Is Australian sport on a steep decline?

Australian sport is not in decline, per se. On the contrary. To debate this question, we need to distinguish between the game itself - and television entertainments' end user's version of it The latter is 'manufactured'in the studios and narrowcast with time delays. The finished product is a hybrid of special effects, verve noise, flicker-flashbacks - and the insertion of personalities ad nauseum throughout the game. It also creates player skites, eglomaniac crowd behaviour and some attention seeking activities that have cost lives. But It has playback - and that wonderful faciliity has not only enhanced the popularity of sport, it has been adopted as an intergral necessity in determining the very outcome of some matches. Archivial value is unestimable. But if you are out there at grass root level, where we grow the various games we call sport, then there's a different yardstick by which we have to measure decline or incline. We have a department of statistics - and you would be suprised to read which sports exceeed others in Australia in terms of numbers of players registered. But there's another level of viewpoint to be taken into consideration in this - our religion! That's at the coal face, where the mum's wash the geurnsies and transport the little ones to and from battle - and console the losers. The dads who put in the hours after work to coach at all grades. The men and women who manage - and finance - the teams which produce the professionals - which TV photographs and promotes our champions of whom we are so proud. So there it is. Who decides whether or not Australian sport is in decline?

Until recently, most English couldn't give two hoots about their rugby team and how it performed...I think the perception of the English team in England has changed a lot since then, and is better off for it. That is cetainly my experience having been there a few times since 2003. In 2007, when the Poms knocked us off, I can recall that Lucas Neill was playing for Westham, and the rugby game scoreline was flashed on the screen at the ground he was playing at and the crowd started jeering Lucas Neill because he was Australian. I agree with Dan, we're used to beating the Poms a lot more in rugby historically, however this has not been the case over the past few years, NZ and South Africa have traditionally had the wood on us. Whenever I talk to Poms about when we beat em 3-1, the impression I got is that they couldnt care less - there is no futbol rivalry between us. Having said said, Sven Goren Eriksson, said that had he known of the sporting rivalry between England and Oz (well the rivalry in rugby and cricket) he might not have agreed to the game!

Where's our Pip and MikeyC writing to tell us that we will always be champions of the world at Footy and God is in his heavan and all is right with the universe. We are also world champions at Sphairee, Trugo and probably Beach Cricket as well. The problem is not any lack of sporting prowess that's the problem, it's the hubris of our sports administrators of our major sports that lets us down.

Looking on from the UK, OZ sport is not in decline and still sets the standards that other countries try to achieve. One of the reasons GB had such a successful Olympics was that they employed a number of OZ coaches and learnt alot from OZ about training, focussing on elite sportsman and not spreading the funding too wide.It is not only in Olympic sport that OZ has an impact, look at the number of OZ players and coaches in cricket, rugby union and league in the UK. Sport is also becoming more competitive and as other countries appreciate the value of sport not for the well being of the population but also for the country's prestige so the winners will come from a broader spectrum. In spite of that thank god there is healthy rivally between OZ and the UK, it adds spice on a number of fronts. It is good for both countries and helps to raise standards across the board. By the way, Andy Murray is a Brit and a Scot iut he also a realist, if he wants to make loads of money he needs support from the Welsh, English and N.Irish to achieve the earnings he wants. As Chris Hoy has discovered with his 3 golds nuturing a wider public outside Scotland is good for his earnings, yet still holding onto his obvious Scotiish background.

Three parts of a large jigsaw puzzle. 1.Australians have attitude.They have a crack. That sometimes gets them over the line against more skilled opponents.If Australia punches above its weight its as much about the state of mind as it it the body. 2.Australia is prepared to buy talent that bolsters the illusion of sporting success.Personally I feel uncomfortable about it because I honestly dont care about the bloody medal count,but think back to the Sydney Olympics and try to remember the 'new' Australians introduced in sometimes obscure sports like weightlifting or pole vaulting, (there are probably others),for the sole purpose of feigning success in the medal count. Frankly I cant think of anything more contrary to the Australian sporting ethos.But I am kidding myself. 3. Australians support the underdog because they cant loose.Its a cop out.Underdog, not supposed to win,doesnt, who cares.Underdog wins,you beauty ,lets get up the tall poppy.Australians do not really appreciate what it takes to be true champion.The work,the emotional stress.Its so much more difficult to appreciate high standards than it is to hope the tall poppy fails.Supporting the underdog is often portrayed as a balanced Australian attitude,making sure people 'aren't up themselves'.But its a weakness that's easily exploited because its denies the necessary pursuit of excellence to stay a champion. 4.Giving your absolute best is not good enough if you are not number one.Think Leyton Hewitt.Regardless of his input he is constantly dammed with faint praise because anything short of number one to four is considered a failure. If the benchmark was the bank balance,Mr Hewitt is a Hall of Famer. So long as winning for the sake of winning is the mantra ,Australians will often be on a steep decline. There are however people that truly love the contest more than the result,that see the beauty in a new breed of young men coming to the fore and strutting their stuff ,like Soth Africa recently did in the Test matches.God it was good cricket. Australia lost.Who cares.The sport was fantastic.Rugby is the same.Its a insider game for the well initiated.People can watch what might be described as a dreary dour battle and relish the contest. Years ago it took a Test team six weeks to travel to the UK on a ship .These days they play three tests in the time it took to travel half way around the globe.And my point is?,who cares anymore.Whats the old saying,familiarity breeds contempt ,and then contempt becomes yuk.

Lazza, "If Cricket is your game then fair enough but India is our rival not England. If you prefer Rugby then it’s the Kiwis." On the latter point I'm not sure if everyone would agree with you... true we love to beat the kiwis in Rugby, but over the past 100 years it's been a highly lopsided affair in fovour of the All Blacks, so it's not the most even rivalry and Aussies general have a level of respect for the All Blacks underneath any animosity they harbor outwardly. With England in Rugby it's far more tit-for-tat in terms of results and there isn't an awful lot of love lost in any match. As a side note though, you may not consider England our rival in Cricket now, but they did give all sorts of honours to the 2005 Ashes winning cricket side the likes of which I haven't seen since the England rugby team won the RWC and half of them were bloody knighted! And then of course historically there have been times in which the Cricket rivalry has been out-right disdain for one another like in the body-line series when Australians and Brits started boycotting eachother's products. It may have cooled somewhat in recent times, but to say England didn't care for 100 years is a bit rich.

Many have spoken about money but this article just blew me away from the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/04/sky-premier-league-coverage-deal I have cut out most of the article but how can anyone first justify this and second what hope does it give others Premier League clubs were last night breathing a sigh of relief after BSkyB agreed to pay a figure believed to be in excess of £1bn to retain the live television rights to the majority of the biggest matches from 2010 until 2013. .......... The Premier League chief executive, Richard Scudamore, has spoken optimistically about the prospect of matching the total of £2.7bn brought in under the current deal, which represented an increase of 70% on the previous one, despite the global economic slump.

I think the answer is fairly simple when we ruled the tennis world,.. really of a handful of countries played it well... IMO there are only three truly international sports, being Boxing, Running & Football as each of these has number, relatively simple rules, cheap, and played the world over. Once others start playing games where we only played with a handful then we compete on an international stage and its not so easy. Forgetmenot summed it up reasonably well when he said other countries are beginning to put more money into sport. ... But must also add that football is on the way up to 28 now I suspect over the next few years to crack the top twenty. Sheek our sportsman will come back but they will face nations spending money and thats takes some of the cyclical out of it. On the cricket comments above, I worked in NZ for just over 3 years in the mid 80's and the NZER's don't take cricket anywhere as serious as we do. In NZ it's rugby first, daylight second, moonlight third, RL fourth , netball fifth yachting sixth, Football seventh. May have changed a bit since but not all that much.

These things are cyclical - some sports go down, some sports come up. Sometimes, many sports are up, or they're down. In the 1970s, our Olympic sports sucked. But we were kings at cricket. Our Kangaroos were the best (okay, no big deal there) & the Wallabies were improving. We has just competed in our first FIFA world cup. We Aussies love to punch above our weight, so the saying goes. Or do we love being big fish in small ponds????? Australian Football has no serious international profile, while cricket, rugby league & swimming are not competed seriously by many nations. Rugby union is half serious. So perhaps we talk ourselves up a tad too much sometimes. If we want serious international recognition, we're going to have to develop a top 10 Socceroos team, win 3 plus gold medals consistently in athletics & get our tennis mojo back. And that's for starters.

"To be brutaly honest, most of our sporting success was in Commonwealth sports. A tiny pool of Nations with the other 190 countries not interested." Have to agree with Lazza on that one. Of truly globalized sports, indexed football rankings go to roughly 204, tennis is impressive too. On the other hand, cricket goes to 10, League to a piddly amount too. Union is breaking the commonwealth mould, steadily bulking up it's numbers. So what REALLY carries more weight - a FIFA ranking of 29th (out of 204)? Or an ICC test or ODI ranking of 1st or 2nd (out of 10)? Sure India, a nation of 1 billion+, is cricket's chestnut. How many teams can it put on the park though? One. Still, I suppose it's kind of cute and cosy having commonwealth rivalries. The media loves them. They have been over-emphasised, though.

Lazza That's the thing is that cricket and rugby in Australia is not a upper class sports. In fact part of the reason why Australia is traditionally good at those sports + tennis and even golf. Is that those sports are not seen as some sort of bourgeois upper class sport like they do in other countries. At best tennis and golf are middle class games. That's why there is a one sided rivalry in cricket and rugby that's not associated with a single class in Australia vs England where there is connatations of upper class (also that's add to the rivalry. australia likes to beat perceived aristocrat. eg jardine) In any case i don't think it's that one sided as hoy pointed out especially the ome given to the english cricketers. I'm quite sure there are some countries England prefer losing to then Australian.

Please don't think I was talking up the great rivalry between us and England at soccer. Of course, apart from our love of beating England at everything and anything, England don't even recognise our soccer team. Until we beat them in the friendly anyway. No, no, I wasn't saying there was a rivalry with Soccer. I mean with everything Lazza. I love beating England at anything. England will always be our rival I think. Why else would we care so much to beat them at Olympic medals? Why did England players get immediate knighthoods or whatever, and land and title in Scotland (joking) for winning the ashes back in 05 if there wasn't much of a rivalry there? Why do I get worked up, everytime I think of Johnny kicking that field goal? All above is off topic anyway, but I fear lean times ahead for us, and maybe a few more knighthoods coming up for some pommy lads.

Lazza Whilst I agree that Japan could become our closest rival due to our being part of the AFC ,China if they ever get their football act together could be greater rivals. Given the global nature of Football I dont see the intense rivalry of England v Scotland or Netherlands v Germany eventuating. . Why?. Because there can be by getting to the WC finals several small rivalries. The revenge against Italy for one. England as mentioned. Beat the might of Football monoliths Brazil & Argentina & the Football machine Germany. In Asia even revenge on Iran for 1997 & so on. So many combinations to settle on one traditional rivalry. Better in my opinion to be the "Football maverick" from Down under feared as a consistent member of the top 20 FIFA nations.

Dasilva, I understand that a lot of traditional sports fans love to beat England for various reason but I’m pretty sure most don’t truly understand the English sporting landscape very well. Cricket and Rugby are traditional upper class sports in England. How does that really relate to a classless society like us? When we beat them in those sports most of the country just yawns. If we knock them out of the World Cup then they would notice!

Towser, I suspect you're right and it's one of the biggest ironies in Australian sport. We love to beat the Poms but for a hundred odd years we’ve rejected the only sport where we could have a proper rivalry. I work with two Englishmen and neither is interested in Cricket or Rugby. One has been back twice to watch his beloved Reading in the EPL before they got relegated. Japan is a more likely Football rival but how beautiful would it be if we did meet England in the World Cup.

I don't think you can dismissed the rivalry with England even if it is one sided. It's part of national identity. Australia was considered as another English colony in the past, a sort of subservient to the mother nation. i believe that sports and the idea of the importance of australia beating England was traditionally use to assert our independence and a national identity that is separate to england.(I could be talking out of my arse here). Maybe that's not so relevant in todays context but it can't be dismiss just because England doesn't feel the same way.

Lazza There will not be a football rivalry with England. That time has past. If my family are any indication most Poms still haven't twigged that were a decent footballing nation nowadays. Yes the friendly 3-1 result,but thats just it 'Friendly" can be twisted to suit the argument. The only chance of any real rivalry between Australia & England plus bragging rights(& it will only be a one off or one offs )is if we meet in the World Cup.

Hoy, C’mon mate, you can’t be serious. Sporting rivalries are about passion and there’s no passion in one-sided rivalries. I suspect most Australians just don’t understand the sporting culture in England. If Cricket is your game then fair enough but India is our rival not England. If you prefer Rugby then it’s the Kiwis. Having a rivalry with England in Football will be difficult since we are on opposite sides of the globe and won’t meet in any competitive game very often. A Football rivalry with Japan seems the most likely.

Lazza "We’ve had a hundred year rivalry with a country that doesn’t care!" Your comment is accurate. When I migrated I never had an inbuilt animosity or rivalry with Australia in any sport. That could be because as you rightly state(because I was brought up on Football) that I considered Germany as arch-rivals closely followed by any other European country if England played them at Football. The Annual British home championship was also high on the sporting agenda ,particularly with Scotland as a major rival.. Cricket was there "The Ashes" recognised as a long standing traditional contest but as far as passion goes it didn't rate& certainly compared with the 'Feeling" I encountered by Australians when I arrived & settled which was to me 'Mysterious' because it was a bizarre one way street. Let me add though this "myth rivalry" is perpetuated by some Poms who migrate, who take sides in order to feel its the thing to do in Australia.

I am sure we have a male tennis player in the top Hundred. What is Hewitt these days? It is a worrying trend there is no doubt. I think we have rested on our laurels a little bit recently, and will continue to do so, because we have become a lax society here. The cricket is prime example. There are numerous rants going on about the state of our team at the moment. I think it is a fairly drastic fall from grace. Yet the people behind the game seem to keep telling us there is nothing to panic about. All we need is "self belief". Bullshit. We need hard nosed decisions and harder nosed players to step up. Lazza, our soccer team is on the up. Whether that is multicultural or just the fact that people are growing more exposed to the sport is a matter for debate. But I don't care who England hate. We hate them. That rivalry has been going for the whole time recent Australia has existed. Even if it is one sided. I think something that seems to shine through in these discussions about Australia is we seem to be a little bleeding heart. We pick young blokes with promise, but when they don't live up to the promise, we keep them anyway. I don't know if that is because we are paying them already or what, but if they don't live up to the hype, what are they being pampered for? If people are concerned about hurting some developing youngsters mental state, then perhaps we should wait a bit and train them a bit before we throw them to the lions. This could be for any sport mind you. However these days, with minimum attention span, "all about me", youngsters out there, they want what is coming to them NOW. And if they don't get it, they will defect to some country/other team that Grandmacame from/the agent found , after of course the obligatory payment from the AIS/original team to develop their skills enough. That is my "scared for the future of Aus sport" rant.