girvie said:
good point, but generally he still keeps the bears in the queensland public's 'eye'
the article is still norths friendly:
OUT of the World Cup, beaten five-blot by Sri Lanka in the one-day cricket, Tim Henman out of Wimbledon, rugby union team beaten 2-0 in Australia . . . things are back to normal in England.
Now please don't take this as a personal attack. I happen to have a great fondness for England and, with some exceptions, the English, but really, isn't it about time someone asked the question: just why are they so bad at sport?
From time to time we hear a nation described as "per capita" the greatest sporting nation on earth.
New Zealand for example. Here is an island right down at the bottom of the world with a population of just over four million, which is less than a 10th of that of England and about twice as big as that of West Yorkshire.
Yet this tiny country produces arguably the world's best rugby union, rugby league and netball players. It has also won the America's Cup, beaten Australia at basketball and cricket, and once made it to the finals of the soccer World Cup.
Which, if that doesn't make it per capita the world's best sporting nation, must make it pretty close.
By the same token, England must be, per capita, the worst.
Apart from a few flurries from time to time, such as winning the Ashes and Rugby World Cup, which are invariably followed by inexplicable slumps, England just cannot seem to get its act together on the sporting field.
Which in itself is fine. A lot of countries believe their resources are far better spent on more cerebral pursuits than chasing balls up and down muddy paddocks.
The English, however, actually appear to be trying. They have a central sporting body named, in what might be unkindly termed an oxymoron, Sports England, which is currently spending $320 million on 10 major sports including, incredibly, tennis, cricket, netball, rugby league, rugby union and soccer.
The money, which comes from a national lottery, has produced some results. Just this year England – the largest country in the competition – came second in the Commonwealth Games medal count with 110 medals, including 36 gold.
Australia was first with 221 of which 84 were gold.
But even that in itself isn't so baffling.
It is that even with a history of under-achievement the English supporters seem to actually expect to win.
Now as a lifelong supporter of the late great North Sydney Bears I know all about lost causes.
I remember well one afternoon in my youth waiting to cross the road outside North Sydney Oval to witness the Bears cop their weekly hiding.
A supporter from the opposition club, spotting my red jumper, growled rather aggressively into my ear, "Loooo-zerrr, how's it feel to be a loooo-zerrr?"
I told him, quite truthfully, that it felt great. We didn't get too upset when the Bears lost because we didn't expect anything more.
In fact, when they did start winning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I remember feeling a little off-balance, as if I had a mild inner-ear infection.
The English supporters, however, don't seem to have adopted that North Sydney spirit. They start fights, make up rude words to songs and, when it all turns to dust as it always does, turn quite nasty.
English papers yesterday labelled departing soccer coach Sven Goran Eriksson "Sven Grovel Eriksson" because he apologised for the team's pitiful performance in Germany.
One also published a "Cristiano Ronaldo Dartboard" because the Portuguese star seemed happy when England's Wayne Rooney – a teammate at Manchester United – was sent off for burying his boot in an opponent's groin.
Heaven help Andy Murray when he gets knocked out at Wimbledon. With perennial fall guy Henman and Canadian-turned-Englishman Greg Rusedski already off sipping tea somewhere, England's tennis fans have thrown their vocal weight behind Murray.
Only problem is he's Scottish and doesn't want a bar of it.
Now Scotland, per capita, there's a sporting nation . . .
colmanm@qnp.newsltd.com.au
