Olympics All Format Spoiler Thread

kingstongraham

I could see someone like rees-zammit excelling at 7s, but maybe not mako vunipola.

ddraver

I think it's gone a slightly different way and has almost become a sort of "Lightweight Rugby" like rowing so the people too small to play 15s (at high level) have something to play.

DeVlaeminck

That might help it as haven't there been safety concerns expressed about major nation's playing minnows at 15s

blazing_saddles

Pross said:

RichN95. said:

I know there are some sports which are perceived as 'British Commonwealth' sports by the IOC. Hockey almost got dropped after 2012 due to this (despite the finalists being Netherlands x2, Germany and Argentina). This would count against cricket

I would have thought rugby falls into that as well - possibly saved by France, Italy and Argentina.

Japan?
Then with 7s being the game in question, I'd be tempted to add the USA.

First.Aspect

If you want to exclude sports that don't have widespread international participation, or much of a chance of anyone outside of a small number of countries winning, you could get rid of diving, gymnastics, table tennis, badminton, rugby, equestrian events and shooting. I think rowing and track cycling are right on the line, but possibly not over the line.

RichN95.

Pross said:

RichN95. said:

I know there are some sports which are perceived as 'British Commonwealth' sports by the IOC. Hockey almost got dropped after 2012 due to this (despite the finalists being Netherlands x2, Germany and Argentina). This would count against cricket

I would have thought rugby falls into that as well - possibly saved by France, Italy and Argentina.

USA involvement always helps, too. They pay the bills after all.

Dorset_Boy

Sevens is growing quite fast globally and the world series gives exposure to up and coming nations as well as the established countries.
There's no real player cross over as the world series clashes with the 15 a side game at the top level.
That said, a few 7s players have successfully converted to the 15s game (eg Ruaridh McConnochie who was in the GB team in Rio and is now a top class winger / full back for Bath and went to the world cup with England).
A number of Kiwis played 7s before moving onto the All Blacks.

In reality sevens is a very different game to 15s.

jimmyjams

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Cricket World Cup had 10 countries. There was a qualifying tournament to decide who two of them would be.

The 2023 tournament has a qualifying process where 32 countries will be whittled down to 10 for the tournament. Not sure why it would be in the Olympics though.

(And the olympic rugby 7s was a good tournament - I've no idea whether a full strength 7s team would have players who play top level 15s, but i don't think there were any there in the men's.)

There's a much stronger case for rugby 7s in the Olympics than there is for cricket.

Go for it. I enjoyed the rugby at the Olympics, but if they were looking for sports that large population countries do who are not already well represented, I'd say cricket fits the bill better than rugby.

And definitely when they were looking to ditch a sport a few years back, wrestling was the one they tried, which I'd keep over rugby for sure.

That's the other angle isn't it - having cricket in would drive interest in the Olympics in countries like India which are not well represented at the moment.

Anyone hazard a guess how many medals India got? I was very surprised when I looked it up just now.

A sport being popular, i.e. lots of fans/followers, doesn't mean a lot of people actually do/play it. Sometimes it's the reverse. Which is why there is little chance that table tennis, badminton, hockey, volleyball, and basketball will be dropped from the Olympics - certain of which some posters have proposed dropping. After football, I believe they are most played sports worldwide.

However I think k-graham and bob-m both make a good point above re cricket perhaps helping increase interest in Olympic sports in countries like India. I'd suggest the twenty-overs version would be a good introduction in the Olympics, 16 teams in 4 pools, then knock-out.

jimmyjams

I wonder whether bowling should be in the Olympics, both lawn bowling (already in the Commonwealth Games), and also pin bowling (as was the case in 1988 in Korea, but only as an exhibition sport).
RichN95 stated above that there is a reluctance by the IOC to include Commonwealth sports, but lawn bowling also exists elsewhere, e.g. in the USA and about 10 European countries. It is also a cheap sport to start in, in terms of facilities and equipment (if one wants to encourage sport participation). And as curling is already in the Olympics, why not lawn bowling too.

As for pin bowling, there certainly is a case for it based on how many people play it around the world; the 10-pin version is known most everywhere, while in central Europe, a 9-pin version is additionally played, with narrower, convex-surfaced lanes, some of which are outdoors.
Or do some posters here lump pin bowling with darts, because you can play it and swill some beers at the same time?

RichN95.

Another thing to consider is that the IOC need to restrict the number of athletes involved in the games. So individual or pairs sports are viewed more favourably than events with a squad.

bobmcstuff

jimmyjams said:

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Cricket World Cup had 10 countries. There was a qualifying tournament to decide who two of them would be.

The 2023 tournament has a qualifying process where 32 countries will be whittled down to 10 for the tournament. Not sure why it would be in the Olympics though.

(And the olympic rugby 7s was a good tournament - I've no idea whether a full strength 7s team would have players who play top level 15s, but i don't think there were any there in the men's.)

There's a much stronger case for rugby 7s in the Olympics than there is for cricket.

Go for it. I enjoyed the rugby at the Olympics, but if they were looking for sports that large population countries do who are not already well represented, I'd say cricket fits the bill better than rugby.

And definitely when they were looking to ditch a sport a few years back, wrestling was the one they tried, which I'd keep over rugby for sure.

That's the other angle isn't it - having cricket in would drive interest in the Olympics in countries like India which are not well represented at the moment.

Anyone hazard a guess how many medals India got? I was very surprised when I looked it up just now.

A sport being popular, i.e. lots of fans/followers, doesn't mean a lot of people actually do/play it. Sometimes it's the reverse. Which is why there is little chance that table tennis, badminton, hockey, volleyball, and basketball will be dropped from the Olympics - certain of which some posters have proposed dropping. After football, I believe they are most played sports worldwide.

However I think k-graham and bob-m both make a good point above re cricket perhaps helping increase interest in Olympic sports in countries like India. I'd suggest the twenty-overs version would be a good introduction in the Olympics, 16 teams in 4 pools, then knock-out.

Cricket is very high participation in the subcontinent as well as being well followed... It's like kids playing football over here - they play cricket.

pblakeney

jimmyjams said:

Or do some posters here lump pin bowling with darts, because you can play it and swill some beers at the same time?

I'd be one of those.
Add on pool and snooker. What's next? Poker?

TheBigBean

RichN95. said:

Another thing to consider is that the IOC need to restrict the number of athletes involved in the games. So individual or pairs sports are viewed more favourably than events with a squad.

Aren't they already? A hockey player can win one medal whereas a swimmer can win 7.

kingstongraham

RichN95. said:

Another thing to consider is that the IOC need to restrict the number of athletes involved in the games. So individual or pairs sports are viewed more favourably than events with a squad.

Too many rowers really then.

No_Ta_Doctor

First.Aspect said:

If you want to exclude sports that don't have widespread international participation, or much of a chance of anyone outside of a small number of countries winning, you could get rid of diving, gymnastics, table tennis, badminton, rugby, equestrian events and shooting. I think rowing and track cycling are right on the line, but possibly not over the line.

A quick word on badminton... The top 25 men in the world features players from China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong (as well as Denmark!) That may not be many countries, but that's a huge chunk of population.

The women's list also includes such tiny countries as Russia, Germany, the US, Spain and Korea.

RichN95.

I don't understand why they have cut the track cycling program over the years. It's a big non-transferable facility that has to be made for just 12 medals. It doesn't seem cost effective to me.

flite

Am I the only person here who thinks the whole concept of the Olympics is no longer useful? Too big, too expensive for both hosting and participating countries, too much medal-counting, too political, causes too much controversy....
"Legacy of the games" never lives up to the promises.
For many sports it is not even their major event.
Most folks only follow one or two sports (this forum is not representative, I dare to suggest!)
I would much rather see individual sports have an annual or biennial all-disciplines world champs. It should allow more competitors from each country rather than some of the world's best being left at home. Could be held in the most suitable venues at the most suitable times of year.
Downside for less popular sports would be trying to get media coverage, but BBC coverage has been pretty useless this time. I didn't have time to watch either of the cycling road races live, and not prepared to sit through the highlights programme with no indication of if and when the cycling would be covered.

DeVlaeminck

flite said:

Am I the only person here who thinks the whole concept of the Olympics is no longer useful? Too big, too expensive for both hosting and participating countries, too much medal-counting, too political, causes too much controversy....
"Legacy of the games" never lives up to the promises.
For many sports it is not even their major event.
Most folks only follow one or two sports (this forum is not representative, I dare to suggest!)
I would much rather see individual sports have an annual or biennial all-disciplines world champs. It should allow more competitors from each country rather than some of the world's best being left at home. Could be held in the most suitable venues at the most suitable times of year.
Downside for less popular sports would be trying to get media coverage, but BBC coverage has been pretty useless this time. I didn't have time to watch either of the cycling road races live, and not prepared to sit through the highlights programme with no indication of if and when the cycling would be covered.

It's certainly become bloated.

I don't really see why it has to take place in one city rather than say one country. It would have made bigger all difference to me if events had been shared between different Japanese cities. Even in 2012 would it have list anything by being the England rather than London Olympics - I can only think of positives in terms of using existing facilities, existing accommodation, managing spectator numbers, building new facilities where they might be needed and so on.

Ok maybe it might be inconvenient for tourists looking to take in a range of sports but except for huge countries you'd imagine there would still be plenty available within a couple of hours train journey.

Ps excuse the typos my kids laugh at my one finger technique rather than the two thumbs favoured by the young.

DeVlaeminck

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Cricket World Cup had 10 countries. There was a qualifying tournament to decide who two of them would be.

The 2023 tournament has a qualifying process where 32 countries will be whittled down to 10 for the tournament. Not sure why it would be in the Olympics though.

(And the olympic rugby 7s was a good tournament - I've no idea whether a full strength 7s team would have players who play top level 15s, but i don't think there were any there in the men's.)

There's a much stronger case for rugby 7s in the Olympics than there is for cricket.

There used to be in the UK at one time apparently.

Derby County's old Baseball Ground was originally just that.

Bollicks that was meant as a reply to a post about baseball !

flite

It will be interesting to see how the all-disciples 2023 UCI World Champs works out.
Will the UCI do it again for 2024?
Will it be a formula other sports will take up?

kingstongraham

flite said:

It will be interesting to see how the all-disciples 2023 UCI World Champs works out.
Will the UCI do it again for 2024?
Will it be a formula other sports will take up?

Which sports are you thinking of?

Pross

RichN95. said:

I don't understand why they have cut the track cycling program over the years. It's a big non-transferable facility that has to be made for just 12 medals. It doesn't seem cost effective to me.

Yeah, it does seem odd and the new omnium format compresses the programme considerably. It seems to be over and done with very quickly compared to many other events, some of which drag on for the whole duration. You could say the same with skateboarding and BMX but those facilities will probably get a lot more community use (well, the skate park at least). I'm surprised the track centre doesn't double up to host some events but I guess it would push spectators too far from the action.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

RichN95. said:

Another thing to consider is that the IOC need to restrict the number of athletes involved in the games. So individual or pairs sports are viewed more favourably than events with a squad.

Too many rowers really then.

We send about half as many rowers as track and field athletes, but the second most of any sport, which surprised me.

If you reduced total number of athletes, you'd get rowers doubling up. I have never understood why, if Mo Farrah can double up in the 5 and 10k, a rower can't do so.

Possibly rowers would point to it being a sprint endurance sport, with multiple heats, but you could easily stretch the length of the regatta and tweak the format.

bobmcstuff

Netball going for 2032 inclusion apparently (Brisbane - I guess it is popular in Australia). That seems like a pretty niche sport too...

kingstongraham

If a rower couldn't do a pair or a four, the same rower could do an 8.

Bit different for a shot putter trying to switch to the long jump.

ddraver

bobmcstuff said:

Netball going for 2032 inclusion apparently (Brisbane - I guess it is popular in Australia). That seems like a pretty niche sport too...

Ah now, Netball WAS at London 2012 no..?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

If a rower couldn't do a pair or a four, the same rower could do an 8.

Bit different for a shot putter trying to switch to the long jump.

Too much of a stretch between sculling and sweep but some already do pair and VIII, or IV and VIII. Don't see why double/quad isn't doable as well.

Personally, I think they should scrap the VIII. Only 7 countries could muster an entry.

Over all events, there were about 75 countries (distorted by some Eddie the Eagle entries in the single - I would have had a shot at finishing second or third last in that competition) and 18 countries won medals.

Binning the VIII and adding a lightweight sweep event is an easy win.

kingstongraham

ddraver said:

bobmcstuff said:

Netball going for 2032 inclusion apparently (Brisbane - I guess it is popular in Australia). That seems like a pretty niche sport too...

Ah now, Netball WAS at London 2012 no..?

Nope.

There were no new sports for 2012 but women did boxing for the first time.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

flite said:

Am I the only person here who thinks the whole concept of the Olympics is no longer useful? Too big, too expensive for both hosting and participating countries, too much medal-counting, too political, causes too much controversy....
"Legacy of the games" never lives up to the promises.
For many sports it is not even their major event.
Most folks only follow one or two sports (this forum is not representative, I dare to suggest!)
I would much rather see individual sports have an annual or biennial all-disciplines world champs. It should allow more competitors from each country rather than some of the world's best being left at home. Could be held in the most suitable venues at the most suitable times of year.
Downside for less popular sports would be trying to get media coverage, but BBC coverage has been pretty useless this time. I didn't have time to watch either of the cycling road races live, and not prepared to sit through the highlights programme with no indication of if and when the cycling would be covered.

It's certainly become bloated.

I don't really see why it has to take place in one city rather than say one country. It would have made bigger all difference to me if events had been shared between different Japanese cities. Even in 2012 would it have list anything by being the England rather than London Olympics - I can only think of positives in terms of using existing facilities, existing accommodation, managing spectator numbers, building new facilities where they might be needed and so on.

Ok maybe it might be inconvenient for tourists looking to take in a range of sports but except for huge countries you'd imagine there would still be plenty available within a couple of hours train journey.

Ps excuse the typos my kids laugh at my one finger technique rather than the two thumbs favoured by the young.

Honestly I find the idea of the world’s best athletes convening once every four years at a different city so exciting.

The buzz of a city hosting it is mega. We really lost a lot of juice this time round because of rona

kingstongraham

London 2012 was awesome.

Brisbane are already doing it on the (relative) cheap.