Of course, there's been quite a bit of back-tracking this past fortnight suggesting it was simply a jocular, tongue-in-cheek remark.
Even Tim Henman got wheeled out to say that Scotland's finest didn't mean it and was, indeed, only joking. Now, c'mon Tim!

Or as his co-commentator once famously said ... "You cannot be serious."
As just about anyone will tell you, go on holiday in Scotland and the people don't come any nicer or more hospitable.

But that doesn't apply to football. Yes, they love their football up there but not England.

Anybody who ever went north of the border when England played at Hampden Park will tell you of the hatred for England's football team.

I went three times to Hampden and stood in petrified silence on two occasions, the first time not being too bad as some Hibs fans merrily distributed whisky which they were guzzling down as if it was lemonade.

Make no mistake, Scottish fans and England's national side don't mix, and when we're losing to Croatia or struggling against some minnow,they're loving it.

So, light-hearted Murray may have been but, deep down, I think that was his true feeling.

But is it enough to have much of the nation turn against him as seems to have happened? Well, I'll take any Murray win with as much joy as any by Tim.

Perhaps the Middle (and above) Englanders of Wimbledon can't quite take to the rougher, brasher, new kid on the block after years of their nice lad, Tim.

Then there's the parents. The elegant Mr and Mrs Henman and Tim's dad facial expression which never changed throughout the 10 years or so the cameras panned in on him (I wonder if it stayed the same when he had toothache or sex?)

Yes, so English stiff upper lip. Not like that feisty-looking Mrs Murray. Pumping her fist and getting behind her boy.

What's more, Andy's Scottish.

Well, Scottish or not, derogatory football remark or not, I'm for Andy. A couple of years ago, I reckoned that he would do better at Wimbledon than Henman. He's got something extra.

Which means he'll have to reach the final. Or get to five semi-finals.
But my confident tip this year was always Rafael Nadal.

If he and Roger Federer make it to the final two on Sunday it could be one of THE great Wimbledon finals.

This past fortnight, I seem to have spent more time listening to Wimbledon on the radio than watching it on television.

There has been a tendency to get obsessed with fashion and, in particular, what the leading women are wearing.

But one such report did give me a chuckle.

BBC reporter David Croft, asked for a description, said: "Don't get excited, but she's wearing a sort of see-through top."

That hot-blooded Aussie. Pat Cash. couldn't resist. "What do you mean?" he asked. "She's wearing a see-through top - at Wimbledon at that - so how can we not get excited?"

It seems to be generally agreed that the best team, Spain, won Euro 2008.

Most seem to agree, too, we didn't miss England - and all that goes with her in tournaments - too much after all.

How would we have fared?

Well, as we would have been in place of Russia, I reckon lost to Spain, edged past Greece 1-0 and, as we can't seem to beat Sweden for love nor money, probably ended up drawing. So, touch and go for qualifying.

Then again, many might reckon we'd have won. Try Sir Geoff Hurst.

This week he commented: "We could go and play Spain and beat them tomorrow... we are quite capable with our best side."

Is this one of our problems? An over-inflated opinion of how good we really are?

We remain, as usual, a hard side to beat. But would we really have been near good enough to win Euro 2008?

You know the answer.

What do you think? Post your comments below.

READ MORE

Football headlines
More Blades
More Owls
More Spireites
More Rovers
More Reds
More Millers
More Ice Hockey
More rugby league
More rugby union
More boxing
Sports columnists
All sport categories