Mega Thread RIO 2016 - General Discussion Thread for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games (3rd Aug to 21st Aug)

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

pazza said:
I think the case for more funding is interesting.

Most of those we had over there pretty much had to get time off from their work to participate, whereas others (hello the Dream Team) are highly paid professionals. It probably isn't a level playing field from that aspect.
Click to expand...
You're not comparing apples with apples there. Our basketballers are pretty well paid themselves and majority are in the NBA.
 
IKnowtheDog said:
Please provide evidence of Kitty affecting Anna Flanagan's ability to attend the games. I resume you think Kitty was also to blame for Michael Diamond not going!
Click to expand...

Nope. Not her fault on Michael Diamond. Right idea not to let him go in terms of criminal charges. Not her call either I don't. I'm wrong about Flanagan but Kitty is just like whatever.

Also don't like how Australians and the Aussie media pile on athletes who haven't done anything wrong and call them sooks or brats or whatever. The whole Kitty Nick incident just left a sour taste on her and the media.
 
The recriminations have been going since about Friday Rio time when Coates gave his interview and said the winning edge strategy failed. Hell 18 year old Kyle Chalmers came out today and reckons the AOC should butt out and not put pressure on the swimmers by saying how many medals they should win, basically saying they don't know compared to the swim team coaches.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/f19060c031f41e6d202554f16bb00ffb

“They definitely shouldn’t have said that at all,” Chalmers said as the Australian Games team arrived home. “The Dolphins (swim team) people are the ones who know what we’re going to achieve. “They’re the ones who have in the back of their minds that to get three gold medals is an amazing achievement. “But the AOC put a lot more pressure on us.”
Click to expand...

In yesterday's Oz the authors of the document wrote why the AOC coming out and banging on about a top 5 finish is unrealistic and not helpful. The following article was co authored by David Crawford, Sam Mostyn, Colin Carter and Pamela Tye were the authors of the 2009 Crawford Report - The Future of Sport in Australia. Carter and Crawford wrote big reviews into the AFL in 1985 and then 1993 respectively, Carter serving as an AFL Commissioner for a decade after the 1993 restructure of the commission as recommended in the 1993 Crawford Report. Sam Mostyn has been an AFL Commissioner for the best part of a decade. I don't know who Pamela Tye is. These guys and chairman of the ASC Melbourne based businessman John Wylie are in a s**t fight with Coates about federal government funding for the next 4 years. The print edition headline is slightly different.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...n/news-story/5865af8c201fbebe206f77d4b451ef53
A few years ago, the federal government asked us to report on the future of Australian sport. The brief was wide. It covered elite and grassroots sport and its place in Australian society.

We delivered our report, The Future of Sport in Australia, in 2009 and while we received a lot of encouraging feedback, the public discussion was quickly diverted by trenchant criticism from some quarters — mostly from inside the Olympic movement.

Our report dealt with much more than the Olympic sports. But what offended some was our view that setting a target of a “Top 5” finish at the Olympics isn’t smart. We pointed out the art of strategy is to pick battles that one can realistically win — and we suggested that defining “success” as a Top 5 gold medal finish isn’t sustainable or smart. We compete against countries with much larger populations and much deeper pockets.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...n/news-story/5865af8c201fbebe206f77d4b451ef53

Its basic maths
If we concede the top two spots to the US and China, it means there is only room for two other countries other than ourselves in the Top 5. This is surely bad news for Germany, Great Britain, Japan, France, the two Koreas, Russia and Italy to name a few of the other bigger and equally ambitious players.

Of course, this is how it has played out in London and in Rio.

Many sports administrators have privately told us they believe Top 5 in today’s world is unrealistic but Top 10 is feasible. Perhaps that is a more appropriate “stretch target” for us.
Click to expand...

And they say what Kyle Chalmers said today
Creating unrealistic expectations is hugely unfair to our athletes. Coming second, fourth or even participating in any event at the Olympics is an extraordinary achievement and shouldn’t be the reason for tears or feeling the athletes have let Australia down.

This is what seems to have happened in both London and Rio. There has been as much talk about why we have failed as about our achievements.Our view is our Olympic athletes did incredibly well at Rio. Equal ninth in the gold medal count and eighth in the total medal count is a wonderful performance. But a sense of failure accompanies our results — and has in these past two Olympics — mainly because we have been led to expect a Top 5 gold medal finish is our rightful position.
Click to expand...


And this point is important. If we love hockey and basketball then if either the men's or women's team of both both win a gold that is only 2 golds on the medal table but they bring home 12+16 gold medals = 28 individuals in Oz have a gold medal.
We also made the point in our report that “medal count” is a silly measure of success, regardless of whether it is Top 5 or Top 10. It prompts countries to pursue sports that offer lots of medals but have less strategic importance to national life.

For example, it biases against Olympic team sports such as basketball and hockey, which are important in Australia but which each have only two gold medals (one for men and one for women), while there are 47 gold medals in athletics, 21 in wrestling, 14 in judo and even taekwondo has eight.
Click to expand...

Yep the fabric of the nation type sports should be funded. No better example than Fiji and Rugby Sevens. Rugby is a religion there, they made the Sevens game the hit that it was worldwide in the 1990's and have had more success in that form than in the XV's game.
Our view is we should define the sports we wish to succeed in — and back these up with reasonable investment. And, yes, there are Olympic sports that are culturally important and socially valuable to Australia — sports like hockey, soccer, swimming, basketball, cycling, rugby and sailing are built upon a huge network of community-based clubs around Australia that not only build sport participation but also build “community”.

They may not all offer many gold medals but investment in team sports like these strengthens the social fabric of our community while improving our national competitiveness in that sport.
Click to expand...

Yep there is not much point doing stuff and funding it to buggery if it has little intrinsic value to society. The winter olympic sports are a bit like that
Some sports — such as badminton, squash and field hockey — also have ties with Asia and with our migrant populations, so encouraging these makes strategic sense for Australia.

Sport can be a potent weapon to balance disadvantage and discrimination in society.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement.
The stakes are huge because winning gold medals comes at a huge dollar cost. And that cost competes with funding for community and school sports. Our country needs a rethink what we wish to achieve in sport. A big part of this will involve realistic assessments of how and where we define Olympic “success”.
Click to expand...

in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 there were 7 effective team sports at the Olympics if you say baseball and softball are the effective male/female version of the same sport, so a nation could qualify up to 14 team sports. Because Oz is in the Oceania continent we usually send 8 or 9 out of a possible 14 teams except in Sydney where as hosts we had all 14. 2012 there was only 6 x 2 and this olympics with Rugby it was back to 7 x 2 = 14 teams and we sent 9, along with Argentina, France and Spain, USA sent 10 and Brazil 13 opting not to put in a women's hockey team.

1996 1-0-3 = 4 medals on the table but 16 W hockey golds + 16 M hockey bronzes, 15 W Softball bronzes + 12 W basketball bronzes made their way to Oz ie 16-0-43 was the true medal count

2000 2-1-2 =5 medals but 16 W hockey + 13 W water polo golds = 29 + 12 W basketball silvers + 16 M hockey bronze + 15 W softball bronze ==> 29-12-31 = 72 medals to Aussies

2004 1-3-0 = 4 but 16 M hockey golds + 12 W basketball silver + 24 baseball silvers + 15 softball silver medals means ==> 16-51-0 = 67 medals came back to Oz.

2008 0-1-3 = 4 12 W basketball silvers + 16 M Hockey bronzes+ 13 W Water Polo + 15 softball bronzes means ==> 0-12-44 = 56 brought back

2012 0-0-3 = 3 ie 12 W basketball + 16 M hockey + 13 W Water Polo bronzes brought back 0-0-41 = 41

2016 1-0-0 = 1 ie 12 W Rugby golds = 12-0-0 ==> 12 medals brought back
 
Last edited:
An opinion of Dave Culbert's I heard on SEN a few months ago. I've pondered since. Is to send the biggest team we can.

You know what? I agree, and it's now an entrenched view I hold.

The Olympics is the premier sporting event in the world. I may've been inspired by motorsport as a kid. But I get the enormity, privilege and honour of participating in an Olympics, regardless of the competition. If there is anybody, regardless of age or chance of gold/medalling, who has the potential to go. Then they should go. No one should be denied. This even it meant the focus was taken away from getting gold/medals.

I would be satisfied if in the future the attitude was to send the biggest tram. I'd be comfortable with the lowest gold/medal/participants ratio. The other countries can laugh. I wouldn't care.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

imadodgyumpire said:
An opinion of Dave Culbert's I heard on SEN a few months ago. I've pondered since. Is to send the biggest team we can.

You know what? I agree, and it's now an entrenched view I hold.

The Olympics is the premier sporting event in the world. I may've been inspired by motorsport as a kid. But I get the enormity, privilege and honour of participating in an Olympics, regardless of the competition. If there is anybody, regardless of age or chance of gold/medalling, who has the potential to go. Then they should go. No one should be denied. This even it meant the focus was taken away from getting gold/medals.

I would be satisfied if in the future the attitude was to send the biggest tram. I'd be comfortable with the lowest gold/medal/participants ratio. The other countries can laugh. I wouldn't care.
Click to expand...
Yep, as far as I'm concerned, if you meet the various qualifiers, and we can send you within the specifications (i.e. 3 track and field athletes in any event, 1 sailer per class etc.) you should get to go.
 
Saw this on Al Jazerra news last night. Its their pommie Aussie based reporter talking about our Olympic performance in Rio and comparing it to the Brits. Near the end, after he talks about shear size of a countries helping to bring success he makes the correct call that monies is more important and that " its targeting money and the best athletes that's most effective. Australia once led the way in investing monies in sports in which they were most likely to win medals, however obscure. It spent heavily on the science of sport and pioneered talent spotting encouraging athletes to chase medals by switching sports...." then talks about the Rugby Sevens and Chloe Dalton. As the report says other countries copied the tactics, many after sending people to study what we had done. They took IP home, recruite some of the best coaches and sports scientists - Just like we started doing in the 1980's with setting up the AIS and then the state based institutes and academies followed, but got really good at post September 1993 and winning the bid for 2000 games and the feds throwing a s**t load of $$$ in the 7 years leading up to Sydney.




Moneyball wasn't just a book about baseball statistics. It was really about how does the little guy with less money than the big guy, become more effective and more efficient with what he has got, so he can compete with and then beat the big guy. Oz has to go through a new Moneyball cycle when it comes to Olympic sports if it wants to stay in the top 10 and ever get close again to top 5.
 
What stands out from the medal tally below for the top 22 countries are 2 things for me. One if a few of the swimmers who didn't even get a medal and were tipped to win or get a medal got one and our cyclists got a few minor medals then we would have got around the 35-42 mark and been close to 5th spot for total medals and Two, if you look at the tally closely, only France, Italy Oz and New Zealand got more Silvers than Gold. If a few more Aussies converted, then the debate would be somewhat different. Yes in some events countries won gold and silver like in athletics, swimming, table tennis and diving off the top of my head, so some adjustment has to be made for that but there are only 3 or 4 examples maximum for a handful of country.

Mitch Larkin misses gold by in 200m Backstroke by 0.34 sec over a 1:53.x race
Madeline Groves misses gold to London silver medalist by 0.03 sec in 200m Butterfly over a 2:04.x race
The Men's Quad sculls miss gold by 1.15 seconds over a 6 minute race
The Men's Fours miss gold by 1.83 seconds over a 6 minute race
The Men's Team Pursuit miss gold by 0.743 seconds over a 3 minute 50 second race
The Nacra sailing eventwas 77pts to the Argies, 78pts to Oz over 13 races
50km walk Tallent loses by 18 seconds over 50km and 3 hours 50 minutes race and had a hamstring injury effect his preparation.

So if 4 or 5 of those silvers were converted to gold up the ladder Oz goes. But that is what international sport is all about - the margins sometimes are ridiculously small. In many ways the failure to convert silver into gold has meant stuff wont be swept under the carpet in the reviews to come.


upload_2016-8-26_15-51-22.png
 
haha this front page says it all

NCHRS_1_2016_08_26_thumb_big.jpg
 
imadodgyumpire said:
Why being connected to big business, top end of town is a problem?
Click to expand...
Probably because Coates can't manipulate them and/or offer them a $200k to $400k job somewhere in Oz olympic sports so they will do what he wants.
 
It's always interesting to note that for people like me, who are committed to the Olympics. To find how the sports move on quickly from it.

Swimmers are now competing in an event in Paris. Which includes Maddy Groves and Mitch Larkin.

Athletics are also in Paris having already competed mid week in Lausanne! Asafa Powell won the 100. Probably just got off the plane. Kendra Harrison won the 100h setting a time that would've clearly got gold.

Ahh well.
 
imadodgyumpire said:
It's always interesting to note that for people like me, who are committed to the Olympics. To find how the sports move on quickly from it.

Swimmers are now competing in an event in Paris. Which includes Maddy Groves and Mitch Larkin.

Athletics are also in Paris having already competed mid week in Lausanne! Asafa Powell won the 100. Probably just got off the plane. Kendra Harrison won the 100h setting a time that would've clearly got gold.

Ahh well.
Click to expand...
I dont know about swimming but the old IAAF Grand Prix which became the Golden League and now the Diamond League always have had events 2 or 3 weeks after the Olympics or World Champs because they have their regular season which used to run from late May to early September and I think with new meets in places like Shanghai, Doha and now one event in USA it goes from early May to mid to late September. Its a bit like a footy season if you had an interstate carnival every 4 years in June, you still have games and the finals after the carnival.
 
Last edited:
apollo_creed said:
Not sure there's any room for excuses the swimmers clearly underperformed.
Click to expand...
Yep under performed but you cant say a completely failed campaign. Disappointing but 3 golds 4 silvers and 10 medals was disppointing on expectations but not a failure, especially when you unearth an 18 year old sprint Olympic Champion who is 6 to 8 years away from his peak, and a 20 year old distance Olympic Champion who will be peaking in Tokyo maybe later in 2024 as well. The Oz result in Rio was better than any Olympics between 1976 and 1996 inclusive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cleavy
Summer Olympics back on Ch9, Ch7 pulls out of bidding
Replies
13
Views
1K
RussellEbertHandball
RussellEbertHandball

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top