And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

[Duncan Gardner]

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

The quotation in the title comes from a BBC reporter in Rio last night.

[pebblethefish]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

While I know this is a fishing trip, and hate to be the first to bite, do T20 tournaments not count in the cricket?

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

No, you're quite right. Their win in 2010 had slipped my mind

(Don't forget to throw it back into the water)

[Benjm]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

I saw someone from the British Olympic Association/National Lottery complex describe us as a sporting 'superpower' on the news yesterday and it pretty much capped off my disaffection with the Olympics.

The athletes largely seem like reasonable sorts, allowing for them having ultra-competitive personalities, but the last thing the UK needs at the moment is some contrived global triumph to feed the resurgent delusions of grandeur. I preferred the reality check from Roy's boys.

Winning however many medals at £4 million a pop in the name of a country that has a million people using food banks, voted to leave the EU and continues to enthusiastically get its hands dirty around the world seems an ambiguous achievement to me.

[Ray de Galles]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Duncan Gardner wrote: The quotation in the title comes from a BBC reporter in Rio last night.

They said it about Britain/GB/UK/whatever rather than England, I presume?

[Reed John]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

I don't get the tennis one. Andy Murray is #2 and has won, to my knowledge, at least two grand slams.

Edit: I see it specifies England, rather than the UK, but then refers to Olympic achievements.

And it's false that nobody watches gymnastics. Its the most popular Olympic sport here, I think. And this is a big country.

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

@Reed: I'm not there (America) obviously. In Britain, most mainstay Olympic sports don't draw big crowds nor viewing figures for the other 47 months of the cycle.

@DeGalles: she did (the usually sensible Caroline Barker IIRC), but others like Inverdale are more crassly nationalistic. They might argue honest and reflective of the audience, I suppose.

I'm with Benjm, but also (as Pebble realised) having a dig at the often hysterical coverage and the wabs lining up to demand TGB enters the men's and women's football next time. One guy from the BOA claimed it was a tragedy they weren't there this time. Presumably to get walloped, in the men's case.

[GCostanza]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

From the BBC comments section.

"england 103 medals, 53million population, 1.94 medals per 1 million
Scotland 16 medals, 5.3 million population, 3.01 medals per 1 million
Wales 9 medals, 3million population, 3.00 medals per 1 million

Well done Scotland 1st, Wales close 2nd, england 3rd."

[GCostanza]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Just consulted a cricket guru acquaintance, who assures me England(& Wales) never won a tournament in 1979 and have also lost previously to Holland, Ireland and tied with Scotland.

[tee rex]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Nice irony that DG's post is itself a bit Inverdaley.

England won a World Cup in cricket in 2009. Because ladies.

[Jon]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

The thread title has given me an Avengers/Alfred Lord Tennyson earworm:

[Reed John]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Duncan Gardner wrote: @Reed: I'm not there (America) obviously. In Britain, most mainstay Olympic sports don't draw big crowds nor viewing figures for the other 47 months of the cycle.
.

Gymnastics - at least womens' gymnastics - does a bit better here, but there aren't that many other major competitions to be had, as I understand it. For the elite-level that might draw a TV audience, there isn't a regular tour that fans can follow, but there are other events other than the olympics on TV - especially college gymnastics - that seem to get a decent audience. And it's fairly popular as a participation sport with girls, at least.

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

tee rex wrote: Nice irony that DG's post is itself a bit Inverdaley.

England won a World Cup in cricket in 2009. Because ladies

Harsh. My opening post was about underachievement, in which I mentioned their tennis players since the 70s specifically and the athletes and swimmers by association.

Apologies for the errors above (my usual checkers Pru and Frida are on holiday). Noted that the male cricketers are even more mediocre than I mentioned.

The BOA goon I mentioned above (Bill Sweeney) claims that talks are underway to field GB teams in the football in Japan. I think he may be imaging these.

[Reed John]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

If there still is a GB by 2020, it would be nice to have at least a woman's team in the Olympics. England, at least, has the potential to do great things in women's football and having their players in the Olympics would help that process.

I thought that England's deficiencies in cricket tournaments were largely, although not entirely, down to England caring a lot more about tests.

[Etienne]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

It's not just the female cricketers you've ignored though is it DG? The footballers, golfers and rugby players are all ignored (as is netball)... in addition to arbitrarily excising Scotland and Wales.

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

@Etienne: I ignored them (women's rugby, netball etc.) because they aren't (as far as I know) part of the underachievement detailed in the opening post. As per my previous post.

As for the women footballers, they and their cheerleaders are talking a load of old shite about how upsetting it is to potentially miss the next Olympics. They have plenty of options, including

* concentrate on the cycle of World and Euro championships, now well-established like the mens' and where they are pretty successful

* wait for GB/ UK to break up, which may not be that long distant

* stop whining like spoilt children

@Reed: given that Scotland, Wales and NI have their own separate, long-established football administrations, many fans there share my preference for shunning any contrived new team which wouldn't represent us. See threads passim

[Etienne]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Yeah, but you can't make a point about overall sporting underachievement by just ignoring sporting successes.

[tee rex]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Sure, nobody should take a gag seriously, except ... there is a valid point here, isn't there? Women turn up at the Olympics and their achievements are literally worth exactly the same as the men's. Outside the Olympics, they aren't (with a handful of exceptions, Andrea Murray would get a few front pages, provided she smiles better than Andy).

None of which excuses idiocy from the selective flagwavers, of course (Tory MP's Empire tweets, et al).

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

@Etienne: Why not? I offered plenty of evidence and context that we/ they aren't a sporting superpower. My point wasn't that no sport here had enjoyed any success in recent years.

@Teerex: OK, but it's a rant (I think justified) as well as a bad gag...

[Reed John]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Duncan Gardner wrote: @Etienne: I ignored them (women's rugby, netball etc.) because they aren't (as far as I know) part of the underachievement detailed in the opening post. As per my previous post.

As for the women footballers, they and their cheerleaders are talking a load of old shite about how upsetting it is to potentially miss the next Olympics. They have plenty of options, including

* concentrate on the cycle of World and Euro championships, now well-established like the mens' and where they are pretty successful

* wait for GB/ UK to break up, which may not be that long distant

* stop whining like spoilt children

@Reed: given that Scotland, Wales and NI have their own separate, long-established football administrations, many fans there share my preference for shunning any contrived new team which wouldn't represent us. See threads passim

In what way is it "contrived" given that it's Great Britain competes in every other Olympic event and how every other nation on earth is compelled to compete in international competitions? All national borders and the federations that are confined to them are "contrived." But the blazerati in the home countries get to control fiefdoms that their colleagues in other nations-within-nations don't get to. How is that more "natural"?

The Olympics gets far more TV coverage and, given that several of the best women's teams are not in Europe, is more important and prestigious competitions than the women's Euros. That is not the case with men's football. So you cannot argue that "Just do what the men do." Besides, the men don't need the money or the exposure they get from international competitions to make a living. Pretty much the only women able to make a living in football are the ones on the national teams.

So basically fans that think a GB team is damaging to the game are arguing for the maintenance of a tradition born in the 19th century, that until relatively recently only included men - indeed, for much of history, explicitly excluded women - and clearly hinders exposure and development of the women's game in Britain. And there's no evidence that having a GB team in 2012 damaged the aspirations of the four men's national sides or reason to think that having it in the Olympics, or in women's football but not men's, would be some kind of disaster.

It is the diehard traditionalists who are the whiney children, not those trying to help the women's game.

[Reed John]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Also...

Being a "sporting superpower" is not something a country should really aspire to. East Germany were a sporting superpower. The Soviet Union was a sporting superpower. Romania too, to a lesser extent. Lot of fucking good that did the millions of people being fed images of the elite winning medals instead of human rights and, in some cases, food.

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Reed John wrote:
In what way is it "contrived" given that it's Great Britain competes in every other Olympic event and how every other nation on earth is compelled to compete in international competitions?

It would replace a structure that's worked well since the 19th century.

Incidentally there are plenty of other examples of international competitions beyond sovereign countries: Ryder Cup golf, West Indies cricket, all-Ireland this and that.

But the blazerati in the home countries get to control fiefdoms that their colleagues in other nations-within-nations don't get to. How is that more "natural"?

What I'm suggesting has widespread fan support in the smaller UK countries. I know a couple of blazers, they are volunteers and aren't doing it for a fat salary or self-promotion. I didn't claim it was natural.

The Olympics gets far more TV coverage and, given that several of the best women's teams are not in Europe, is more important and prestigious competitions than the women's Euros

There's also a World Cup. The idea that top women footballers are starved of competition is outdated surely?

So you cannot argue that "Just do what the men do." Besides, the men don't need the money or the exposure they get from international competitions to make a living. Pretty much the only women able to make a living in football are the ones on the national teams

I've no objection per se to elite women players wanting to grow the game, nor to Olympic football thriving.

So basically fans that think a GB team is damaging to the game are arguing for the maintenance of a tradition born in the 19th century

We are concerned that a GB/ UK team would threaten the independence of the existing teams.

clearly hinders exposure and development of the women's game in Britain

As above, I don't think it is clear any more. Women's football is growing steadily, probably more than many Olympic sports where we won medals.

And there's no evidence that having a GB team in 2012 damaged the aspirations of the four men's national sides or reason to think that having it in the Olympics, or in women's football but not men's, would be some kind of disaster

I wouldn't want to overstate it, but there is some- other countries have criticised Britain's perceived elite status in the game in the past.

It is the diehard traditionalists who are the whiney children, not those trying to help the women's game

I want there to continue to be a NI side, so guilty as charged of supporting that tradition. It's a bit arrogant of you to assume that it's unhelpful merely to disagree with your POV. And wrong, not least as I support the women's game by paying to watch it.

[Lang Spoon]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Reed John wrote:

@Etienne: I ignored them (women's rugby, netball etc.) because they aren't (as far as I know) part of the underachievement detailed in the opening post. As per my previous post.

As for the women footballers, they and their cheerleaders are talking a load of old shite about how upsetting it is to potentially miss the next Olympics. They have plenty of options, including

* concentrate on the cycle of World and Euro championships, now well-established like the mens' and where they are pretty successful

* wait for GB/ UK to break up, which may not be that long distant

* stop whining like spoilt children

@Reed: given that Scotland, Wales and NI have their own separate, long-established football administrations, many fans there share my preference for shunning any contrived new team which wouldn't represent us. See threads passim

In what way is it "contrived" given that it's Great Britain competes in every other Olympic event and how every other nation on earth is compelled to compete in international competitions? All national borders and the federations that are confined to them are "contrived." But the blazerati in the home countries get to control fiefdoms that their colleagues in other nations-within-nations don't get to. How is that more "natural"?

The Olympics gets far more TV coverage and, given that several of the best women's teams are not in Europe, is more important and prestigious competitions than the women's Euros. That is not the case with men's football. So you cannot argue that "Just do what the men do." Besides, the men don't need the money or the exposure they get from international competitions to make a living. Pretty much the only women able to make a living in football are the ones on the national teams.

So basically fans that think a GB team is damaging to the game are arguing for the maintenance of a tradition born in the 19th century, that until relatively recently only included men - indeed, for much of history, explicitly excluded women - and clearly hinders exposure and development of the women's game in Britain. And there's no evidence that having a GB team in 2012 damaged the aspirations of the four men's national sides or reason to think that having it in the Olympics, or in women's football but not men's, would be some kind of disaster.

It is the diehard traditionalists who are the whiney children, not those trying to help the women's game.

I'm no diehard traditionalist, but a male or female GB football team in another Olympics would almost definitely cause other FIFA nations to lobby for the amalgamation of the 'home' nations. Being a Scotland fan is shite, but it's my shite. Not qualifying for a tourney ever again can't be thrown away for the Olympics. It's not their fault that FIFA won't recognise other non sovereign states as football teams (though the 4 blazers should def lose their permanent places in the FIFA ruling cttee).

Blatter made a vague promise of a derogation for a 2012 team, it would be guaranteed another GB Olympic team would be pounced on. I'm obviously a nationalistic idiot but I'd rather have pins stick in my eyes than watch Eng plus Bale and Ramsey (Scott brown unused sub?) as my national team.

[Duncan Gardner]

And the Global Sporting Order Changes...

Lang Spoon wrote: I'm obviously a nationalistic idiot but I'd rather have pins stick in my eyes than watch Eng plus Bale and Ramsey (Scott brown unused sub?) as my national team

Mainly excellent points Spooner, although I should remind you that the Olympics is an under-age tournament and the Welsh managed to lose to San Marino in UEFA 2005 qualifying.

Michael McGovern would clearly be the goalkeeper on current form- Hart is about as convincing turning left as Owen Smith.