It’s worth remembering that many of the UKs top sport climbers very rarely climb above E5 without use of a top rope and if they do it normally involves a cameraman to capture the rarity so being able to onsight E5/6 on a variety of different rock types is a bigger deal than the modern media often makes out.
That point strikes me as a bit stereotypical of those who find it difficult remembering that being strong physically doesn’t equate to being adept on physically easier but bold climbing - or even on climbs with any perceived risk greater than a typical sport climb.
Likewise having great technique or being good at bold climbing doesn’t equate to being strong on extremely physical terrain - witness Caff getting shut down after >20 sessions by a pure PE route in Liquid Ambar

. Comparing hard sport to any trad is comparing apples to pears. (I also recall Caff saying he struggled to second a grade IX mixed route saying it felt nails... but that doesn't mean someone who climbs grade IX can cruise up hundreds of E7s - I know enough grade IX climbers who struggle on E4s.)
I get that he’s trying to point out that some trad routes' seriousness, tricky-to-read nature or dirtiness are enough to shut down a lot of sport climbers who climb hard sport routes. But that isn't news is it? Sport isn’t trad and trad isn’t sport. You don’t hear many people pointing out that ‘few of the UKs top boulderers who climb font 8B even climb E6/f8a/(or mixed VIII!)… clearly it isn’t relevant and each to their own (style of climbing).
Implying that media attention overlooks onsighting E5s/6s in favour of sport climbers redpointing 8c - maybe Caff's right. But unless it's a teenager (or a woman :worms

then neither achievements are really regarded as significant anymore are they? Looking at it in terms of significance - how many Brits are climbing 9a or 9a+, versus are climbing E10/11 - I’d guess around a similar number (with some crossover). With each given similar media coverage from what I can tell… although I don’t follow any social media.
If he's trying to imply (as it seems) that up to a certain level, around trad E5/6 and sport low-mid 8s, one type of climbing is 'harder' than another - i.e. climbers who can onsight E6 and also redpoint mid 8s are more of a rarity than climbers who can redpoint mid 8s but not onsight E6 - again that's probably correct. Some of that discrepency I'd expect comes from the wider skillset and slightly higher barriers to progression required of trad - time being the major one. It's the same with mixed/alpine - it isn't *really* any harder it's just the barriers to entry/progression are higher, so far fewer do it.
And so what if one's 'harder'? Those levels (E6/ mid 8s) aren't really 'significant' in the scheme of things - all climbing up to around 8c+ and E10 is an amateur level isn't it: demonstrably achievable by any sufficiently motivated person with full use of their limbs, while working in a 'proper' full-time job.
And if that point above *is* worth remembering then - taking ‘
UK’s top trad climbers’ to mean =>E9 - it should also be worth remembering that many of the UK’s top trad climbers rarely climb above 8b..
edit: good blog btw!