I haven’t posted for such a long time now that newer readers won’t know that I exist, and older readers probably thought I’d disappeared into the ranks of the now-mythical Sime and Big Daddy.
However! I have been here all along, albeit with insufficient time to post. And now that The Jrod has more time to post since his arrival on this hallowed isle, too much of a good thing can be, well, too much.
But! Unlike Shane Warne, I have been spurred out of semi-retirement. By what, you might ask? To stick up for the women, of course.
After The England’s frankly redonkulous effort in the Stanford, there have been suggestions that the wives and girlfriends, what with their Stanford lap-sitting and other activities that might distract our poor boys, were a factor.
After all, it was, no doubt, the existence of Emily Prior that led directly to Matt exposing his stumps so as to be comprehensively bowled by Jerome Taylor.
Such suggestions make me crosser than you can know.
I’m not saying that the existence of a partner on tour does not have an impact on a player’s behaviour on or off the field (although, had Rachael Flintoff been in the West Indies last year, what are the chances that Freddie would have got drunk and gone pedalloing, if that’s even a verb? Had Vicky Collingwood been in South Africa, the only inappropriate area Paul would have ended up in is an unshaded courtyard at midday without sunscreen, and even that’s doubtful).
It would depend on the individual player, but I would have thought that some players find it helpful to have their partner present, some don’t, and some aren’t able to exercise a choice either way because the lady makes the decision.
What I AM saying, though, is that when a team puts in a woeful performance, this is their failure, not that of the women.
Blaming the presence of the women doesn’t help anyone understand and address the real (cricketing) reasons for a team’s poor performance.
And quite apart from demeaning the women, it’s not exactly flattering to the men to suggest that they are sufficiently unfocussed that they can’t play if their girlfriend is in the stand.
Also, many of these men are quite able to perform when they play in their own countries and go home to their partner every night.
If going on tour is seen as being a different environment where the men should be able to do male bonding things without a pesky wife telling them to go to sleep because they’re playing a major international match the next day, then perhaps that in itself is the problem.
The last time I remember an England team’s failure being attributed in some quarters to the presence of the partners was Baden Baden, where they were described as a distraction and the centre of a media circus.
But, Rio et al, perhaps if you’d played slightly more sparkling football about which we could actually get excited, we wouldn’t have cared what your teammates’ girlfriends were wearing. Frankly, the women probably WERE the most interesting aspect of that England campaign.
Don’t blame the women. Or, if you really think their presence on a tour has an effect, give them credit when a team wins.
Advertisement
I think it has something to do with the saying “There is a woman behind every successful man”. So it is natural to attribute the failures to that woman as well. Atleast with cricket, i can say the spouses can’t take any real credit for the on-field performances. So, they are not to be blamed or appreciated.Nice to see a Mims post without Cat pics.
with england the excuses arrive even before they land in a country. always its dodgy pitches, dodgy mints, dodgy prawns, and now dodgy WAGs.
Which woman was behing English guys in their match-up against Mumbai XI…. They lost by 132 runs..Anyways hope we have a gripping series – All the best…One thing we dont want is another one sided affair like Australia :)Feels nice to be on top – Now I really envy the aussies of pre ponting era :) enjoying it while it lasts
So if “behind every successful man is a woman”, then what is behind every unsuccessful man?
If pedalloing isn’t a verb, it definitely should be.
Sunny, i think the point of the article is that the wags aren’t the excuse. Q, a killer elf.
Jrod. That’s who’s behind every killer elf. Jrod. Lovely to hear from you again Miriam!
q: Another man with pants down at his ankles
A killer elf? another man?hahaha…If a woman is praised for a man’s success, she should be damned for his failure too.. no?
Mims,Do you agree that it would be easier for the wider public to warm to the WAGs if they had more of the common touch??Like wearing jandlas for example.
@jrod – yeah I got that. I was trying to convey the typical english team thinking. It’s always something else apart from their own performance.
I just found it highlarious that the men got so wound up about their women folk sitting on Stanford’s lap, when we know what they get up to on tour…
Sunny, sorry it was the killer elf.
12th, the next post will be cat-tastic. Q, behind an unsuccessful man is a trail of women who tried their best. Also, a killer elf. Anon, I think you’ll find women (successful and otherwise) sometimes don’t mind the pants-down man behind them. DC, thank you. Leggie, jandals would give them the common touch, but the bad meaning of common. Brat, are you Matthew Elliot?
Miriam, any man with a trail of women behind him would not be a failure :-)