The Sportsfreak Olympic Wrap – Part 5 of 6

SHOOTING – 2/10
The Coverage:
Not exactly an excitement machine, this event struggles to capture the imagination. As for the commentary, there’s not a lot for them to say really.

The Pros:
Not many at all. The trap shooting is worth a look, with the “shoot off” a (very) minor highlight.

The Cons:
The theory behind archery and shooting is the same. But take away the distance and the wind factor, and you are left with very few variables– and that means anything other than a complete shocker ends up as a very competitive score in shooting. Also unlike archery is the fact that there is about 10 times the number of medals available. Archery provides plenty of slow motion camera options to give an appreciation on the art. Shooting does not, and suffers for it. To summarise, it’s as boring as batshit.

SWIMMING – 6/10
The Coverage:
Stock standard pool coverage, but done well. John McBeth and Jan Cameron were our chosen ones in the commentary box, and Cameron went down like a cup of cold sick with most people for some reason (was there nepotism at play at Sky?). For whatever reason, swimming wasn’t quite the raving success it usually is at the Games – see the Cons for our reason why.

The Pros:
Michael Phelps – an incredible record breaking achievement, and from all accounts a top dude to boot. Watching the all-we-need-to-do-is-turn-up-and-we’ll-win mentality from some quarters in the Australian camp didn’t quite come off.

The Cons:
Michael Phelps. Well not so much Phelps the person, but he is the perfect example of why there are too many medals on offer. There is now 34 swimming Gold medals handed out at the Olympics, and that is far, far too many. Come the end of the competition, I’d had enough. Oh, and – Lauren Boyle aside – the NZ team were up to their usual standard (i.e. bloody awful). We should be a lot better.

SYNCHRONISED SWIMMING – 2/10
The Coverage:
Like water polo, the underwater footage has been a real boon for this sport – but how you are supposed to commentate on it I am buggered if I know.

The Pros:
The fitness required for this event must be phenomenal, not to mention the lung capacity, and the ability to, errr, synchronise. But that doesn’t mean it’s worthy of inclusion here.

The Cons:
“I know – we’ll invent a sport that is effectively underwater ballet, where the competitors must apply really silly make up and nose plugs. Shall we ask the Olympics to include it?” Please – for the love of God – no. Not under any circumstances.

TABLE TENNIS – 2/10
The Coverage:
Simple to cover, impossible to commentate.

The Pros:
It is a game requiring amazing reflexes, speed and guile. To the viewer, there’s not a lot else on offer.

The Cons:
I know a few people who tried to tell me that Table Tennis was amazing to watch at the Olympics. I watched for a few minutes and remain 100% un-amazed.

TAEKWONDO – 2/10
The Coverage:
Exactly the same as Judo.

The Pros:
Exactly the same as Judo.

The Cons:
Exactly the same as Judo.

TENNIS – 2/10
The Coverage:
Same as you would expect at Wimbledon (funnily enough), with Keith Quinn in the commentary box. Hang on a second – did you say Keith Quinn???

The Pros:
The Pros were all there, and that’s good enough to chuck it out of the games.

The Cons:
Those horrible Williams sisters winning, Andy Murray winning, Marina Erakovich under-performing and the very thought that tennis is even at the Olympics. It’s a silly idea and must be removed immediately. It won’t be.