The Sportsfreak Olympic Wrap – Part 1 of 6

So that’s it then – we all have to go back to speaking to the family until we hit Rio in 2016. But on the positive side, the channel surfing RSI is starting to settle down. So to help with the withdrawal symptoms, we’ve decided to wrap the games from a Sportsfreak perspective. We take a good look at the Good (Bolt), the Bad (Currie) and the Ugly (Watson), and rate each event on its merits. Or in some cases, lack thereof.

So without any further ado, here is Part 1 of 5:-

ARCHERY – 8/10

The Coverage:
Being one of the most user friendly events for the New Zealand viewer gave archery an opportunity to be seen in prime time, and it benefitted in a big way. One of those sports most people only ever watch at the Olympics – or Commonwealth Games at a stretch – the commentary on the whole was pretty good, and it ended up being a surprise package of the games. The coverage also included some unique camera shots, which allowed greater appreciation of trajectories and the effect of the wind on the arrows.

The Pros:
The competition was a quick-fire affair with no pissing around – get off to a slow start in your first match, and there’s a good chance you’re off home. Despite (or maybe because of) that fact, the competitors actually appeared to enjoy themselves. In addition, choosing Lords as the venue was a master stroke for two reasons. It showcased this great ground as more than a cricket venue, and it demonstrated that an Olympic city doesn’t have to purpose build venues for each and every sport (take note Rio). And then there’s Mexico’s Silver medallist Aida Roman, who we kindly picture above.

The Cons:
The Ground Announcer at Lords, who sounded like he had been dragged out of a United States MOR radio station from 1976. It is quite feasible that he is the smug lovechild of boxing announcer Michael Buffer and Principal Seymour Skinner from The Simpsons.

ATHLETICS – 9/10

The Coverage:
The Jewel in the Olympic Crown yet again. Another event to benefit from user friendly viewing times from a NZ perspective, we were able to watch the magnificent Usain Bolt over our Weetbix, Val Adams over our Rice Bubbles, or Nick Willis over our cornflakes. As a bonus, the 8pm starts each evening meant that the first session could be watched without losing out on too much sleep.

The Pros:
There are far too many to mention, although you really can’t go past Usain Bolt. He is a genuine superstar of world sport, and one of the few who can combine pure athletic ability with some showboating without coming across as a complete tosser. The new false start rule appears harsh on the surface, yet its implementation demonstration as to just how often this tactic was previously used at the top level. Paraguayan javelin thrower Leryn Franco was pretty special too, despite finishing 34th – run the name through Google, and you’ll get the picture.

The Cons:
Earlier this week, we gave our point of view on Val Adams securing silver, and the subsequent fallout from this event has confirmed Dave Currie as the incompetent fool we always suspected he was. His “the buck stops with me” comment was followed up with the buck being passed on to someone else in record time. From all accounts we have not heard the last of this grubby affair, but hopefully we have heard the last of Currie, who now thankfully steps down from his role. It appears fashionable to bag Mark Watson’s commentary at the moment, and granted, it’s never an easy job. But we simply can’t let him off the hook here – awful at previous events, and even worse in London. Riddled with silly clichés, his muddling through every event mentioned the top two inches and the fact that only 10% of athletes perform PBs at the Olympics. This wouldn’t have been so bad if he was able to recognise the occasional athlete, but even that proved difficult. The constant repetition was grating, and if you thought the commentary on his training runs with Kim Smith was self-indulgent bollocks, Hamish Carter must have wondered why he was even asked to do expert comments in the Triathlon. And while we’re at it, Sir John Walker and Carl Lewis can just shut up.

BADMINTON – 5/10

The Coverage:
Unlike the first two disciplines, the viewing times were not as helpful, with most matches held in the early hours so it did suffer as a result. However, there were no real complaints over the commentary, and the venue looked pretty good on TV.

The Pros:
The speed of the game. It goes without saying that there are some pretty impressive reflexes on show, and a good match can make for pretty good viewing. One of those sports you may not necessarily make a note to watch out for, but not a bad time filler when channel surfing in the early hours.

The Cons:
The drama at the start of the tournament, where eight players were sent home, robbed the tournament of real star power. Watching two teams trying to lose to each other was farcical, and not a good look for the sport at all – and it was made worse when it all looked so blatant. Yet the biggest culprits here were the organisers. If you have a competition where four distinct pairs throw matches, it’s a pretty good sign of a deeply flawed format. In future Badminton may want to look at the Archery model, and forego pool play altogether.

BASKETBALL – 3/10

The Coverage:
Bog standard stuff really. I can’t honestly say I tuned in long enough to get a feel for the commentary, but looked ok as a TV event.

The Pros:
Plenty of star power on show, however………

The Cons:
As one of the most widely played sports across the globe, it has a good case for continued inclusion. However, once the professional ethos was embraced, there was really only likely to be one winner. Watching the rest of the teams play for silver hardly makes for scintillating viewing.

BEACH VOLLEYBALL – 0/10

The Coverage:
No idea.

The Pros:
Nil.

The Cons:
Any sport that relies solely on eye candy for exposure is not worth the effort. It is a bastardised version of a genuinely good sport, and should be removed from the games immediately. Much like Rugby Sevens in fact.

BOXING – 7/10
The Coverage:
As good as ever, this is one of the pivotal Olympic sports. The camera work was very good, and the commentary was on the money. The only down side was the entrance into the ring from the dressing room – the lurid lighting was unnecessary, and made the entrance way look like a scene from the poor man’s Wipeout.

The Pros:
One of the surprises of the games was the women’s boxing – for its first appearance at this level, the standard was surprisingly high, despite the original apprehension. And the back story on 17 year old (you heard me) middleweight Gold Medallist Claressa Shields was scary and inspirational at the same time. The spread of medals over various countries was interesting too – in the 10 men’s finals, the 20 competitors represented 13 different countries.

The Cons:
Diabolical officiating is a blight on boxing at every level, and the Olympics always throw up some shockers. The fact that at least one referee was given the arse for sheer incompetence is not a good look. And where have all the Cubans gone?