They say that in sport it's the taking part that counts and while that was certainly the case for me when it came to rugby, I have to disagree with regard to participation in other sports.
Don't get me wrong, I love the taking part but watching it at the highest level is even better (although I have to say I draw the line at bowls which might be just about the only thing I can't watch).
I relish match-ups and head-to-heads involving the best players or teams in the world. Watching Roger Federer toy with the opposition at a tennis tournament, just like Tiger Woods does at most golf events, is to watch a master at work.
But the most gripping sport I have watched so far this year was one that has to fight for credibility. Darts, in many people's eyes, is a pastime not a sport.
But when Phil Taylor and Raymond van Barneveld faced each other in their sudden death play-off during the World Darts Championship it became one of those classic sporting moments.
In their deciding leg, both players threw maximum scores of 180 with such regularity it evoked memories of the great shoot-outs involving Eric Bristow, Jocky Wilson and John Lowe.
It made for compulsive viewing: two gunslingers in a showdown for a £100,000 purse. In the end, it was the Dutchman who prevailed because he kept his nerve but, had he missed, the smart money would have been on Taylor retaining the world crown such was the consistency of both men's play.
A similar scenario unfolded with 10 seconds remaining in rugby's World Cup final in 2003. As the clock ticked down, Jonny Wilkinson had one shot for glory or Australia would have taken the title, but the England stand-off made the drop goal and the rest is history. Particularly so, since no one remembers the three missed attempts earlier in the match, just the one that counted.
There is a reason for all this nostalgia: I was fortunate enough to witness at first hand Manchester United's dismantling of AS Roma at Old Trafford - the best football performance I, and probably many others who were there that evening, will have ever seen. I also had the privilege of seeing the Rinus Michels' Dutch sides of the 1970s but it would have to have been Miss World on heat to be more attractive than United's performance in putting seven past the Italians.
Understandably, not all team displays can reach the heights displayed by Sir Alex Ferguson's team last week and there is also a murkier side to sport that rears its head from time to time.
The cricket World Cup is in full swing in the Caribbean and, yet again, match-fixing has been talked about almost as much as the cricket. The Irish team did what Scotland couldn't, but it was during one of their matches that the spectre of match-fixing is alleged.
Ireland's defeat of Pakistan has been yet more evidence for the conspiracy theorists, who went to town claiming the Pakistanis had thrown the game. Spread betting has produced a proliferation of markets to bet on in cricket and the industry is huge on the sub-continent.
This got me thinking how lucky we are in rugby that the same allegations are not made when strange results occur.
Imagine the odds you would have got on Scotland being 21 points down after five minutes against Italy? Not one person has accused the Scots of match-fixing, but they would have if it had been cricket. The referee in the Italy v Wales game blew his whistle before Wales could take a lineout, thus handing victory to their opponents. Imagine what would be accused if the umpire in cricket did the equivalent?
Maybe the conspiracy theorists have got something, though, with the Heineken Cup fiasco that is occurring at present. As it stands, any English team in the Guinness Premiership will not play in next year's tournament, but teams from League One will be asked to fill the breach. Bottom-placed Northampton Saints are in the semi-finals of the Heineken Cup this weekend and have a real chance of winning it.
Which could raise the mischievous question: are they trying to get relegated so that they can defend the Heineken Cup next year?
Next week: the moon landings were a hoax.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article