This Wimbledon Folly

Look here, chaps, you’ll have to write and tell me if you want listing in my blogroll. As you know, it’s a heavy responsibility being the custodian of the nation’s favourite game. I’ve been very busy lately and this is the first time I’ve had chance to update my list of contacts in far too long.

There are so many good blogs out there that I’ve only had chance to list a few of them. It reminds me of every World Cup when I’m asked to list my favourite players. There are just so many to choose from. And the best are not necessarily my favourites. Among the world’s many great goalkeepers, I’d always pick John Prescott (pictured). The man can do things in a goal mouth that I honestly didn’t think possible without half-a-pound of axle grease and a willing civil servant doped up on ether.

Looking out on the world of sport today, I’m left baffled to learn that the prize money between the men and women is to be the same at this year’s Wimbledon. I sit here, scratching my chin in utter bewilderment. I can’t for the life of me understand the reasoning behind this move. When the women play five sets, then they will deserve equal money but, call me an old Match of the Day pundit if you wish, it must surely be equal pay for equal work.

You know, this reminds me of when Sue Barker first joined the BBC. I said at the time that she couldn’t be paid as much as we male presenters. Why? Well, look here, chaps. Knocking a ball over a net is no way to prepare for life within the BBC sports department. If Sue Barker had ever scored five goals for Fulham away to Doncaster Rovers then she might know how to present a television programme or two. She might make a good presenter one of thee days but not until she’s had her legs raked by a defender's studs on a cold rain-swept afternoon in Newcastle.