A joke of Gold, Sliver and Bronze proportions

The Crowd Says (39) | Page 1 of Comments

• Ian Whitchurch said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:09am | Report comment

  Oddly enough, this article shows exactly why the Crawford report is right.

  “Little Athletics, Swimming and Hockey are some of Australia’s most popular sports. If this is not proof of Grassroots sports and their popularity then I know nothing.

  Also, again at grassroots level, what are the principal sports at school sports days?”

  Right. Kids do athletics at school because it’s cheap. No or next to no kit, not a big training need, and anyone can do it and – even if they are crap – improve their personal bests. And then what happens ? They either get talent spotted and put into one of our Sports Institutes … or they stop.

  And does John Hunt talk about participation ? Nope. He whines it will “leave our aspiring Olympians who so desperately require funding due the lack of sponsorship high and dry”. Tough. Run a chook raffle, get sponsored by a law firm, or have a day job.

  Look, here’s the problem. This is from ’06

  http://www.athletics.com.au/news/news/2006/may/sports_funding_boost

  “Mr Bartels said that in the financial year 2006/2007 the Australian Government had committed an unprecedented amount—$204.549 million—to the Australian Sports Commission.

  Of this figure a total of $125.457 million was committed to high performance sport in 2006/07.”

  Me, I take that $125 mill, and I spend it on the grass roots. All of it. Including selling off the AIS for housing and office developments.

  Because I’m not interested in high performance. I’m interested in the low performers – the people that arent the high performers, and who never will be, but who can and should be running out on a paddock. If they are running to a stopwatch, or along a beach and then jumping in the water and onto a bike, great. I dont care.

  Because I think the reason we should be doing this isnt to win gold medals. It’s because sport improves health, builds communities, and builds civil society.

  Thats what we track, and it’s harder to do that taking the easy path and crowing about gold medals.

  Reply

• Clarko said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment

  Quite rightly Crawford says the answer is to invest in local fields and get sports programs going in schools.

  The best sports organisation to assist the government with their spending and investment across the nation is the AFL.

  All the nation’s playing fields should be oval to allow for all sports. No fields should be restricted to rectangle as this keeps AFL and cricket from using them.

  Auskick is a ready made program for schools that offers exercise without the risk of injury.

  It’s just a coincidence that the panel are all aligned to the AFL.

  Reply

  • mahony said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment

    AFL be dammed – these people allready have a monopoly on sports grounds in southern Australia. I like the ‘social inclusion’ aspect of thsi policy becasue of the codes this can only mean one thing – football, the world game.

    Reply
    • 

      Michael C said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment

      how do you claim a monopoly on sports grounds in Southern Australia??

      A rectangle field is prohibitive to footy and cricket,

      have not you noticed soccer and rugby being played at Docklands, and the MCG, and Subiaco etc etc.

      do you even know what ‘monopoly’ means???

      Reply
      • 

        Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment

        Spot on.

        Reply

      • Firestarter Bob said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment

        An oval field is prohibitive to rugby footy and soccer footy.

        The perimiter fence is useless and the canteen and sheds are miles away from the sidelines.

        Reply

        • Lazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment

          Ovals are good for Cricket and AFL but nothing else. That’s why Aussie Rules will never prosper overseas. They aren’t many grounds where you can actually play the game.

          In Europe they are getting rid of the athletic tracks as well. Football fans want to be closer to the action and Athletics can build their own stadiums.

          Reply
          • 

            Redb said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment

            There are enough countries that play cricket to keep MC and myself amused for years in Aussie Rules development discussion. Come 2059 we may struggle.
          • 

            Michael C said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment

            Nice attitude…….

            ….so, when’s soccer going to start building it’s own stadiums in Australia??

            btw – because of football and cricket – athletics tracks have always been merely temporary in Australian stadiums.

      • NUFCMVFC said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:22pm | Report comment

        Talking about Monopolies, like the one where the AFL buys up all the Oval Shaped National Stadiums, and interferes with Rectangular Stadium construction?

        Reply
        • 

          Redb said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment

          Evdience? The AFL has every right to push for better facilties in places like Perth and Adelade, stand in line.

          Reply
        • 

          Michael C said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment

          As with Redb -

          what stadiums have the AFL bought???

          Reply

• Andy said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:41am | Report comment

  “Why not put that money into grassroots especially the farcical NRL money?”

  Why not put the money distributed to AFL, soccer and union into supporting sports like hockey, athletics, swimming and sports people care about (NRL, cricket). See problem solved. lol.

  Reply

• Luke W said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:59am | Report comment

  I’d rather my taxpayer dollars go towards sports that I have the enjoyment of watching year in year out, rather than a sport on for two weeks every four years that I don’t really like anyway.

  Reply

• Luc said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment

  Sorry John. But I think the latest Crawford report is one of the most sensible things I’ve heard in a long time.

  Reply

• Lazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment

  We spent $200m on the “Where the bloody hell are you” advertising campaign to raise awareness and publicise our country. It was considered to be a failure since it didn’t result in any increase in tourism or other benefits but we can’t spend $200m on making sure we have a competitive Olympic team? Sport is pretty much the only vehicle that raises awareness about small nations like ours.

  After going through 20 years of bitterness and self loathing about their shambolic Olympic team, the Poms decided to do something about it and weren’t they happy with the result at Beijing? We can expect the same disappointment when we finish 28th on the medal table and everyone wonders why we’ve become so useless. This report has no bearing on reality. From a boat race in the 1980′s, welcoming home our Olympic heroes and the mass hysteria of the 2006 World Cup etc – Australians love international sporting success.

  The only people who don’t seem to like it are some people and fans within the AFL/NRL. International sporting success seems to fill them with fear since their sports don’t have any real international profile. We could have the best of both worlds but to say international sports and these huge Global sports events don’t matter is just nuts. Do we want to be a great sporting nation or just a sporting backwater?

  Reply

  • Kurt said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment

    Remember it’s an ‘extra’ $200m they’re asking for. No one is talking about cutting Olympic funding, just not increasing it to the same level as requested by Coates and redirecting it away from tiny niche sports. People need to get this fundamental point into their heads rather than buying the AOC spin that this all some sort of AFL plot.

    Reply

  • Kurt said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:40am | Report comment

    Oh, and you can tell it’s an AFL/NRL plot by the fact it recommends increased funding for sports they in no way compete with such as soccer, rugby, basketball, swimming & hockey, whilst recommending cuts for such arch-rivals for the hearts and minds of the public as gymnastics and archery.

    Reply

• Brian said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment

  Whats the point of putting any money into AFL. Firstly even if it had no funding we would still be the best in the world. Secondly last time I checked getting kids to play a sport where you can be seriously concussed from a knock to the head was not health for them. The Crawford report seems to have seriously missed the point that Swimming & Athletics are much better for you than AFL or Rugby.

  If these idiots did a report on transport would they conclude that less money should be spent on footpaths and redirected to roads as cars are more popular

  Reply

• Lazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment

  I’m glad some sections of the media have got it right.

  The will to win is part of the collective Australian psyche, which is why we wonder whether the Crawford report could possibly have been written here. Aspiring to be in the top five on the Olympics medal tally is not a “sensible target” or “an appropriate measure of Australian performance”. We profoundly disagree. Some of the issues the report raises — sport in education, ensuring sport is open to all and greater access for the public to under-used facilities — certainly need addressing, but Sports Minster Kate Ellis should think long and hard before accepting the recommendation that the extra $100 million a year the Australian Olympic Committee says it needs for elite sport should be spent elsewhere.

  Other nations have increased investment in elite sport, poached our coaches and copied our techniques. We need to keep up or risk sliding down the ladder. Whatever Mr Crawford might say, medals count in a nation passionate about sport.

  Reply

• Republican said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment

  I would like to see a pool in every govy school. I know, a pipe dream perhaps however I have noticed alot of kids who are not so good on their pins do really well in the H20 with a bit of encouragemnet and guidance.

  This potential should be fostered because many of these young people with an aversion to footy, aths etc would do very well indeed in a competitive or non competitive swimming environment. This would also derive the country significant health benefits.

  i believe many Qld schools have pools and this is a major factor in them excelling at the sport as well as having a climate condusive to H20 sports no doubt

  Is Swimming also under scrutiny from the Crawford Report – I thought not?

  Cheers

  Reply

• sportie said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment

  Luke W says “I’d rather my taxpayer dollars go towards sports that I have the enjoyment of watching year in year out, rather than a sport on for two weeks every four years that I don’t really like anyway.” RIGHT. So, you sit on your backside, watching male-dominated well-funded sports which are popular because the media doesn’t give us any other choice (especially when there is ownership of some of the teams/codes involved). I think you’ve missed the point. If we want to increase participation rates in sport for all sections of the community for the long-term interests of our society, then we need to support and offer a wide range of popular AND niche sports which will cater for the variety of talents and interests in our society. AND allow for the good ones to excel – not just in ‘Australian’ sports but in international sports – whether that’s archery, athletics, cycling, rowing, fencing, waterpolo or lawn bowls, to name a few. (All of those played in more countries around the world than AFL or NRL, by the way). And don’t even get me started on the plight of para and special olympians who also have the right to be fit and participate……

  Reply
  • 

    Freud of Football said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:13am | Report comment

    For starters, what is the point of complaining about male dominated sports? Sports are always going to be dominated by males, sports are built around a mixture of technical components and physical attributes, both areas where the male body excels over that of the gemale

    Further, I’m sorry but until there are female cricketers who are as good as men, I won’t watch the women’s game. I watch sport for entertainment, not for equal opportunity and as far as I know the only sport where women can compete with men on an even keel is deep-sea diving – not exactly a spectator sport.

    You are correct, there is more archery, athletics, cycling, rowing, fencing, water polo & lawn bowls played overseas than AFL and NRL, but the Crawford report was about spending inside Australia, not spending on sports so we might compete internationally.

    Invariably sportspeople are multi-talented, that is, a cricketer is a handy footballer, a basketballer perhaps a good rower. The opportunities DO exist for all of these “niche” sports but why should tax payers pick up the tab for such specialist sports?

    Cycling? It costs a fortune. It’s not the sort of thing the Average Joe can do, either you need a velodrome (which costs a fortune) or you need road racing areas. Then bikes (which are owned by individuals, not clubs etc.) cost another small fortune so who can afford it? Why throw thousands at a sport like that when for 1/50th of the price you can fit out an entire AFL/NRL juniour league with kits and equipment?

    Fencing is the same. It’s a rich-prick sport. Why should tax-payers fund it? Should they also fund fox shooting? Or does fencing get considered because it is an olympic sport but fox-hunting isn’t?

    Athletics is the dumbest example of all. It is something kids do, adults don’t generally compete in athletics events on a “casual” basis which is what a lot of football, rugby and cricket is – social teams, groups of players who are part of a collective every bit as much for the entertainment as the sport.

    If a kid is good at athletics, don’t worry, they will be found and will go all the way but what is the point of throwing hundreds of millions at these sports that small minorities enjoy?

    Reply

    • sportie said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment

      Lots of ignorant stereotypes and prejudices, Freud. I’ve done my homework, so let’s address some of your issues….

      1. You’d rather watch men playing sport, and say that men are always going to be better at it. One of the main points of the Crawford report – which I agree with – is that we need to increase participation rates in sport. If over half the population is women, then regardless of your viewing preferences, consideration needs to be given to addressing the need to get more women into sport, and keeping them there. Rugby league, for example, isn’t a realistic option. With registered players numbering approx 190,000 in Australia, less than 1% are women – and this isn’t likely to change given the masculine culture. Soccer and cricket have more women players, but there are still large drop-out rates for the same reason. So let’s look at ways that we can encourage women into sport – and one of these ways is focusing on some of the other niche sports where there is a more embracing attitude towards women. Waterpolo, netball and triathlon are examples.

      2. You talk about the costs of sports – and rightly so – but then show your ignorance with a comment like “fencing is a rich-prick sport”. Like many sports – such as rugby union – fencing was once a sport for the rich. But I’ve done a bit of homework, and will use fencing as an example. Most fencing clubs (self-funded) provide all equipment necessary for the grassroots club members – and anyone is welcome – they didn’t ask me for an income statement when I made inquiries!!!!. All it costs to play club each week is membership fees (just like rugby or cricket) and usually a club night entry fee. If you want your own equipment to play on a club basis – that is “groups of players who are part of a collective every bit as much for the entertainment as the sport”, then a Chinese-made sword and a gardening glove will give you change out of $100. Add in a Chinese-made helmet and you’re still paying less than a good pair of soccer boots. Last I checked, the basic equipment for cricket – bat, ball, box – wasn’t much cheaper!
      Yes, if you want to get serious, you can spend serious money -but that’s true for any sport – think $800 for a Speedo laser suit, $200plus for good sports shoes etc.

      3.”Cycling costs a fortune”. Yes, if you want to spend serious money you are totally right. But note that ABS statistics indicate that cycling for fitness and participation rates among our TOP 3 sports in Australia. And I’m sure many of those people are happy with a huffy from K-Mart. BUT – surveys again and again show that MORE people would cycle if there was appropriate money spent to make it a safer and more inclusive activity. Perhaps a few more criterium tracks in the suburbs just might be money well spent – for the grassroots as well as the elites.

      4.I agree with you that few adults participate in athletics. You state that they prefer social team sports such as footall, rugby and cricket. I would also agree that adults are more likely to participate for entertainment. Rugby, however, isn’t a choice example. Participation rates drop VERY sharply after the age of 25, and the percentage of adults playing after the age of 40 is exceedingly small.
      On the contrary, there are many of your apparently-despised niche sports which show significant uptakes by adults, and that the lifespan of these sports can be quite significant (‘lifestyle’ sports which the Crawford report says it wants to encourage). Cycling and triathlon are two obvious examples, but a quick look at the membership stats on other sports indicates that adult percentages are significant in sports like archery, waterpolo, fencing, lawn bowls, orienteering, golf…and the list goes on.

      5. Finally, why throw hundreds of millions to get a few elite athletes in niche sports across the line? Well, I’d prefer the money be more equitable and especially spent at grassroots level. But the answer lies especially in media coverage. If we want kids (and adults) in sport and for longer, then it helps if they are aware of their choices and that those choices are culturally validated. A lot of niche sports pick up where mainstream sports don’t – eg soccer caters to people with good foot skills etc, cricket suits those with good hand-eye etc – but then think, waterpolo suits those who are competent swimmers with good hand-eye, archery suits the ‘dead-eye dicks’, fencing is for those with quick reflexes and good core body strength, cycling builds great leg muscles etc etc….. BUT WHEN do we ever get to see these other sports in the media???? Except for the 4-yearly Olympics, we often don’t. So until our culture/media changes, it is the elites in these niche sports who provide the only publicity for that sport. And don’t tell me we don’t see these sports because cricket/rugby/soccer is better to watch – last time I checked, I couldn’t find cricket or rugby on US television, or Asian sports news, or….. it’s purely cultural, if we learn the rules and get to know the players, then plenty of sports can be exciting to watch.

      Reply