Exactly. Thank you.

I’ve been a subscriber to Foxtel/its sports package since it was financially viable for me to do so – ten years, maybe more – but a little piece of me dies whenever a sport migrates off FTA and onto cable. It does seem like a backward step for that particular sport. Not that in this case anyone ‘decided’ to take that backward step, as the financial realities of the Channel Ten situation described in the article points to. That’s just ‘the market’ for you…

But can F1 survive in Australia? Well, I would hazard a guess that Fox didn’t just shrug its shoulders and hope that taking on the Sky programming (which is utterly brilliant by the way. Sorry Ten, but it was such a joy to get the UK coverage a few years ago) would be worthwhile. Surely there’s a rusted-on element, who pays for the privilege, that means we get enough coverage to satisfy a critical mass of people (and vice-versa).

The Ricciardo effect is an interesting one. I don’t have figures to hand but presumably viewership of F1 was healthy enough in the pre-2002 (i.e. Webber) era to warrant Channels Nine and Ten broadcasting it. I know that’s half a generation ago but it does suggest that there at least has been that critical mass of fans/viewers of F1 in Australia before Aussie drivers were at the pointy end.

And as to it surviving in a post-FTA world…well that’s just where the whole world is going isn’t it? Wouldn’t surprise me if, given all the behind-the-scenes stuff F1 has to offer (e.g. technical, just for starters), which lends itself beautifully to OTT and AR, it will actually thrive. Bring it all on, I say.

If, as you say, the racing is always primary – an eminently debatable point of itself (e.g. why aren’t we all just following Indycar, given how close and open that racing always is?) – then Mercedes moving to FE might ironically aid the ongoing survival of F1….there might actually be other winners in F1 for a change! That would certainly make it more interesting.

In short, I think there’s plenty of room for both. Meet you back here in 10 years time and see how we’ve gone.

Interesting.

Formula E is most definitely a timely and challenging innovation – just like Tesla – but crucially, as the article mentions, it is a construct of the FIA itself. Who also oversee F1. So any challenge of FE to F1 is naturally moderated by the governing body. Which puts the FIA in the convenient position of being able to back/nurture whichever the most appropriate formula to take into the future is. And I would go so far as to say that 66 years of history, of exhibiting the skills of the best drivers on the planet, has much to commend it.

Interesting point in an earlier comment about the lack of noise making FE suitable for inner city circuits. That hadn’t occurred to me but makes perfect sense. That said, given the overwhelming objection of F1 fans to the neutering of the noise coming out of the tailpipes of F1 cars as a consequence of the current regulations, perhaps the noise is a key component of any show. Again, lending itself to the survival of Formula 1.

It all smells a bit of the 2 litre vs V8 ‘war’ of the late ’90’s in Australia and people power, not technology, won out there. As much as electric road cars are clearly the way of the future today, while ever F1 attracts the best talent in the world, it will remain the premier motor sport category in the world. And as long as it remains vaguely technologically relevant – as it very much does today – then it will survive.

Oh wow, you’re taking me back. The parade…..brekkie with the stars…do they still do a half decent concert with some middle to upper tier Aussie rockers at the oval on Saturday night?
And I reckon I’ve still got a few Castrol Grid cards, that I picked up at (the) Maccas on Saturday on my way to said concert.
Such are the memories, along with everything that goes with camping at the top of The Hill (let me guess, Gricey doesn’t do his barbie up there anymore?), in the late ’80’s and into the ’90’s.

There’s no harm in being wistful or nostalgic, and look I haven’t been back in 20 years to see what it’s like these days, but change is somewhat inevitable across the years. I mean, I still remember when you could walk through the paddock at Amaroo back in the day, brushing shoulders with Bondy; making way for Brocky coming down the hill to the pits on the back of a moped. Well, that’s changed somewhat now, hasn’t it…you’d be walking through someone’s rather stately back yard there now.

I must say I hardly watch any of the Touring Cars these days, but I’ll still be glued to Bathurst tomorrow….and diving straight into the Japanese GP immediately after! Load me up.

Completely agree with the author. The sanctity of the ref (or any other adjudicator) is paramount.
The less any sport can be like soccer/football in that regard, the better, especially with respect to an Australian audience.

Rusty might be better than White but I am still a long way off mourning his impending absence from my F1 coverage. Indeed it is most welcome. I feel awful saying this about our 1980 World Drivers Champion, but Rusty and AJ added very, very little to the coverage…unless you didn’t have access to the internet, in which case that opening hour was probably rather helpful.

As a motor racing fan who happens to have Foxtel, I am indeed happy as a pig in you-know-what.
The Channel 10 coverage, while probably as good as can be expected in the circumstances, is rather ordinary and I find myself regularly yelling at Rusty to shut up and flick over to the Sky commentary. I’m salivating at the prospect of getting the complete Sky package (bring those Brundle grid walks on!).

That said, as a sports fan, I am deeply concerned at sports coverage generally being shunted into niche status (the numbers around Foxsports penetration have been well documented elsewhere) and this is another concerning development. Given Formula 1 is joining an already long list of sports in Australia following this model , it’s not even the thin end of the wedge, but very much the thicker end of it.

Methinks the tide has long turned….it will be interesting to see if this brinkmanship being played out between Fox Sports and the sports viewing public of Australia will play out in the manner the former clearly hopes.

Dan, there’s such a fine line between ‘the game’ and the media coverage around it. Your point is not altogether irrelevant.
You talk about concern “that the game is becoming more about media personalities, their egos, conflicts and clashing with other high-profile members of the media.”. Well, yes, but isn’t that just that the inevitability of footy (irrespective of code) becoming more commercial? Or at the very least, cable TV networks seeking out content for their 24 hour sports channels? That is the nature of the beast. And therefore the expectation on/of the player.
It’d be great if footy coverage was confined to footy itself, but there are plenty of even the most die-hard supporters who are still interested in what I will euphemistically call ‘the periphery’. It’s hard, if idealistic, to draw the line, and I don’t pretend to have the solution.

Disclaimer: I host ‘More Than Just a Game’ on ABC Grandstand Digital: mtjag.com

Amen to that.

Which is, as far as I can tell, what Lance is on about when he says “everyone knows who won those seven tours”. That is, ‘we were all on the juice, so we had a level (albeit artificially heightened) playing field and on that field, I won.’ Compelling logic, but as Derryn states succinctly below, “Just because it was a level playing field does not make it right.”

Colin, your statement about “all the other dopers getting off scott free” is almost worth dismissing out of hand, but in case you sincerely believe that, can I suggest you have a quick chat with Matt White. He had a nice little place in the contemporary cycling world, then having been named, put his hand up and then pretty much got pulled from whatever involvement in cycling he had. I applaud him from what he did and I applaud the action that was taken. He did not get off anything remotely like scott free. And anyways, if your sport’s seven time champion is rotten, I think ‘the world’ is entitled to start there.

“Is Robbie Deans the real problem?”

In short, yes.

Andy, not quite. It’s a subtle but very significant distinction. In theory the athlete from some backwater country that struggled to register a qualifying time still has the chance to win at the Olympics, however improbable that might be. But if we give an athlete a mandated ZERO chance, I am inclined to question the worth of that. If you don’t mandate that, then you go back to the possibility of technological advancement getting us into the sticky situation I suggest.

Oscar, enjoy the Paralympics.

Some interesting thoughts here.
To distill it down to its essence, the point I am trying to make in the article is that we need to ensure that we don’t get distracted by the undoubtedly heart-warming humanity of a disabled athlete competing at the Olympics. The device that allows him to compete is ‘inevitably’ – and I use that word quite deliberately, knowing that pretty much anything ever produced throughout civilisation that has proven useful in some way shape or form is, spurred on by nothing more than human nature, the subject of continuous improvement – going to become a better and better device. And if you allow that not unreasonable possibility then it is also perfectly feasible that that rate of development will occur at a greater rate than the development of the sprinting capability of the best human body. Perhaps next year, perhaps next century, but that is not the point. We need to guard against encouraging the possibility of such an absurd scenario ever happening at all.

To the proponents of regulating these blades in such a way that will stymie their natural technical development, consider this: if you allow Pistorius – or anyone else for that matter – to run in blades that are definitively NOT good enough for him to win with, ie he has NO chance of winning….then what the hell is he doing there?

Stand-alone race….you read my mind. As someone who these days just tunes into Bathurst each year and that’s it – not sure what went wrong there, I used to conduct my social calendar around the tin-tops 15 years ago – I really don’t give a fig for the championship. And I don’t want a driver’s pursuit of the greatest prize in Australian motorsport, winning Bathurst, to be compromised by championship considerations. The series is like the Premier League, Bathurst the FA Cup.

The reference by Sheeks to an old boss is apt. The increased focus of stats in the game is symptomatic of sport becoming a business. In doing so it has taken on some of the traits of business. You can even hear it in the talk of coaches and players, who are regularly “moving forward” (a vacuous phrase far better left to the corporate world) and even referring to a player’s KPIs.
One of the pervasive catch-cries in the halls of business management is: ‘If you can measure it, you can manage it’. Stats are the measurement, giving the coach a tool to manage.

BTW Bon, I am likewise a die-hard Swans supporter and I too was flabbergasted about Judd’s Norm Smith. But I watched a replay of ’05 grannie before driving down to the MCG for the 2012 version and I tell you what, Juddy is hard to argue with.

Awesome pic….I wonder if Marlboro tipped in a few bucks for the paint scheme??

Love your shopping trolley analogy Mark, so apt and so true! Is it just me or are there other people out there who try and apex the corner as they come out of each aisle….