As we have seen with great clarity this weekend, possibly with greater clarity than ever before, the powers-that-be in British, and most particularly English, sport have come up with a remarkable amount of egg on their faces. Looking at the sorry state of English rugby, even as a Wales supporter, gives me no satisfaction whatever. It isn't just the management who are self-deluded, it is also the press. There were so many pundits who were expecting a lot more of England in this world cup than they were capable of delivering, and it sets me asking a number of questions. I ask these questions in the knowledge that there are plenty of people who contribute to these pages who are England supporters who, judging by the posts I have read, were better judges of their team's ability than the so-called "experts" have been.
Over the years it hasn't just been the English rugby team. It been even more noticeable in football. With football, it seems to be a lot easier to see why England perennially underperforms: football is much more big business than sport and the big clubs, geared as they are to their prima donna players on ridiculous salaries, are there purely to make money and such romantic ideals as patriotism and playing for your country don't matter a damn. All the best players in the premiership are foreign, and most of the most successful managers as well. The same pundits who are now wringing their hands about England's performance against Wales and Australia also tell me that England is better equipped, in terms of money, numbers of players and club structure, than any other country in the world. Is this really true? If so, why is it not better reflected in the team's performance?
In rugby, much of the success seems to come from employing foreign players and coaches. Warren Gatland has been Wales's chief coach for years and he had consistently got them to punch above their weight in world rugby. There is another thread on here about rugby players' nationalities: it seems that there is a remarkable number of players whose nationality is sufficiently mixed that they could pick seemingly a number of countries to represent. Toby Faletau (Wales) is cousin to the Vunipolas (England, but brought up in Wales). All three are Tongan by parentage, although one Vunipola was born in Australia and the other in New Zealand! Faletau was born in Tonga. Even (arguably) England's best player in the modern era, Martin Johnson, played for New Zealand u-21 team and I think that there are few who would argue that his skill and ability as a player (and, possibly, his selective application of the Laws!) were not enhanced by his experience in New Zealand.
So what is it that holds back our indigenous players and coaches?
Can a team really be objectively judged when the media, whose job it is to sell papers, exaggerate their abilities? Can the press ever be objective? I am basing this question on the assumption that people would rather buy a paper that tells us how great something is than one that is a bit more (self) critical, and a bit more objective.
I'm really fascinated by this (and I haven't mentioned cricket or tennis, the excellent Andy Murray being a clear exception to the above and the only genuinely World Class male tennis player from these shores in my lifetime).
