Heroes

See if this scenario is familiar . . .

A local sporting hero, or team of heroes, has a major event in the near future. This is seen as the most important one yet, the biggest of their career, the one that will define their legacy.

The country gets behind them, from the newspapers to the communities to the butcher who has had no interest in the sport, yet has suddenly noticed a moneymaking opportunity in selling a type of sausage bearing the athlete’s name.

Then . . . they lose. They’re out. And they do so in devastating fashion.

The reaction? Some papers put the screws into them. Fans are no longer fans. And that poor butcher has squandered his pension banking on their success.

Until next time, when the same thing happens . . . over and over again.

Is this applicable to Andy Murray at Wimbledon 2011? Or David Haye against Wladimir Klitschko? Or the England football team at the 2010 World Cup? Actually, it’s applicable to them all.

The point is, we (the country) build these people up as if they are the greatest of their generation in the entire world, and when they lose, because they have made the nation look stupid, many people turn on them.

I can understand disappointment and dashed hopes, but seriously, if anyone’s going to be let down after a humiliating defeat on a grand stage, it’s not going to be the old fellah in the local pub who downs three pints every half an hour, who becomes a tennis fan for the two weeks that Wimbledon is on because he’s British – it’s the athletes who have come this far and lost.

Let’s start with Murray. He lost in the Wimbledon semi-finals to Rafael Nadal, one of the world’s best. For starters, there isn’t really any shame in losing fairly to one of the world’s best. Add to that how just making the semi-finals of Wimbledon is quite an achievement. Also, that Murray is ranked #4 in the world. And that the last time a Brit won Wimbledon, World War 1 was just referred to as the World War. Is it really fair to get on his back because he failed? The man on the street won’t have his life affected whether Murray wins or not; why rip him apart because he lost? And one other thing: since Murray is Scottish, if certain English people say he’s a loser for not making the final, what does that make whoever is currently considered to be England’s best?

David Haye is a different matter. I didn’t know much about him before he beat Nikolai Valuev (the tall guy), and became an overnight celebrity. Since then, his most noteworthy achievement was the farcical fight with Audley Harrison (although Haye wasn’t blamed for that). Then came his fight with Klitschko. This was a fight Haye wanted for a long time, and the name-calling went on for ages, before they finally met. Both promised to knock the other out; some said it was the biggest fight since Lewis-Tyson in 2002. And, had Haye won, he would have gone down as one of the all-time greats.

Haye lost.

He blamed a broken toe.

The papers ripped him apart, as did many members of the public.

I’m not going to totally defend Haye; I wasn’t a fan of his before the fight, nor am I now, and the “I’m going to do this” and that to Klitschko got boring for me very quickly. But had he won, we would have praised him so much. His appearances on Paul O Grady would have approached bombardment. And, had he then mentioned his broken toe, we would have praised his bravery and courage even further. He lost, and didn’t look dominant before losing – meaning, it wasn’t exactly a hard-luck situation for Haye – but to me, the main, if not only, reason he has been criticised is because he lost. Even if the toe hadn’t been brought up, he still would have been slated. It wasn’t a total humiliation on the night.

That brings me to England in 2010.

From the problems that led to Sven’s exit, to McClaren failing to get England in Euro 2008, England had a long, hard journey to South Africa for the World Cup. Several notable players were injured, some while in the country training, and other players were getting older. Yet, the public, once again, were convinced that England were going to bring home the famous trophy.

At the time, I wondered how realistic this was. I wanted England to win, of course, but I didn’t expect them to – and, if they put in a decent run, and went out gracefully, I wouldn’t have thought any less of them.

Well, they stumbled out of the groups – Robert Green’s howler being memorable for the wrong reasons, obviously – and then got hammered 4-1 by the old enemy, Germany. I can’t remember an England team being blasted more after a tournament, and the manager, Fabio Capello, took the brunt of the abuse. Since then, Capello has had very little positive press – even after a win.

England’s performance was disappointing; there weren’t many stand-out moments to savour. But, had Frank Lampard’s goal counted against Germany, it could have been very, very different. And, was the anger at going out due to the score margin? Or just because it was against Germany? Or both?

Something I wonder is why expectations are raised. Surely a country such as Switzerland know before they arrive at a World Cup that their chances of winning the thing are remote. England come into every World Cup thinking they’re the favourites, even though their only World Cup came back in 1966. Although some may believe otherwise, I don’t believe that England and/or Britain has a divine right to succeed, and that we’ll always be favourites because we’re England, or because we’re Britain, especially when it comes to football. Yes, “we” invented the game, but Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, and I don’t ever recall seeing him complaining when a fancy new lamp is launched at a furniture shop.

Times have changed, and people have to accept that England and Britain as a whole may seem strong at sports, but when push comes to shove we don’t and won’t, always win. And taking the frustration out on those who we once built up isn’t helpful to their reputation, or ours.

The ironic thing is that Murray, Haye, the England squad etc are all panned for how they perform on the largest stages they compete on. But at least their talent has brought them to a level where the country relies on them to succeed – something the vast majority of people who slate them cannot say.

In that respect, then, they are winners. And the only real losers appear to be the critics.