other past time. Supply and demand.

That was the reasoning behind the Murrays going to Spain for tennis.
If your sport can't support you in your location move or give up.
I imagine that view will be unpopular. Doesn't make it wrong.

Spain is unreal for youth tennis.

I know about a dozen people who tried to make it over there (none succeeded!)

Real problem with Tennis in the UK is all the best kit and courts are made for posh old folk and the youth stuff is relegated to gritty concrete courts.

Some of the courts the kids play on in Spain - amazing.

Same with cycling and heading off to Belgium for a few decades.

First.Aspect

There's a lot of PCness about women's sport, which requires one to disregard the obvious.

Some sports are pretty equal - athletics, tennis, rowing, golf is getting there, a lot of winter sports also. Even women's cycling is arguably more interesting and less formulaic than men's races.

There are other sports where, with the best will in the world, its just not as good to watch and never will be. Football, basketball, rugby, boxing. This is increasingly seen as sexist. It isn't. It merely acknowledges that men are on average larger, stronger, faster and make more noise when they fall down. Probably stupider as well so they'll run into things and break a bit more often. Makes good TV though.

It also doesn't help that a lot more men than women do pointless stuff like sport and also consider it something worth spending hours watching. .

Ben6899

First.Aspect said:

There's a lot of PCness about women's sport, which requires one to disregard the obvious.

Some sports are pretty equal - athletics, tennis, rowing, golf is getting there, a lot of winter sports also. Even women's cycling is arguably more interesting and less formulaic than men's races.

There are other sports where, with the best will in the world, its just not as good to watch and never will be. Football, basketball, rugby, boxing. This is increasingly seen as sexist. It isn't. It merely acknowledges that men are on average larger, stronger, faster and make more noise when they fall down. Probably stupider as well so they'll run into things and break a bit more often. Makes good TV though.

It also doesn't help that a lot more men than women do pointless stuff like sport and also consider it something worth spending hours watching. .

Hence my view being:

Ben6899 said:

Women's football needs to be played on a pitch about 85%* size of the current men's FA regulation dimensions.

Same for the frame of the goal.

Then it'd play better and look less stretched all the time.

It'd be a much improved spectacle.

kingstongraham

Couldn't you say the same about most football (outside of the top couple of divisions of men's football) being improved by being played on a smaller pitch?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Couldn't you say the same about most football (outside of the top couple of divisions of men's football) being improved by being played on a smaller pitch?

Outside of the top divisions, it could do with being played in the summer.

morstar

First.Aspect said:

Even women's cycling is arguably more interesting and less formulaic than men's races.

TBH, this ones a conundrum. I don't disagree that is less formulaic but I also think that reflects on the limited depth of talent. The women are more widely dispersed in ability so more can happen.

Assuming womens cycling continues to become more competitive, it will become more formulaic like mens.

In any sport, the lower the overall standard, the more 'amazing' things can happen as there is more opportunity and weakness to exploit. In cycling, different doping regimes created the same effect during the late 20th century. I am anti doping but you have to acknowledge that the crazy drug fuelled superhuman feats were amazing to watch. It was the disparity that made this so. Think Chiappucci or Ekimov and other such antics.

In a highly evolved sport, exceptional performances are more nuanced and harder won. They are less spectacular but all the more impressive for those that can appreciate what they are seeing. Interestingly, I think looking objectively at the spectacle and amending rules is something US sports do very well. Ice hockey evolved very successful systematic defence strategies so they changed the size of the attacking zone to counter that. For me football goals should be made bigger but I think the likelihood of such a radical change is somewhat slim. European sports are too wrapped up in tradition despite being global businesses.

TheBigBean

morstar said:

For me football goals should be made bigger but I think the likelihood of such a radical change is somewhat slim. European sports are too wrapped up in tradition despite being global businesses.

This is nonsense, but the appropriate thread. I find sports like basketball less interesting because of the constant scoring. There is entertainment in a five day drawn test or a nil nil football match.

Also, European sports focus on the endurance aspect as well, so there are fewer subs. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

First.Aspect

Men's football seems to be doing okay and is popular in quite a few countries now.

Not sure we need bigger goals, or any of the other suggestions put forward in the 1980s to attract Americans.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

Women's football is shite and the BBC should stop pushing it.

A lot of people have argued that other sports like beach volleyball get neglected due to the focus on football. Although that may not be an unpopular opinion.

rick_chasey

It's cause or effect with a lot of women's sports, right?

What Tennis always had going for it is for as long as I can remember it has put the women's game on an almost equal footing (still waiting for 5 setters in grand slams) in terms of exposure and attention.

As a result, the women's game is as competitive as the men's. I've said this a million times but growing up, the men's game was really rubbish as it was just a power game so I grew up watching a lot of women's tennis as there was a bit of finesse to it.

That's switched over the last decade or so with the American coached women's like the Williams sisters, Sharapova etc turned up with just monster power games that just dominated.

Men's has also recently gone through a golden age of two, arguably thee top top level players who have extremely well rounded games which is very watchable. Was not always like that however.

The problem with other sports like football or cycling for women is just that the depth of talent isn't there. Now, is that cause or effect?

In olympic sports where there isn't much outside the olympics, I'd say the depth is comparable as the olympics gives them an equal footing. Maybe you guys are all 'lads lads lads' but I found the women's competitions in athletics as interesting as the men's, depending on the context.

Similarly women's gymnastics has always been held in high esteem alongside the men's and that is equally watchable.

So with your footballs or your cyclings of this world - do we not need to go through a generation of giving it the same platform as the men so the talent pool improves?

I suspect that's probably the answer. So in that respect I think what the BBC is doing re football is a good thing.

There is another problem with those sports specifically, and that is following football and cycling can be really time consuming, so there is not so much bandwidth for a whole parallel equivalent.

Not sure I have an answer for that.

morstar

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

For me football goals should be made bigger but I think the likelihood of such a radical change is somewhat slim. European sports are too wrapped up in tradition despite being global businesses.

This is nonsense, but the appropriate thread. I find sports like basketball less interesting because of the constant scoring. There is entertainment in a five day drawn test or a nil nil football match.

Also, European sports focus on the endurance aspect as well, so there are fewer subs. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I know that opinion was sat in the right thread! Agree Basketball scoring is too easy but football for me lacks enough scoring. I'm not arguing it isn't doing OK in case there was any doubt.

I guess my point would be that it is too easy to defend a goal in football meaning singular moments of misjudgement are disproportionately influential but it's not for me to worry about, I don't pay any money into it so it is a casual observation. I guess it's this that makes the underdog believe they always have a chance in a no parity league.
If you had bigger goals and retained the imbalance in funding, the league would simply become a spending league table. Maybe a wage cap then to stick with the thread title

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

Men's football seems to be doing okay and is popular in quite a few countries now.

Not sure we need bigger goals, or any of the other suggestions put forward in the 1980s to attract Americans.

The counter argument is to compare and contrast the height of goalies when the goal size was defined to the height today.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

It's cause or effect with a lot of women's sports, right?

What Tennis always had going for it is for as long as I can remember it has put the women's game on an almost equal footing (still waiting for 5 setters in grand slams) in terms of exposure and attention.

As a result, the women's game is as competitive as the men's. I've said this a million times but growing up, the men's game was really rubbish as it was just a power game so I grew up watching a lot of women's tennis as there was a bit of finesse to it.

That's switched over the last decade or so with the American coached women's like the Williams sisters, Sharapova etc turned up with just monster power games that just dominated.

Men's has also recently gone through a golden age of two, arguably thee top top level players who have extremely well rounded games which is very watchable. Was not always like that however.

The problem with other sports like football or cycling for women is just that the depth of talent isn't there. Now, is that cause or effect?

In olympic sports where there isn't much outside the olympics, I'd say the depth is comparable as the olympics gives them an equal footing. Maybe you guys are all 'lads lads lads' but I found the women's competitions in athletics as interesting as the men's, depending on the context.

Similarly women's gymnastics has always been held in high esteem alongside the men's and that is equally watchable.

So with your footballs or your cyclings of this world - do we not need to go through a generation of giving it the same platform as the men so the talent pool improves?

I suspect that's probably the answer. So in that respect I think what the BBC is doing re football is a good thing.

There is another problem with those sports specifically, and that is following football and cycling can be really time consuming, so there is not so much bandwidth for a whole parallel equivalent.

Not sure I have an answer for that.

I think it is a red herring to consider the Olympics as representative of sport watching. People are mostly just randomly cheering on representatives of their country and never watch the sport again.

It is true that sports that women have played for a long time have a much larger following e.g. tennis, gymnastics, ice skating, but in the latter two a lot of the events are different.

It is probably a srawman argument, but I sometimes feel that I am being told I should have equal opportunity viewing habits.

rick_chasey

I mean more the platform, rather than number of viewers.

No-one's forcing you to watch it. I Just think if you put the genders on an equal footing for long enough, the quality will be comparable.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

So with your footballs or your cyclings of this world - do we not need to go through a generation of giving it the same platform as the men so the talent pool improves?

I agree with most of your post but not this point.

This is starting from the premise of 'there should be a womens equivalent'.

Nobody has a right to make a living from sport and for decades people took part in organised sport purely for fun or beer money.

The popular sports evolved into enterprises.

Unpopular sports don't. Many contrived attempts to professionalise sports fail because the grass roots doesn't exist. Even big bucks can't magic an audience. See NFL Europe.

I love watching elite womens sport. A lot of womens sport isn't truly elite is what I take issue with when it gets artificially professionalised.

If enough people take part, the standards will be there and the sports will flourish. A lot of people won't make any money until that happens. Don't expect the money first.

The US womens football team is an interesting case as that is funded by the governing body. The women are big fish in a little pond, whereas the men are minnows in the ocean. The men are paid much more than the women. If you accept a significant source of income is sponsorship, the women generate more interest than the men in the US.

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

So with your footballs or your cyclings of this world - do we not need to go through a generation of giving it the same platform as the men so the talent pool improves?

I agree with most of your post but not this point.

This is starting from the premise of 'there should be a womens equivalent'.

Nobody has a right to make a living from sport and for decades people took part in organised sport purely for fun or beer money.

The popular sports evolved into enterprises.

Unpopular sports don't. Many contrived attempts to professionalise sports fail because the grass roots doesn't exist. Even big bucks can't magic an audience. See NFL Europe.

I love watching elite womens sport. A lot of womens sport isn't truly elite is what I take issue with when it gets artificially professionalised.

If enough people take part, the standards will be there and the sports will flourish. A lot of people won't make any money until that happens. Don't expect the money first.

The US womens football team is an interesting case as that is funded by the governing body. The women are big fish in a little pond, whereas the men are minnows in the ocean. The men are paid much more than the women. If you accept a significant source of income is sponsorship, the women generate more interest than the men in the US.

Women need to step up as spectators and support of female sport if they want it to flourish. Men are not going to waste their precious sports viewing allowance on an inferior product.

The reason female Tennis is popular is because of the ratio of women that participate in that sport. That is not the case for women's Football, Rugby, Golf or Cycling.

blazing_saddles

coopster_the_1st said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

So with your footballs or your cyclings of this world - do we not need to go through a generation of giving it the same platform as the men so the talent pool improves?

I agree with most of your post but not this point.

This is starting from the premise of 'there should be a womens equivalent'.

Nobody has a right to make a living from sport and for decades people took part in organised sport purely for fun or beer money.

The popular sports evolved into enterprises.

Unpopular sports don't. Many contrived attempts to professionalise sports fail because the grass roots doesn't exist. Even big bucks can't magic an audience. See NFL Europe.

I love watching elite womens sport. A lot of womens sport isn't truly elite is what I take issue with when it gets artificially professionalised.

If enough people take part, the standards will be there and the sports will flourish. A lot of people won't make any money until that happens. Don't expect the money first.

The US womens football team is an interesting case as that is funded by the governing body. The women are big fish in a little pond, whereas the men are minnows in the ocean. The men are paid much more than the women. If you accept a significant source of income is sponsorship, the women generate more interest than the men in the US.

Women need to step up as spectators and support of female sport if they want it to flourish. Men are not going to waste their precious sports viewing allowance on an inferior product.

The reason female Tennis is popular is because of the ratio of women that participate in that sport. That is not the case for women's Football, Rugby, Golf or Cycling.

There are a lot of women spectators............................mostly to be found watching men's sport.

Government figures confirm this fact.
24% of men say they have become more interested in women’s sport, compared to 14% of women.
56% of the public say they remain uninterested in watching women’s sport – a figure that is higher among women (61%) than men (50%).

Athletics and tennis fare best, while rugby is the worst. Hence there are loads of women at men's rugby matches.
Having watch a bit, I'm not surprised.

Dorset_Boy

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

For me football goals should be made bigger but I think the likelihood of such a radical change is somewhat slim. European sports are too wrapped up in tradition despite being global businesses.

This is nonsense, but the appropriate thread. I find sports like basketball less interesting because of the constant scoring. There is entertainment in a five day drawn test or a nil nil football match.

Also, European sports focus on the endurance aspect as well, so there are fewer subs. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I know that opinion was sat in the right thread! Agree Basketball scoring is too easy but football for me lacks enough scoring. I'm not arguing it isn't doing OK in case there was any doubt.

I guess my point would be that it is too easy to defend a goal in football meaning singular moments of misjudgement are disproportionately influential but it's not for me to worry about, I don't pay any money into it so it is a casual observation. I guess it's this that makes the underdog believe they always have a chance in a no parity league.
If you had bigger goals and retained the imbalance in funding, the league would simply become a spending league table. Maybe a wage cap then to stick with the thread title

Football is already a spending league - Spain, dominated by the two richest clubs, England, dominated by 3/4 richest clubs, Italy, the 2 richest clubs, Germany the richest club, Scotland the 2 richest clubs.

Other sports, men's and women's suffer because of the media's obsession with football.

morstar

Dorset_Boy said:

morstar said:

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

For me football goals should be made bigger but I think the likelihood of such a radical change is somewhat slim. European sports are too wrapped up in tradition despite being global businesses.

This is nonsense, but the appropriate thread. I find sports like basketball less interesting because of the constant scoring. There is entertainment in a five day drawn test or a nil nil football match.

Also, European sports focus on the endurance aspect as well, so there are fewer subs. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I know that opinion was sat in the right thread! Agree Basketball scoring is too easy but football for me lacks enough scoring. I'm not arguing it isn't doing OK in case there was any doubt.

I guess my point would be that it is too easy to defend a goal in football meaning singular moments of misjudgement are disproportionately influential but it's not for me to worry about, I don't pay any money into it so it is a casual observation. I guess it's this that makes the underdog believe they always have a chance in a no parity league.
If you had bigger goals and retained the imbalance in funding, the league would simply become a spending league table. Maybe a wage cap then to stick with the thread title

Football is already a spending league - Spain, dominated by the two richest clubs, England, dominated by 3/4 richest clubs, Italy, the 2 richest clubs, Germany the richest club, Scotland the 2 richest clubs.

Other sports, men's and women's suffer because of the media's obsession with football.

Oh I agree with that.
I was just working through my suggestion of bigger goals. I think it makes sense as with increasing standards, goals have become harder to score over many years. Bigger goals would change that.
Law of unintended consequences would be that whereas, at present, there is an illusion the chasm isn't ridiculously vast, making goals easier to score would make the chasm more pronounced. Draconian defence tactics would be less effective, making it harder for the weaker team to scrape results against stronger ones.

As I said upthread, tradition and club interests protect the status quo.

I find it quite interesting that the capitalist US takes a very socialist approach to sporting competition but, the more centrist/socialist leaning, European countries protect elitist sports institutions to the detriment of competition.

Ben6899

kingstongraham said:

Couldn't you say the same about most football (outside of the top couple of divisions of men's football) being improved by being played on a smaller pitch?

Yes, possibly, but you have to be quite far down the men's pyramid before smaller pitches become a benefit.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

It's cause or effect with a lot of women's sports, right?

What Tennis always had going for it is for as long as I can remember it has put the women's game on an almost equal footing (still waiting for 5 setters in grand slams) in terms of exposure and attention.

As a result, the women's game is as competitive as the men's. I've said this a million times but growing up, the men's game was really rubbish as it was just a power game so I grew up watching a lot of women's tennis as there was a bit of finesse to it.

That's switched over the last decade or so with the American coached women's like the Williams sisters, Sharapova etc turned up with just monster power games that just dominated.

Men's has also recently gone through a golden age of two, arguably thee top top level players who have extremely well rounded games which is very watchable. Was not always like that however.

The problem with other sports like football or cycling for women is just that the depth of talent isn't there. Now, is that cause or effect?

In olympic sports where there isn't much outside the olympics, I'd say the depth is comparable as the olympics gives them an equal footing. Maybe you guys are all 'lads lads lads' but I found the women's competitions in athletics as interesting as the men's, depending on the context.

Similarly women's gymnastics has always been held in high esteem alongside the men's and that is equally watchable.

So with your footballs or your cyclings of this world - do we not need to go through a generation of giving it the same platform as the men so the talent pool improves?

I suspect that's probably the answer. So in that respect I think what the BBC is doing re football is a good thing.

There is another problem with those sports specifically, and that is following football and cycling can be really time consuming, so there is not so much bandwidth for a whole parallel equivalent.

Not sure I have an answer for that.

Not cause and effect, effect and cause in a lot of cases.

Also disagree with you about strength in depth. TBH I only really know more than not very much about rowing and cycling, but in neither case are there remotely the same number of competitive athletes or regular participants.

Cycling has to be nearly 10:1 if any of the group rides I've ever been on are representative and in the small amount of races I ever did, the women struggled to muster a full field.

Absolutely the same in rowing, though not quite a stark. Its not uncommon for a decent female athlete to be catapulted to olympic level in 3-4 years (or less) from "she's tall" recruitment events. With men it can happen in a few years, but overwhelmingly it is tall posh chaps who rowed at school who eventually make it.

Why? More competition and being tall and strong is much less likely to be enough.