Alan Watkins: Television pundits keen to wave union flag

When France went 29-6 up to Scotland last Saturday, the commentator Nigel Starmer-Smith (who has done the game some service in his time) observed to his colleague David Sole that he feared the margin was now too great for Scotland to make up. Sole regretfully agreed with his colleague that this was probably so.

It was obvious to anyone else with half an eye and a 10th of the rugby knowledge possessed by these two that Scotland were completely out of the match, and had been in this sad condition ever since Serge Betsen had scored a 34th-minute try virtually under the Scottish posts following a movement by the French back row.

Why then did they claim that Scotland still had a chance, however faint it might have been by that stage? Why did they speak on the clear assumption that their entire audience wanted Scotland to win? For Sole, this was natural enough, for he is a distinguished former Scotland international. In fact he was less unrealistic in his expectations than Starmer-Smith, who won several caps for England at scrum-half in 1969-71.

It was not just sympathy for the underdogs. If it had been, it would have been more justified. There was this unstated - or perhaps, only too clearly stated - premise that we all wanted Scotland to win.

Well, for myself I have nothing against Scotland or the Scots. I wish them well. They have contributed much to civilisation, though perhaps less to rugby. But I have spent more happy days in France than I ever have in Scotland. And, over the years, the French have contributed more to the game than the Scots. I did not place a bet on France, though at 10-1, or 12-1 with some bookies, I wish I had, for they now look capable of beating any other team in the competition.

This is not, I should emphasise, a question of bias, of being unfair to the non-British or the non-Irish side - for where commentating is concerned, the Republic of Ireland is regarded as being part of the United Kingdom, as the commentary of Mark Robson and Jamie Salmon on the Ireland-Argentina match demonstrated. Robson is an Irishman, while Salmon is a New Zealander who was capped by that country before coming to England, where he played for Harlequins and a few times for England, too.

No, the days of bias against the non-UK side have long gone. They were at their most blatant in print journalism rather than on television. And they flourished in football rather than in rugby: "The grinning Brazilians, through shameless trickery and foul play, managed to put the ball five times past the brave but deliberately unsighted English goalie.''

Indeed, it was television itself which helped to kill off that kind of reporting, whose greatest exponent was the late Desmond Hackett of the Daily Express (the man in the brown bowler). No longer was it possible to make things up, because people had been able to see for themselves the night before on the box.

Oddly enough, the assumption of automatic support of which I am writing was less evident in the England v Samoa match. The principal commentator was John Taylor, whom I always think of as possessing dual nationality, for he was born in Watford, speaks like an Englishman, was taught in London, and then turned up at London Welsh. After that he was in a great Welsh side within weeks, and became one of the outstanding flankers of his generation.

His colleague, Steve Smith, is almost a professional Englishman. He was a fine scrum-half - in his era, the equal of Dickie Jeeps, in my opinion - and is now said to be a millionaire on account of his and Fran Cotton's firm Cotton Traders. It was Smith who, during the last World Cup, characterised a French player who had petulantly shoved someone or chucked the ball away as a "stroppy little Frog''. He is not everybody's half-pint, but I am glad the television authorities have forgiven him. I doubt whether the BBC would have done.

Wales v Italy marked the low point of the commentating assumption of automatic support. The great public would, we were given to understand, be equally happy if Wales or the other lot went on to the quarter-finals. This was entirely as it should have been. Perhaps there was a slight inclination towards Wales, but not much.

The experts in the studios, all former players of some eminence, are a different matter. They can be particularly severe with their own countries. True, after the England v South Africa match, François Pienaar attacked the referee for being inconsistent in his decisions and unduly severe with his own native land. There was a lot in what he had to say. But at half-time in the Samoan game, both Will Carling and Nigel Melville accused England of being disorganised, with everybody trying to play stand-off or scrum-half except the occupants of those positions.

Here I have only two complaints. Why are these types almost always former backs and not forwards? And why does the studio director always make them dress, not identically, but in the same style?