Wiggins, Tour etc

I'm not sure I really understand some of the things said yesterday about the Tour de France. I've been watching it on Channel 4 and now ITV4 since the 80s and the performances of Delgado, LeMonde, Indurain, Roche etc etc.

The wider coverage has always been much the same with decent broadsheet reporting, without necessarily grabbing the national consciousness in the same way as our bigger sports.

But then, that has mainly been because our own involvment in the event, as a nation, has been largely peripheral. Only in the last four years or so, because of Cav and our (albeit track) supremacy at Beijing has the interest and therefore the coverage increased.

Now, with a British winner, the coverage is on a different scale and quite understandably. This is the biggest annual sporting event in the world and with a British winner for the very first time, it's understandable that the media are all over it. Where's the hysteria in that?

As for comparing it to the 66 World Cup, well that obviously wasn't a particularly remarkable achievement at all. 16 teams, at home (and the only winner to ever play all their games in one stadium).

Doesn't mean that the majority of English sport watchers would rather a Brit won the Tour but to suggest that England's success in 66 comes even remotely close to Wiggins' in terms of achievement is beyond ridiculous.

Posted By: norway, Jul 23, 10:04:16