Despite being born only a few months ago, this blog now has its first champion. The Gods of Sport have spared us an Arizona Cardinals-style wait for an inaugural celebration and, instead, have served up a moment of triumph in only our fourth month of existence, spoiling us rotten. And that it should come from the NBA makes it almost the sweetest it could possibly be, second only to, of course, the NFL’s Rams.
But the Lakers’ 4-1 series win over the Orlando Magic (the team’s fifth championship since I first noticed it existed) has shockwaves which exceed our own little victory parade. It enables the Lakers, for example, to re-set the gap between them and the Celtics in total championships, which temporarily increased after Boston’s win last season; it finally places Phil Jackson ahead of Red Auerbach in terms of rings; it also proved that Pau Gasol can defend – albeit only slightly; but, finally and perhaps most importantly, it shakes the monkey of Kobe Bryant’s back in earning him a championship win as the leading man, thereby helping to cement his place among those with a legendary status.
It has taken a while but it finally arrived at the third time of asking. Kobe’s legacy was always going to be tarnished by the fact that his three rings came in Shaq’s shadow. He benefited from the Big Man and, with Jackson’s coaching, won the first three of what many assumed would be many rings in his career. Unfortunately for him, however, O’Neal’s eventual departure put an end to the streak, forcing many to ponder whether Kobe was capable of leading a team to the championship by himself. The supporting cast of the likes Karl Malone and Gary Payton was not enough for him to prevent Detroit from winning the final series in 2004, and, last year, his team was outplayed by the rival Celtics in a repeat of the 1980’s enmity between both franchises. Like Michael Jordan in the pre-Pippen days, Bryant was looking like a man who, while extremely talented, would end his career as a frustrated man who knows he failed to lead when his team called him.
But the Bryant that we have seen over the last two seasons is very different to O’Neal’s tag-team partner. A much more focused and mature player, he has put his days of sensationalism behind him and concentrated on proving that he could lead a team of champions. Last year’s failure made this year even more important, and Bryant was key in inspiring his team-mates to pick up their game and help him make the dream possible. And, yes, Kobe has had an excellent team around him: the savvy and experienced Derek Fisher, the under-rated Lamar Odom, the promising but oft-injured Andrew Bynum and, of course, Pau Gasol, whose soft play many held responsible for last year’s defeat. Gasol’s years in Memphis proved that he was not a leader of men; instead, he is far more suited as the right-hand man, the James Worthy of this generation of Lakers. His and Kobe’s relationship is a symbiotic one, but it is clear that the Spaniard has been the biggest benefiter from the partnership. His response to Kobe’s challenge – whether it happened or not – was to toughen his game, to develop a more aggressive style that held Dwight Howard in check and allowed Kobe to win the series with an MVP-winning performance. And with Coach Phil in the sidelines, the script was set.
But there is no denying who the star was. Whenever his team-mates struggled, an introverted and determined Kobe simply took over and proved his critics wrong. Here was a man who needed no-one to prop him up. Less stylish and more reliant on jump-shooting than ever (a similar pattern to MJ’s), Kobe did what leaders do and stepped up when needed. And, in doing so, he won them a championship.
The only negative aspect of winning is that it makes one think about whether it will continue or not. This could end up being a one-off, but, at least, this blog has had an early taste of success and wants more.
Over to you, Rams.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Cutler Trade: The Winners and The Losers
(originally written after the Cutler trade but delayed in posting)
Over the past few years, Tom Brady has been a persistent thorn on the sides of many teams. Franchises like the Colts, the Chargers and all the AFC East teams have frequently found themselves in the wrong side of a Brady-led beat-down, while the Patriots have found themselves the envy of the League, largely down to their quarterback’s play. Despite his injury, however, it seems that the 2007 MVP can now lay claim to another franchise as his victim.
For Brady’s season-ending injury back in Week 1 set in motion a chain of events that culminated in the Denver Broncos mortgaging their future by trading their young franchise quarterback: Jay Cutler. Brady was naturally replaced in the starting line-up by Matt Cassell, who went on to raise many eyebrows in a career-making season that inevitably made him the target of many come the off-season. While the Patriots tried to protect him with a franchise tag, they nonetheless understandably traded him to the Kansas City Chiefs. With Brady returning, Cassell was now an expensive luxury that the Patriots could cash in, yet another fortunate investment that would make the rich even richer, and the Chiefs readily obliged.
When the dust settled on the trade, it emerged that Denver had shown itself willing to trade for Cassell as part of a three-way exchange that would see Cutler go elsewhere, allegedly Tampa Bay. Cutler – on the back of a Pro Bowl season that seemed to show that the Broncos had finally found a successor to John Elway – naturally took offence at being placed in the trading block by Josh McDaniels, Denver’s new coach who had a relationship with Cassell following his years as New England’s offensive co-ordinator. In public and presumably in private, Cutler expressed his outrage at his new coach’s dismissal of his status as Denver’s leader for the next ten years and demanded to be traded. A bitter and highly-publicised exchange of words followed, after which the franchise cut their losses and traded Cutler to the Chicago Bears for Kyle Orton and some valuable first and third round picks spread over the next two years. And Brady heads back to training camp.
The trade makes sense for the Chicago Bears. Given Cutler’s steadily improving performances since his arrival in the League three seasons ago, the Bears jumped at the opportunity to snap him up, albeit at considerable cost. Following the McMahon-Quinn-Grossman-Orton wilderness that has been the Bears’ quarterback situation over these past few years, Cutler finally brings them some much-needed quality and stability under center, particularly as he heads towards the peak of his career. Unexpectedly, the Bears have landed one of the League’s hottest young quarterback commodities, and he is expected to contribute from the start. Chicago also suddenly finds itself with the best quarterback in the NFC North, an important factor should Aaron Rodgers’ development continue. And, with no heirs lined up, the Bears have solidified a key position for the long term.
The same, however, cannot be said for the Broncos. A team that has struggled to replace the iconic Elway, they seemed to have struck gold with Cutler, who, after all, was the third quarterback drafted back in 2006. He had formed an excellent relationship with Brandon Marshall – from the same draft class – and sown the seeds for a Manning/Harrison-style partnership that would serve Denver for many years. With other players such as Eddie Royal and Tony Scheffler also blossoming at the receiving end of Cutler’s passes, the Broncos were only a running back and a few defensive players away from being considered serious Super Bowl contenders.
Now, though, they are back to square one. Marshall has lost his triggerman, a factor which could impact on what has hitherto been a promising career. Kyle Orton is also certainly not the answer, a man who could not even hold his starting job in Chicago. In terms of arm strength, ability under pressure, and even leadership, the Broncos have suffered a serious setback. Without a viable running back, the passing game is of extreme importance to the Broncos (although they have consistently managed to succeed even without big-name backs), a game that was built entirely around Cutler. Although Denver has gained two first-round picks (meaning they will have four such picks in the next two years), it is evident that the difficulties in finding their next franchise quarterback through these might render them useless. After all, if a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, then surely an established and developing quarterback is worth two players that might be good. One look at recent failures when it comes to drafting quarterbacks – David Carr, Alex Smith, Kyle Boller, Matt Leinart, Vince Young – should have shown the Broncos leadership that trading Cutler was not in the interest of the club.
But it was not in Cutler’s interest either. Although the Bears reached the Super Bowl only a few seasons ago, they are no longer considered Championship candidates, even with their new quarterback. Denver certainly seemed on the way up, whereas Chicago’s better days seem behind them. More importantly, their style of play is not one which will benefit Cutler. Chicago’s success lies on their newly-rejuvenated running game through Matt Forte, and on their still-stifling defence; even their special teams unit has contributed more to their accomplishments than the passing game. Like Grossman before him, Cutler will be asked to simply move the team forward and avoid turnovers. And whilst this might have served Grossman well when he got the team to the Super Bowl, it is hardly going to benefit Cutler’s numbers. The Bears have a weak corps of receivers and, given what they have given in return, are unlikely to be drafting any new ones any time soon. The likes of Marshall and Royal are now replaced by unproven players at the wide receiver position (Earl Bennett, Devin Hester), a host of rookies (most notably Juaquin Iglesias) and a first-round tight end (Greg Olsen) who, while showing some potential, is still to emerge as a top target at this level. So, despite his enthusiasm at arriving in Chicago, Cutler might have just taken significant steps backwards.
Which makes the AFC powerhouses the real winners in this deal. New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and San Diego (among others) must all be smiling wryly at the fact that a consistent threat in their division has been diminished by an inter-conference move. These teams will be glad to see the back of Cutler, a player reaching a prime which, alas, may now be beyond him.
Over the past few years, Tom Brady has been a persistent thorn on the sides of many teams. Franchises like the Colts, the Chargers and all the AFC East teams have frequently found themselves in the wrong side of a Brady-led beat-down, while the Patriots have found themselves the envy of the League, largely down to their quarterback’s play. Despite his injury, however, it seems that the 2007 MVP can now lay claim to another franchise as his victim.
For Brady’s season-ending injury back in Week 1 set in motion a chain of events that culminated in the Denver Broncos mortgaging their future by trading their young franchise quarterback: Jay Cutler. Brady was naturally replaced in the starting line-up by Matt Cassell, who went on to raise many eyebrows in a career-making season that inevitably made him the target of many come the off-season. While the Patriots tried to protect him with a franchise tag, they nonetheless understandably traded him to the Kansas City Chiefs. With Brady returning, Cassell was now an expensive luxury that the Patriots could cash in, yet another fortunate investment that would make the rich even richer, and the Chiefs readily obliged.
When the dust settled on the trade, it emerged that Denver had shown itself willing to trade for Cassell as part of a three-way exchange that would see Cutler go elsewhere, allegedly Tampa Bay. Cutler – on the back of a Pro Bowl season that seemed to show that the Broncos had finally found a successor to John Elway – naturally took offence at being placed in the trading block by Josh McDaniels, Denver’s new coach who had a relationship with Cassell following his years as New England’s offensive co-ordinator. In public and presumably in private, Cutler expressed his outrage at his new coach’s dismissal of his status as Denver’s leader for the next ten years and demanded to be traded. A bitter and highly-publicised exchange of words followed, after which the franchise cut their losses and traded Cutler to the Chicago Bears for Kyle Orton and some valuable first and third round picks spread over the next two years. And Brady heads back to training camp.
The trade makes sense for the Chicago Bears. Given Cutler’s steadily improving performances since his arrival in the League three seasons ago, the Bears jumped at the opportunity to snap him up, albeit at considerable cost. Following the McMahon-Quinn-Grossman-Orton wilderness that has been the Bears’ quarterback situation over these past few years, Cutler finally brings them some much-needed quality and stability under center, particularly as he heads towards the peak of his career. Unexpectedly, the Bears have landed one of the League’s hottest young quarterback commodities, and he is expected to contribute from the start. Chicago also suddenly finds itself with the best quarterback in the NFC North, an important factor should Aaron Rodgers’ development continue. And, with no heirs lined up, the Bears have solidified a key position for the long term.
The same, however, cannot be said for the Broncos. A team that has struggled to replace the iconic Elway, they seemed to have struck gold with Cutler, who, after all, was the third quarterback drafted back in 2006. He had formed an excellent relationship with Brandon Marshall – from the same draft class – and sown the seeds for a Manning/Harrison-style partnership that would serve Denver for many years. With other players such as Eddie Royal and Tony Scheffler also blossoming at the receiving end of Cutler’s passes, the Broncos were only a running back and a few defensive players away from being considered serious Super Bowl contenders.
Now, though, they are back to square one. Marshall has lost his triggerman, a factor which could impact on what has hitherto been a promising career. Kyle Orton is also certainly not the answer, a man who could not even hold his starting job in Chicago. In terms of arm strength, ability under pressure, and even leadership, the Broncos have suffered a serious setback. Without a viable running back, the passing game is of extreme importance to the Broncos (although they have consistently managed to succeed even without big-name backs), a game that was built entirely around Cutler. Although Denver has gained two first-round picks (meaning they will have four such picks in the next two years), it is evident that the difficulties in finding their next franchise quarterback through these might render them useless. After all, if a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, then surely an established and developing quarterback is worth two players that might be good. One look at recent failures when it comes to drafting quarterbacks – David Carr, Alex Smith, Kyle Boller, Matt Leinart, Vince Young – should have shown the Broncos leadership that trading Cutler was not in the interest of the club.
But it was not in Cutler’s interest either. Although the Bears reached the Super Bowl only a few seasons ago, they are no longer considered Championship candidates, even with their new quarterback. Denver certainly seemed on the way up, whereas Chicago’s better days seem behind them. More importantly, their style of play is not one which will benefit Cutler. Chicago’s success lies on their newly-rejuvenated running game through Matt Forte, and on their still-stifling defence; even their special teams unit has contributed more to their accomplishments than the passing game. Like Grossman before him, Cutler will be asked to simply move the team forward and avoid turnovers. And whilst this might have served Grossman well when he got the team to the Super Bowl, it is hardly going to benefit Cutler’s numbers. The Bears have a weak corps of receivers and, given what they have given in return, are unlikely to be drafting any new ones any time soon. The likes of Marshall and Royal are now replaced by unproven players at the wide receiver position (Earl Bennett, Devin Hester), a host of rookies (most notably Juaquin Iglesias) and a first-round tight end (Greg Olsen) who, while showing some potential, is still to emerge as a top target at this level. So, despite his enthusiasm at arriving in Chicago, Cutler might have just taken significant steps backwards.
Which makes the AFC powerhouses the real winners in this deal. New England, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and San Diego (among others) must all be smiling wryly at the fact that a consistent threat in their division has been diminished by an inter-conference move. These teams will be glad to see the back of Cutler, a player reaching a prime which, alas, may now be beyond him.
Murray Wins Queens: Is Wimbledon Next?
I have just finished watching Andy Murray winning Queens (sorry, the Aegon Championships), becoming the first British player to win the tournament in over 70 years. And, despite my occasional cynicism (and yesterday’s musing), I must confess that I too have been drawn into that discussion that will no doubt dominate the media over these next few weeks, the discussion that will make the average British man and woman tennis fans for only a short period: Could this possibly be the year?
Could this possibly be the year? A question that has been at the forefront of every Wimbledon tournament since the birth of Henmania but which, unfortunately, has been met with the same answer: no. Maybe next year. This time, though, things are different. The nation’s obsession with a native winning ‘their’ Grand Slam – an obsession that has seen hopes go from a fast-serving Canadian to a quintessentially plucky Englishman with a tendency for choking on big occasions – now has a new poster boy in the form of a sullen Scot with an American twang when he speaks. With Murray winning Wimbledon’s traditional warm-up tournament, and reaching Number 3 in the World Rankings, he seems to have finally shaken the Henman monkey off his back and give us all the feeling that this could truly be the year. Genuinely.
The interesting thing is that, despite the annual elevation of British hopes, there was a prevalent feeling that Henman was never really going to win it. He might have reached the heights of Number 4 in the world – a position he held for a considerable amount of time – but Henman was unfortunate in that he was caught up between both the Sampras and the Federer eras, two of the strongest periods of domination in the sport. Only in one of his four semi-final appearances was it really felt that Henman could have won it, and while many maintain that his rain-delayed loss to Goran Ivanisevic represented his closest moment, it must nonetheless be emphasised that not only did Henman fail to win Wimbledon but he never even reached the final (of any Grand Slam event too). Was he skilful? Yes. Was he plucky? Yes. Was he brave? Yes. Was he a Champion? No.
And this is where the difference between Henman and Murray lies. Henman simply lacked that fibre that separates winners from losers. Call it clutch factor, or passion, or second-wind, Henman was just – dare I say it – too nice to be a winner. Too English. His career was more as a gracious loser than a vanquishing victor, a role which, as he started to fill, the British public started to respond to. Even in the twilight of his days, when he was still consistently reaching Grand Slam semi-finals, fans were resigned to the fact that it was more a question of when rather than whether Henman would lose. It stopped being about whether this would be the year that Henman won, but whether it would be the year that Henman would not lose. And when your career is looked at from the point of view of defeat rather than victory you know that a Champion you will never be.
But this feeling of defeat is not evident in Murray’s play, despite his inexperience. Not for Murray the label of “brave and plucky” but rather that of “winner”. He plays with a passion and an intensity that was missing in Henman’s tactical side. Murray has addressed his weaknesses – the mark of a true champion – and is waiting to unleash this spirit. He is not interested in being the British hope – he has even openly admitted to preferring the U. S. Open – but merely in being a winner. And while his attitude, his style and his lack of charisma might never fully endear him to the British fan, his Wimbledon trophy will one day take care of that.
And that could just be this year.
Could this possibly be the year? A question that has been at the forefront of every Wimbledon tournament since the birth of Henmania but which, unfortunately, has been met with the same answer: no. Maybe next year. This time, though, things are different. The nation’s obsession with a native winning ‘their’ Grand Slam – an obsession that has seen hopes go from a fast-serving Canadian to a quintessentially plucky Englishman with a tendency for choking on big occasions – now has a new poster boy in the form of a sullen Scot with an American twang when he speaks. With Murray winning Wimbledon’s traditional warm-up tournament, and reaching Number 3 in the World Rankings, he seems to have finally shaken the Henman monkey off his back and give us all the feeling that this could truly be the year. Genuinely.
The interesting thing is that, despite the annual elevation of British hopes, there was a prevalent feeling that Henman was never really going to win it. He might have reached the heights of Number 4 in the world – a position he held for a considerable amount of time – but Henman was unfortunate in that he was caught up between both the Sampras and the Federer eras, two of the strongest periods of domination in the sport. Only in one of his four semi-final appearances was it really felt that Henman could have won it, and while many maintain that his rain-delayed loss to Goran Ivanisevic represented his closest moment, it must nonetheless be emphasised that not only did Henman fail to win Wimbledon but he never even reached the final (of any Grand Slam event too). Was he skilful? Yes. Was he plucky? Yes. Was he brave? Yes. Was he a Champion? No.
And this is where the difference between Henman and Murray lies. Henman simply lacked that fibre that separates winners from losers. Call it clutch factor, or passion, or second-wind, Henman was just – dare I say it – too nice to be a winner. Too English. His career was more as a gracious loser than a vanquishing victor, a role which, as he started to fill, the British public started to respond to. Even in the twilight of his days, when he was still consistently reaching Grand Slam semi-finals, fans were resigned to the fact that it was more a question of when rather than whether Henman would lose. It stopped being about whether this would be the year that Henman won, but whether it would be the year that Henman would not lose. And when your career is looked at from the point of view of defeat rather than victory you know that a Champion you will never be.
But this feeling of defeat is not evident in Murray’s play, despite his inexperience. Not for Murray the label of “brave and plucky” but rather that of “winner”. He plays with a passion and an intensity that was missing in Henman’s tactical side. Murray has addressed his weaknesses – the mark of a true champion – and is waiting to unleash this spirit. He is not interested in being the British hope – he has even openly admitted to preferring the U. S. Open – but merely in being a winner. And while his attitude, his style and his lack of charisma might never fully endear him to the British fan, his Wimbledon trophy will one day take care of that.
And that could just be this year.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Pantheon of British Sporting Losers
What do Frank Bruno, David Coulthard, Colin Montgomerie and the Olympics version of Paula Radcliffe have in common? Well, apart from the fact that none of them shot J. R., and that none of them would ever have considered letting the dogs out, they are all also proud members of that dubiously illustrious brotherhood: the pantheon of British Sporting Losers (President: Timothy Henman). Along with many others, these athletes represent that fine list of also-rans whose silver medals epitomise that great British tradition of sporting pluck, and that great British tradition of sporting underachievement, individuals who ran, drove, punched or simply hit a ball towards the promised land but then, perhaps far too predictably, fell rather short.
But do not let this tongue-in-cheek introduction confuse, or even offend, you. In the words of the South African chiropodist, there is, after all, nothing wrong with defeat – particularly at the top-level. The British sporting media – and even the average fan – are responsible for this, often over-inflating a prospect’s hopes and exciting the nation, only to see these dashed to pieces and leading to wry smiles of ‘not again’. Perhaps the British are to blame for not recognising sporting achievement in a far more general way. Henman was, after all, the fourth best in the world for a long time and, in Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, was sandwiched between two of the greatest tennis players in history; Coulthard won 13 Grand Prix races and was a thorn in the side of Formula 1’s greatest ever champion: Michael Schumacher; Montgomerie is third all-time among European golfers; and Radcliffe, of course, holds the women’s world record for the marathon. But, in the eyes of John Bull (is that expression still used?), the fact that their particular Holy Grails (Wimbledon, the F1 Drivers’ Championship, any golf major, and Olympic gold) eluded them belittles their other achievements and makes Losers of them all.
Boxing is a particular victim of this gold-or-bust attitude that turns men from over-hyped heroes to lowly zeroes. While Bruno flies the Loser flag, he nonetheless leads a parade of disappointment that includes “Prince” Naseem Hamed, Amir “Rustler’s Burger” Khan, Audley “Who?” Harrison and, following his recent humiliation, Ricky “Almost Made It” Hatton. Lennox Lewis, we hear, is pleased at not being invited to this party.
This is a shame because Britain is not exactly short of sporting heroes. The nation that gave us Sir Steve Redgrave has also given us snooker’s Ronnie O’Sullivan, darts’ Phil “The Power” Taylor and, in recent years, Formula 1’s Lewis Hamilton and Jensen Button (apparently his success this season has nothing to do with his car). The Beijing Olympics also revealed a new generation of world-class swimmers, cyclists and boxers. And, yet, there is almost a lack of pride in these individuals in favour of those who did not make it. While the back pages are dominated by Radcliffe’s latest injury, few column inches are dedicated to the likes of Rebecca Adlington’s world-beating performances. Had Britain been Spain – where sporting heroes are lauded to the point of asphyxiation – Rocket Ronnie’s face would be emblazoned on cheap bandanas and sold in every street market in the country in celebration of one of Britain’s golden sportsmen. But, instead, Monty missed the cut. Again.
Whether the solution is for Britain to switch their attention to their true winners, or to stop over-blowing the chances of the slightest of contenders, or to simply accept the fact that lesser-populated Australia can produce better runners, swimmers, cricketers and rugby players, I am not sure. But what I am sure of is that the British Sporting Losers’ annual meat-market – Wimbledon – is just around the corner, and we might just be welcoming in the group’s latest member.
But do not let this tongue-in-cheek introduction confuse, or even offend, you. In the words of the South African chiropodist, there is, after all, nothing wrong with defeat – particularly at the top-level. The British sporting media – and even the average fan – are responsible for this, often over-inflating a prospect’s hopes and exciting the nation, only to see these dashed to pieces and leading to wry smiles of ‘not again’. Perhaps the British are to blame for not recognising sporting achievement in a far more general way. Henman was, after all, the fourth best in the world for a long time and, in Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, was sandwiched between two of the greatest tennis players in history; Coulthard won 13 Grand Prix races and was a thorn in the side of Formula 1’s greatest ever champion: Michael Schumacher; Montgomerie is third all-time among European golfers; and Radcliffe, of course, holds the women’s world record for the marathon. But, in the eyes of John Bull (is that expression still used?), the fact that their particular Holy Grails (Wimbledon, the F1 Drivers’ Championship, any golf major, and Olympic gold) eluded them belittles their other achievements and makes Losers of them all.
Boxing is a particular victim of this gold-or-bust attitude that turns men from over-hyped heroes to lowly zeroes. While Bruno flies the Loser flag, he nonetheless leads a parade of disappointment that includes “Prince” Naseem Hamed, Amir “Rustler’s Burger” Khan, Audley “Who?” Harrison and, following his recent humiliation, Ricky “Almost Made It” Hatton. Lennox Lewis, we hear, is pleased at not being invited to this party.
This is a shame because Britain is not exactly short of sporting heroes. The nation that gave us Sir Steve Redgrave has also given us snooker’s Ronnie O’Sullivan, darts’ Phil “The Power” Taylor and, in recent years, Formula 1’s Lewis Hamilton and Jensen Button (apparently his success this season has nothing to do with his car). The Beijing Olympics also revealed a new generation of world-class swimmers, cyclists and boxers. And, yet, there is almost a lack of pride in these individuals in favour of those who did not make it. While the back pages are dominated by Radcliffe’s latest injury, few column inches are dedicated to the likes of Rebecca Adlington’s world-beating performances. Had Britain been Spain – where sporting heroes are lauded to the point of asphyxiation – Rocket Ronnie’s face would be emblazoned on cheap bandanas and sold in every street market in the country in celebration of one of Britain’s golden sportsmen. But, instead, Monty missed the cut. Again.
Whether the solution is for Britain to switch their attention to their true winners, or to stop over-blowing the chances of the slightest of contenders, or to simply accept the fact that lesser-populated Australia can produce better runners, swimmers, cricketers and rugby players, I am not sure. But what I am sure of is that the British Sporting Losers’ annual meat-market – Wimbledon – is just around the corner, and we might just be welcoming in the group’s latest member.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
