Last issue's article by Terry O'Neill on rising levels of obesity and falling levels of youth sport generated a huge response. Although most of the letters were in agreement, a few took issue with some points. David Fernall: I agree with everything Tel says about us being a nation of couch potatoes but where I strongly disagree is the issue of sport in schools. I have played various sports competitively at a reasonable level but no longer do anything competitive. My exercise, which I do between five and six days a week is all recreational. I cycle for the pleasure and the fitness is a bonus. But the point is I don't miss the competitive element at all. I am by nature far too competitive, always striving to do everything to my best and it's been like a curse all my life. I feel strongly that we don't need to push the naturally talented and competitive children at school - they have all the motivation they need. What we need to focus on is the others who don't take to sports quickly, who lack confidence and don't like being shouted at by their teammates for missing an open goal. This silent majority have a brief and unpleasant encounter with sport and decide it's not for them. The trouble is they then miss out on the vast range of more fun or recreational sports out there. I bet there are many kids who don't take to football but would love windsurfing, cycling, rowing, climbing, you name it. But they need to be eased into these activities without the pressure of having to win or even perform to a certain standard. They should do it for the sheer pleasure, for feeling the wind in their hair or the pure thrill of the activity.Surely if we focus on the pleasure of a sport then the results will start to come later. We need to cast the net as wide as we can, get as many children interested and then slowly work on those with the right skills and temperament to start finding our champions.A final point on making the most of the talent we have. I went to a school where sport was very important and we had good teams with committed teachers coaching. But with hindsight I must admit I think the approach taken was far from methodical. When I played rugby I was stuck in the front row because I was quite tall. The rugby teachers were not the athletics teachers so did not know I actually ran 100m for the school. I lacked the confidence to tell them that I should be a winger and it took half the season for them to realise for themselves. In a similar way, I could throw a cricket ball as far as anyone in the school but when we came to throwing the javelin the teachers stuck this spear in our hand and said 'throw this like this'. Those who took to it immediately were put in the school team. And, surprise, surprise they did turn out to be quite reasonable. But they would do because they got all the practice and nobody else got a second chance. Now I'm not saying I could have been a good javelin thrower just because I can throw a ball but there must be a reasonable correlation at least for potential to throw the javelin. Again, the point I want to make is that teachers/coaches should surely run a series of tests of the basic attributes of children. Assess things like speed, strength, agility, stamina, coordination and carry out some simple tasks such as running, jumping, throwing, catching, hitting a ball and look for potential. Then invest some time trying to exploit this and don't expect results immediately.Terry O'Neill: Reading your letter, I think we agree on more points than we disagree on. First of all the question of competitive as opposed to non-competitive activity. Do you not find it a little inconsistent that some schools will push children academically to achieve good exam results, which improve the schools ranking in the league tables, while at the same time removing competitive activity from the school sports day? So academic competition is OK, competition in sport is not. Does this mean that any potential psychological damage will only be suffered by those who are not gifted in sport but will not apply to those less gifted academically?The point of the article was not really about the pros and cons of competitive sport but the fall in activity in young people and its effect on the future health of the nation. Many experts are quoted as saying we are sitting on a health time bomb if this problem is not addressed. Despite this, and the fact that prevention is better than cure, funding for sport continues to be cut while more money is poured into the health service. Parents are reticent to allow their children to walk or cycle to school, which further reduces activity in children.Against this background, the government is bidding for the Olympics. The money required just to put together the bid would have a massive effect if spent on promoting sport in schools. The Olympics would still go ahead somewhere else and for the vast majority of Brits it would make no difference, as most would see it on television anyway.