Wilkin on Bailey

Wilkin should feel no pressure to hold back from saying whatever he likes. The kid is one of the most articulate people in SL and very often brings up something worth listening to. Compare what Wilkin says to the usual assortment of Neanderthal grunts and farts emanating from players who throughout their lives have never so much as looked at the cover of a book, much less opened such.

One of the problems with Rugby League is it has a mile-wide anti-intellectual streak running straight through it. If you stand before a microphone and spew forth thirty seconds of unintelligible gibberish fans will applaud endlessly. But dare to embark on expressive and thoughtful discussion and the click-click-click of shells being loaded into the shotgun breeches of a legion of gap-toothed rednecks becomes deafening.

As stated, Wilkin shouldn't feel obliged to censor himself - [iprovided he is willing to stand or fall by what he says. [/i If he says something dumb then his dumbness will be laid bare to everyone. I certainly don't subscribe to this bonkers notion of "media awareness". One of the many problems we have in our game (not to mention sport in general) is players are now terrified of saying anything lest they be pilloried by the media. It has led us to where we are now - a sport which should promote endless discussion by the players but doesn't (beyond the usual dog-eared maxims which have been used so often they've lost all impact).

It wasn't always thus. Many older fans will recall Alex Murphy's "Jumping off Runcorn Bridge if they win the Cup" statement (which was harmless enough and did no damage other than to Murphy's ego, which was more than big enough to take it anyhow). That was a talking point. It still is today. And the reason it still is today is because players and coaches, for the past twenty or thirty years, have been terrified of saying anything remotely controversial.

As for "sour grapes". For the most part I think this is a meaningless abstraction trumped up by winners to render any criticism of their actions totally harmless. It's remarkably effective because a) it appeals to the pettiest of emotions and b) taps into notions of tribalism, which are enormously powerful and by definition difficult to argue against. In many ways it is similar to labelling critics of American foreign policy "unpatriotic" or anyone who chooses not to believe everything government tells him a "conspiracy nut".

People want their triumph to be absolute and heaven help anyone who muddies the water. Which is why the "sour grapes" retort is eternally popular. It gives winners a free pass to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" to any uncomfortable triumph-lessening realities being imposed upon them and then at the end claim the whole thing was nothing more than a jealousy-fuelled rant. As I said, it's remarkably effective. But it’s a lazy, weak argument and should be recognised as such at every available opportunity.

The worth of a player’s words should not be contingent upon whether he is a winner or a loser. So, when Wilkin says Bailey is an embarrassment because of x, y & z – does he have a point? (And before anyone chirps up with the usual – even if Wilkin were the next Terry Newton it wouldn’t invalidate his claim in any way). Given Bailey’s conduct since his arrival in the game I’d say he has.

Without criticism there can be no improvement. Which is why we need perceptive, well-spoken rugby players, coaches etc. to speak their mind at every opportunity. If it’s bull$hit it will be called as such without any need for ridiculous “sour grapes”, “bad loser” accusations.