London 2012 Olympics

Shadow said:
I very much doubt that. I'm sure Murray would rather have won Wimbledon than the Olympics.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I said "most of the athletes". Murray's situation is an exception because Brits have so much hope in him for winning Wimbledon after such a long time. He's under a lot of pressure, he'd like a Wimbledon championship than the Olympics, maybe just to get rid of the pressure.
 
The Flash said:
I'm pretty sure most of the athletes would prefer an Olympic medal to a grand slam victory or a World Cup (football) medal. Lots of money goes on in sports industry, Olympics doesn't have any of that, Olympics is the basic of sports and that's why it's the most important.
Click to expand...

I am entirely sure of the opposite: that there isn't a single footballer in the world who would prefer to win an Olympic medal than a World Cup winners medal.

A strange thing happened earlier today. I've become caught up with so much Olympic fever that during the tennis final I wasn't willing Andy Murray to lose his match. ;)
 
The Flash said:
That's exactly why I said "most of the athletes". Murray's situation is an exception because Brits have so much hope in him for winning Wimbledon after such a long time. He's under a lot of pressure, he'd like a Wimbledon championship than the Olympics, maybe just to get rid of the pressure.
Click to expand...

I don't think even Federer would trade his Wimbledon title this year for an Olympic gold medal.
 
I don't think any athlete in a major pro sports industry wants to have an Olympic medal more than their respective championships. But it should be in the same class, and I think football has failed there.
 
Enjoying watching the hockey, altho sitting watching it with my mother we've drawn many a comparison to football... how much faster paced of a game it is. 5-4 Pakistan vs South Africa (Can't remember which way round) and 3-3 GB vs Australia despite the first half finishing 3-0 to Aus.
 
LooseCannon said:
I don't think any athlete in a major pro sports industry wants to have an Olympic medal more than their respective championships. But it should be in the same class, and I think football has failed there.
Click to expand...

The problem is that between the World Cup and each continent's respective championship, there isn't much room left for the Olympics. The conflict with the Euros is probably the worst - it would be really tough for top European players to participate in two major tournaments during the same off-season. I don't think the current situation is ideal, but it's not easy to find a better one.
 
And now for something completely different: http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/08/today-in-hot-olympic-asses/

(Sorry this is a couple of days old, I've been out of town all weekend. For example, Ennis won the heptathlon since this blog was posted. Still, I thought it was worth circulating, and in the spirit of the most exciting activity for most of the athletes at the Games, namely, getting laid like crazy in the Olympic Village.)

In other news, Great Britain is wrecking shop at these Games. Outmedaling Russia!! Congrats to the Brits. Even taking "home field advantage" into account, this is a great Games for the British athletes.
 
Maybe a little help from Eddie? :rolleyes:

By the way, the Tennis final was awful...
 
It is great to see the UK do so well, it is always nice to see the home team do well and all the excitement that it generates. I am sure London had to endure some disruption preparing for the games, I am guessing this makes up for it.
 
The Flash said:
I'm pretty sure most of the athletes would prefer an Olympic medal to a grand slam victory or a World Cup (football) medal.
Click to expand...
That's completely wrong. Footballers always say that they dream of playing for their country in the World Cup, or of lifting the FA Cup or European Cup. The World Cup is where the best players compete, this is not the case in the Olympics. In Tennis Grand Slams the men play best of five sets in every match not just in the final. Also please note that in a Grand Slam Andy Murray wouldn't go near a doubles match because his main focus is to win one of those four singles tournaments and that Tim Henman is not well remembered for being an Olympic doubles silver medalist. Olympic tennis is just a bonus that pops up every four years. I'm sure if Andy doesn't manage to win a Grand Slam then yesterday's win will be the biggest triumph of his career, but I am 100% certain that his goal is to win a Grand Slam.

For example, Jamaica and United States dominates the 100 M race in athletics. Should we get rid of it too ?
Click to expand...
Everybody runs though. Everyone takes running seriously as a competitive sport. Table Tennis is only taken seriously in Asia. Everywhere else it is something played in Youth Clubs or your mate's garage. It's a game, not a sport.


On the UK's unprecedented success and outmedalling Russia, I'd like to point out that Kazakhstan are outperforming Russia, Germany, France and Australia!
 
Black Wizard said:
That's completely wrong. Footballers always say that they dream of playing for their country in the World Cup, or of lifting the FA Cup or European Cup. The World Cup is where the best players compete, this is not the case in the Olympics. In Tennis Grand Slams the men play best of five sets in every match not just in the final. Also please note that in a Grand Slam Andy Murray wouldn't go near a doubles match because his main focus is to win one of those four singles tournaments and that Tim Henman is not well remembered for being an Olympic doubles silver medalist. Olympic tennis is just a bonus that pops up every four years. I'm sure if Andy doesn't manage to win a Grand Slam then yesterday's win will be the biggest triumph of his career, but I am 100% certain that his goal is to win a Grand Slam.
Click to expand...

Alright I take back my statement, I have to accept that my World Cup example was nonsense. (you can't see me accepting my nonsensical stuff very often :p)

But still, I disagree with your table tennis statements. Table tennis is also popular in Europe, Germany has a great team for example. Scandinavian countries also compete at a very high level. Of course the Chinese are dominant, but to me it's no different than running. Also, table tennis absolutely is a sport, and a pretty tiring one at that. The one you play with your friends is a game, but the professional one is a sport.

I agree with what LC said. Olympics should be in the same level as any other respective competitions of any sport. In many sports, Olympics is by far the most important event. Like athletics, swimming, wrestling, gymnastics, taekwondo, judo, canoe and many others. But the thing is, probably the only "mainstream" sport (that has lots of money stuff going on) for which the Olympics are the biggest event is basketball. Football seems to have failed so far, so did tennis. But taking off football is not the right way to go, to rise its competition level is.

If the sports that is consisted of some countries constantly dominated were removed from the games, probably they wouldn't be as popular as they're today. Football is a perfect example, actually. The game started in Britain, but in the Olympics, Uruguay dominated them and Olympic football led to the formation of World Cup, where Uruguay once again dominated. It forced European countries to build up their systems.

Same goes for basketball. US were the only dominate team and European basketball sucked. But after SSCB's controversial triumph against US in Olympics, the interest in basketball in Europe has rose drastically. And look where it is today. Still US is the dominant one, but the interest in it is a lot different.
 
I just don't see the need for Olympic football and tennis. For me the Olympics are about two things. Firstly it's a showcase for incredible feats of sporting brilliance, such as Usian Bolt who, in two consecutive games, won the 100m and set two of the "fastest" times in history, and Sir Steve Redgrave who won five gold medals in five consecutive games in rowing, one of the most gruelling sports. Secondly, I see the Olympic Games as being about the amazing inspirational stories like Joanna Rowsell's. When she was ten she began to suffer from alopecia (hair loss) which completely ruined her confidence. It wasn't until she took up cycling that she became confident enough to talk openly about her condition, and now at the age of twenty-three she is an Olympic champion after being part of the amazing British Woman's Team Pursuit which smashed the world record along the way.

I'm sure that footballers and tennis players have some incredible stories to tell as well, but they come to light in their sports away from the Olympics. The stories of Lionel Messi and Ryan Giggs, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic have already been written and don't need the Olympics to push them into the limelight.
 
I really disagree with that. Football is the exception - most places already play it, but tennis? Tennis is a very rich sport that tends to be played by Europeans and Americans. There are some exceptions to the rule, but list off the first 10 players that come to mind - how many of them are from outside of Europe and the USA? Probably not more than one. Tennis thoroughly needs the world stage to showcase it to countries that are not usually tennis-oriented, to convince them it is time to build tennis courts and get kids out there swinging rackets.

The Olympics is a massive platform that forces countries to compete and grow sport. Football is already the most popular sport in the world and it probably can't benefit much from the Olympics. But it should feel the responsibility to set an example. In addition, when a country that kinda sucks at football wins an upset, it inspires that country to become better. This has worked in literally every sport other than football. That's why I don't really have much of an argument for football, other than they should set an example, and I think FIFA and the IOC hate each other, so they do not try to get along to fix this problem. But tennis? Tennis is a sport that should be played everywhere in the world. All it takes is a net, a square of grass, a racket and a cheap ball. There should be great tennis players coming from every continent. Until that happens, putting it in the Olympics is key.
 
Well I can certainly accept your arguments for Tennis LooseCannon. You're right about the number of non-European/American players in the top ten with Juan Martin del Potro (Argentina) and Li Na (China) being the odd ones out in the men's and women's top ten. In fact, in recent years America and Australia haven't actually produced as many great players as they have in the past. However, Olympic tennis still doesn't sit well with me because it's little more than an additional tour event like the ones in Monaco and Indianapolis. Tennis does, however, encompass the world in the locations of it's tour events outside of grand slams with tournaments in Dubai, Shanghai and Johannesburg that attract the top players. To be honest I think we'll just have agree to disagree on this. :P

On football, I just don't see how football can possibly set an example for other sports. As much as I enjoy watching and following football I can't ignore the negative side of the sport. Is a sport where a player spits in an opponent's hair and where both teams surround the referee on a regular basis really appropriate to set an example for others? In the Olympics when an athlete is in tears after a heroic defeat the entire world sympathizes with them and tells them that they haven't let anyone down, but when John Terry missed a penalty in the Champions League final he was mocked for crying afterwards. In football one of the sport's premier players can elbow an opponent in the head and get away with it, he also swears into a camera after scoring a goal. Footballers try to get their opponents sent off then shake their hands at the end of the match. This is not the kind of behaviour that the Olympics want to associate itself with. People like Usian Bolt and Sir Chris Hoy are amazing ambassadors for their sport whilst also being at the top of their respective sports. Unfortunately very few of the best footballers are cut from the same mold. Football just doesn't stand for what the Olympics stand for and they should remain seperate.
 
Football is in the Olympics for the simple reason that every nation in the world has a national federation. Football is an Olympic sport by excellence.

What should be negotiated is the type of tournament and the best players participate on it.

Edit: What you said about football happens in every sport. The difference is you know what happens everytime on football because it is the most talked sport.

There are doping everywhere, but seldom on football, for instance. Sometimes the lack of fair-play in some sports is evident as well.
 
Our three favorite wrestlers lost in their first matches. Damn. Although we did finally get our first medal (bronze) I'm not satisfied at all.
 
I am watching the Canada vs USA women's game, and let me just say that it's fucking hard to play when the USA gets a 12th player. I've seen two intentional handballs ignored by the ref and she called a penalty kick on an obvious face protection. The free kicks have been bad too. Just insanely bad refereeing.

And before people accuse me of being a homer, those who know me know I'm usually the calm one. This is actually shite reffing.
 
Just because the Canadian women hit the ground like whiny crybabies every five minutes doesn't mean they are getting fouled...:innocent: Whoop, there goes another one, #11. [EDIT: Ah, miracle of miracles, after flopping on the ground for a full two minutes and limping badly off the field, she ran back on, sans limp, about two seconds later. Good grief. This is why Americans still haven't completely bought in to soccer.]

Play has gotten pretty sloppy in extra time, lots of kicking over the midfield rather than any attempt to control it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top