Andy Murray is, almost without doubt, the best British tennis player since Fred Perry.  Sadly, he is not getting the credit he deserves from too many people.

I was amazed at how many people said to me last week that they were rooting for his opponents because they didn’t like Murray and his so-called “attitude”.  Clearly, people would prefer their tennis players to be fresh faced, “well-spoken” embodiments of middle England than sportsmen with a relentless focus on winning.   There is a reason why he has already achieved so much more than people like Jeremy Bates or Tim Henman.

We have a choice to make.  We can either expect our sportsmen to be dedicated winners, with a real eye on constant self improvement or we can expect them to have a “nice attitude.”

The Australian cricket team; Mohammed Ali; McEnroe; Phil Taylor and Eric Bristow; Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus…  The list could go on and on.  But all have been condemned at one point or another for their attitude.  And all of them are winners.

Frankly, I prefer sportsmen to have a focus on winning and constantly improving their game.  For too long, British sport had been plagued by a satisfaction with being second best.  I’m happy that somebody like Murray is utterly focused on improving his game and becoming the best.  I’m not massively bothered about what part time sports fans think about that.  When he starts winning Grand Slams, as I have no doubt he will, then his ‘attitude’ and focus on winning will have been entirely vindicated.

Thanks, at least in part, to some Italian inspiration and organisation, the England football team have deservedly qualified for next year’s World Cup after their 5-1 demolition of Croatia.

In contrast, last night’s results mean the other home nations now all look almost certain not to join them in South Africa.

This outcome, though far from unexpected, raises some interesting questions for politicians, not least Gordon Brown. Many from Scotland certainly make no qualms about adopting a stubborn ‘anyone but England’ attitude when it comes to the national game, some even delighting in such a position. No sooner had the final whistles blown across Europe than radio phones-ins were filled with supporters from north of the border telling tales of ’31 teams other than England’, with varying degrees of severity.

Such a response is often different for those Scots in the public eye – at least when speaking on the record. In June 2006 Scottish tennis wunderkind Andy Murray famously said he would be supporting ‘anyone but England’ in the World Cup that summer. After a widely-reported backlash from both his English fans and the press he hastily issued a statement claiming that he had ‘made a joke’ and ‘didn’t mind whether England win or lose’.

But what of Mr Brown? Our resolutely Scottish Prime Minister has absolutely no choice but to vociferously support England, regardless of what the truth might be. The potential negative feeling from enough English voters would make any other stance simply unpalatable from a political perspective. While it is unlikely we will see him donning a replica three lions on his chest (one would hope!), one question is whether Brown will go as far as suggesting that the whole country should get behind England? Such a stance could, along with his continued vocal support, prove popular amongst the type of voters to which he specifically has to appeal.

It is often said, albeit incorrectly, that in 1966 Harold Wilson benefitted electorally from a victorious England team clad in red. This time around the World Cup begins on 11^th June 2010, just over a week after the last possible moment Britain can go to the polls. Therefore it will be impossible for actual success on the field to have a bearing on the result. However, by that stage excitement from the pre-tournament build-up will have reached fever pitch. We will have to wait and see how much electoral importance Brown will attach to an event that consumes the national consciousness (south of the border at least) like no other?

Edinburgh-born Tony Blair had no problems echoing the chants of the English terraces when he proclaimed ‘Labour’s coming home’ at the Labour Party conference in 1996. Would Gordon Brown dare to attempt something similar?

The position of other politicians on the subject may also have an influence on public opinion. Back in 2006, at the same time that Andy Murray was giving his views, Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell was also criticised after he said he would not be supporting England. As an MSP such a position was far from a political own goal, quite possibly the very opposite in fact, but if such feelings are widely articulated this time around by Scots from with Labour it may allow the Prime Minister’s opponents to question the sincerity of his own statements.

While everyone is naturally entitled to their own opinion, I personally struggle to see why anybody from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would consciously, deliberately and publicly support England’s opponents. I can quite understand why they might not go out of their way to support England, but I find the specific anti-English sentiment an anathema.

I always support Andy Murray in the tennis, Chris Hoy in the cycling and Joe Calzaghe in the boxing. If the situation was reversed and Scotland had qualified but England had not, I would happily sign up as an honorary member of the Tartan Army come next summer.

But then I’m 81% English (with Scottish and German making up the remainder). Maybe I should ask my Scottish girlfriend who she will be supporting?

And so after 16 days it was all over. The world record breaking, the multiple medal-winning, the anthem-singing, the referee-attacking, the arguing over the ages of gymnasts and a quite uncharacteristic British surge up the medal table: it was all brought to an end by a closing ceremony that felt, at times, like it was going to last until 2012.

For those who missed it, London was initially represented by Boris Johnson, complete with no-doubt-soon-to-be-trademark Nervous Salute Action, receiving the Olympic Flag from his Beijing counterpart.

Then we were treated to a multicoloured and occasionally hallucinogenic video montage, featuring all the things that make London recognisable to the world, if not necessarily those who live there. Animated red phone boxes, double-decker buses, umbrellas (lots of them), the London Eye and Tate Modern were all on show.

The capital’s allotted eight minutes peaked atop a bus inside the stadium with David Beckham kicking a ball into the crowd, X-Factor’s Leona Lewis singing something and an animatronically resurrected Jimmy Page strumming away. Beckham’s popularity in the Far East clearly outweighed the fact that he has never competed at the Olympics and that Britain hasn’t even had a football team at the games since 1964.

Most neutral observers would probably place the Beijing Games with Sydney at the top of a post-boycott era list. However, in his closing speech, IOC head Jacques Rogge failed to crown the event ‘The Best Games Ever’ – a compliment previously paid to all host cities except terrorist-affected Munich and Atlanta.

Inevitably, questions will be raised over whether London will be able to achieve that specific accolade, but many more questions will need to be answered first.

Can Gordon, Boris, Tessa et al work with each other and ‘Lord of the Rings’ Seb Coe, his people at LOCOG and the ODA to actually deliver the Games?

The budget for the London Games, currently £9.3bn, will be less than half what was spent in Beijing. Will that be enough for our capital to compete in the eyes of the world? Will the much-vaunted legacy and regeneration, the cornerstone of the London bid, become a reality? Who will even be in Number 10 to preside over events?

Will facets of modern London life such as binge drinking, obesity and knife crime feature? Can Boris Johnson be expected to comb his hair twice within a four year period? Are Chas and Dave playing a massive pub piano necessarily the best idea for an opening ceremony? Will Simon Cowell’s inevitable Opening Ceremony Idol do the trick?

Even those more familiar with Jeremy Thorpe than Ian Thorpe must now understand that the Olympic circus is coming to town, our town, and over the next four years everyone from Stratford and beyond will be talking about it with rapidly increasing frequency and volume.

There was some pulsating cricket at the Oval yesterday as Kevin Pietersen’s debut as England captain coincided with Steve Harmison hurling 93 mph missiles at a bloodied opposition.  The only problem was that the audience for this great sporting drama was so much smaller than it was a few years ago.  This is not because interest in cricket has dipped in recent years (if anything it has grown).  It is because the English Cricket Board (ECB) took a calculated decision to reduce the possible televised audience for test cricket in return for a bumper pay cheque from Sky.  This week they confirmed that the deal with Sky is being extended until 2013.  By doing this, the ECB are risking the long term health of the game for short term financial gain.  They are being negligent in their role as guardians of the future of one of our two national team games. 

The Ashes series of 2005 attracted a terrestrial TV audience of over 10 million.  Since the ECB sold live test match rights to Sky the audience has at times been well below one million.  That cannot be healthy for the long term future of the game.  Many of the people who tuned in to watch the Ashes series were kids attracted to the game for the first time – bringing a whole new generation to the game.  Now, at least half of people under 18 will not be able to watch test match cricket as they are in households without access to Sky.  Children that could be idolising Flintoff, Pietersen and all may be grow up without any real exposure to the game.  How can any amount of money from Sky be used to justify this criminal neglect for the health of the sport.  Terrestrial coverage, by its very nature, brings with it ‘accidental viewers’, who become suddenly hooked on this most captivating of sports.  It means that cricket can become the background to many a family summers day – exposing the heroics on the field to a new generation seeking to replicate this heroics.  The ECB’s greed means that this potential exposure is lost.  By sticking cricket coverage on to Sky Sports, only dedicated cricket watchers will probably now seek out test match coverage.  The oxygen of exposure is lost.  In a competitive sporting market, cricket should be doing all that it can to appeal to people rather than hiding behind expensive subscription channels. 

The ECB have sold the soul of the game for Murdoch’s cash. They have grabbed Sky’s money to prop up the antiquated structure of county cricket and with a wanton disregard for the long term health of the game.  As the ECB count their bounty, perhaps they will reflect for a moment that they are depriving the game of its lifeblood and knowingly preventing millions from the excitement of next year’s Ashes series.  They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

There are times when public figures make statements that are so utterly extraordinary; so completely at odds with reality that they do not fail to take the breath away.  A comment that makes you wonder exactly which planet the utterer of the pearl of wisdom is living on.  Step forward Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, who yesterday staked his claim for the “most deranged comment of 2008 award.”  According to the deluded Blatter, Manchester United refusing to assent to Cristiano Ronaldo’s transfer to Real Madrid is a form of “modern slavery.”

Maybe I’m just a born contrarian but I really cannot see an army of modern day Wilberforces taking up oratorical arms in defence of the rights to “freedom” of the Portugese winger!  Surely Blatter, for all his absorption in the marble hallways of the upper echelons of international sport, must realise how thoroughly offensive his comments are.  Cristiano Ronaldo is paid around £150,000 a week and Real Madrid are offering him around £192,000 a week.  To use the word “slavery” in this context, to compare this with the horrific sufferings of African slaves through the centuries is just downright offensive. 

Blatter is a man with a bit of a reputation for engaging mouth before brain.  It is only two years since he opined that women footballers should make their game more interesting by “wearing tighter shorts”.  But this time he has truly surpassed himself.  In rushing to the defence of a footballer whose petulance is at least a match for his footballing genius; in intervening in a dispute between two private businesses, he has managed to come up with the most offensive and wrong headed comparison possible. 

Might I suggest to Mr Blatter that he spends less time bad mouthing English football and making spectacularly offensive statements and perhaps invests some time reading about the atrocious misery and cruelty of slavery, so he can perhaps understand quite how repellent his comparison is and avoid saying something quite so rotten in the future.