It's about time the Games were buried

Dan, while all the points you make are valid, the point is that the Commonwealth Games should be seen as a gathering of people with a shared history ie of being part of the British Empire once upon a time. Yes, it is not, for most of the sports, the best level of competition that a sport can offer but they do provide good sport, and, if nothing else, a platform for smaller nations to compete against big guns. The top athletes at all the big nations can always go to every world meet/circuit/Olympics etc, but that is not true of the small nations. If anything, despite being so dominant, Australia is doing right by the smaller nations, by deigning to give at least a semblance of world-class competition is the sports they compete in, rather than just walking away because it is beneath them to compete. (They get something out of it too of course eg in experience, decent competition, dealing with difficult environments etc.) I've seen some fantastic sporting contests over the past 2 weeks eg weightlifting, badminton, hockey, netball, rugby and it didn't matter that the best of the very best were not there, as long as those that WERE there gave each other a good fight -- which was true in many sports. It's like going to a lower-division footy match: you're not watching Messi, or Abblett, or Lockyear, but you're watching good sport nevertheless, with the odd pockets of brilliance. Some have suggested that regional competitions -- Asian Games, Pan Pacific Games, Oceania Games -- matter more. But how is that concept different from those with shared histories? The USA, for example, would be just as dominant in a North American Games as Australia are in the CG. Why should accidents of geography be any different from shared ties of history? You could even argue that many of the stronger nations in the games have remained so by virtue of the Commonwealth history ie through the emigration of people of former colonies to the UK and to the other richer countries.

Republican - you said "The games do not command much status internationally.." You are right, I agree with you. This opinion is echoed by many people around the world, including 1996 Olympic Gold Medalist athlete: Michael Johnson who was quoted as saying: “a Commonwealth title barely registers any respect on a global stage.” That’s coming from a world class athlete – highly credible observation therefore. (link: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Commonwealth+glory+grows/3614701/story.html )

gurudoright - you said "The Commonwealth Games gives athletes the opportunity to compete and experience in the nearest environment we can to the olympics." This is not true. After the olympics, the next best thing or environment nearest to the olympics is competing in the world championships in that particular sport. So for example for the swimmers is would be at the FINA World Swimming championships and for the track and field athletes it is at the IAAF world athletics championships - these events have a truly global field and international representation. After winning a medal at the olympic games, the next biggest achievement is winning a world championship medal, NOT a medal at the commonwealth games. Fact.

But Nic - England and the other home nations (eg. Scotland, Wales) have sent weakend teams to the Commonwealth games! Chris Hoy, Victoria Pendelton, Christine Ohurugu, are jsut a few names that won Gold for Great Britain at the Beijing 2008 olympics, but who are absent from at Delhi 2010. I wouldn't get too excited/ triumphant if I were you. Remember – at the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth games, Australia won 84 gold compared to England won 36 gold medal. However at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Great Britain won 19 gold compared to Australia’s 14 gold medals. Winning 70-80 gold at a commonwealth games does NOT translate into international success at an Olympics or world championships. If winning Commonwealth Gold is your biggest achievement as an athlete, and the thing that sits at the top of your CV/ Resume, it means you haven't won anything on the international stage (eg at an olympic games or world championships). World class athletes like Ian Thorpe and Cathy Freeman will be remembered for winning olympic gold medals, NOT commonwealth golds.

I think the Australian media is getting carried away with Australia's performance at these games. They need to take a step back and consider the following facts: Some of the big sporting powers are simply not there eg. USA, China, Russia, Germany. Also, Great Britain is competing as 7 different nations, rather than under the united Great Britain team that they send to the olympic games. Also, the home nations (British teams) have sent weakend teams to the Delhi games eg. Chris Hoy, Victoria Pendelton, Christine Ohurugu , who all won olympic gold medals are not attending these Delhi 2010 games, not to mention several Jamaican stars like Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell are simply not there. Winning 70-80 gold at a commonwealth games does NOT translate into international success at an Olympics or world championships. Remember - at the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth games, Australia won 84 gold compared to England won 36 gold medal. Bid gap there. However at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Great Britain won 19 gold compared to Australia's 14 gold medals. The addition of USA, Russia, China and a unified Great Britain team makes a huge difference. For example - it is important to point out that at Delhi 2010, Australia have won 14 commonwealth gold medals in cycling. In contrast, at Beijing 2008, Great Britain won 8 olympic gold medals in cycling, Australia won zero gold medals at Beijing, just 1 silver..... The Australian team performance at a CWG is NOT an indicator as to how the Australian team will perform on the global stage, nor does it indicate where Australian athletes rate/ rank on the international stage.

Well the athletics do have many ways of throwing things Discus, Hammer, Javelin & Shot, plus jumping, how high you jump, how high you can jump with a pole, how long you can jump & how long you can jump with a hop & a step.

This is a comment that i have heard many times when people defend the commonwealth games. There are other multi sport competions such as the Asian games (held next month in China with over 9500 competitors from 45 countries in 39 sports sas well as the African games. These games seem to make more sense to me in that competitors share a link of being from the same geographical area of the world rather than being from a nation that used to be ruled by Britain(most often by force) as part of its old empire

Rubbish comment about the 7s, Republican. NZ are favourites to win the 7s but it doesnt make it a one-horse race, for two reasons. a. In every Commonwealth Games 7s, NZ have actually upset the odds to win it. Fiji were favourites in all 3 comps so far but blew it each time. b. Samoa beat NZ in every match they played on this year's IRB 7s circuit. So Samoa really should be favourites. World Cup winners Wales are also there, while Australia, who came home with a wet sail in the circuit, will be thereabouts too. As will England, who take 7s fairly seriously. However, NZ have pulled out all the stops to win gold again, having brought in 3 top-notch, in-form young guns plus fringe AB Liam Messam. In contrast, Samoa will be without their playmaker Uale Mai, who has taken up a five-figure (in tala terms) contract with a Spanish club. Such are the drawbacks of belonging to a union that doesn't have the money to keep their best players, unlike the NZRFU. But we will see. Upsets usually happen in 7s.

No wonder Australia get so many medals they are good at swimming. Four ways to have the same race over the same distance. I heard that the games commitee are bringing the same idea in on the athletics track, can't wait for the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800,, 1500m 5000m and 10,00m sprint, hop, backwards and jumping. The Jamaicans and Kenyans would wallop everyone. Seriously, the CG's are good for the smaller nations but you've got to wonder how much life is left in them when half of GB's athletes stay home for more competative competition such as our cyclists.

let me just pull on my bitter and twisted 'envy' cap... Having suffered through the Melbourne games in Melbourne as a Kiwi ('It's GOLD! GOLD FOR AUSTRALIA! GOLD! GOLD! GOLD!" - you do know there are other countries competing, right?) I had high hopes of a more modest Australian team doing their part at the CG2010 as ambassadors of sport. After all, isn't this the country that prizes sportsmanship, goes for the underdog and loves the idea of a tough-but-fair contest? While the TV coverage has moved away from 9's hysterical patriotism and self-congratulation, the sheer dominance - there's no other word for it - by Australian athletes just turns me off watching. You might as well have one national competition for Australia, and then the Commonwealth Games for everyone else. It's not a contest, it's a walkover! Unfortunately, this imbalance shows in the attitudes of the sportspeople attending - many are almost contemptuous of the Games. Foul play in the wrestling, flipping the bird to officials in the cycling, top athletes acting like boorish buffoons when the attention should be on the quiet achievements of much smaller, less capable countries for which this is the highlight of their sporting calendar. Malaysia won its first gold medal with a stunning tactical race after Shane Perkins was cut out of the final by his own poor tactics, yet the immediate focus of the media was on Perkins' ride in the petite finale. That's not to take away from the achievements of the athletes or the AIS, of course. An investment has clearly been made in high performance sport, and my, can't we see the results at this set of games. Congratulations and accolades are well due to the people who put their all into achieving the apex of sport. But I'd like to be able to get home from work this evening, sit on the couch with a beer, and see just one event where the national anthem of Australia isn't playing after the final and the commentators don't wax lyrical about a one-sided contest between a professional sportsperson, who's been given all the training and resources needed to boost them to the highest level of sport, and a farmer from Trinidad and Tobago. /end rant and apologies to the Aussie fans who are thoroughly enjoying the Games.

umm...negative. Games are the most glamourous when awarder to Powerful countries on the rise in the Geopolitical sense..London or Sydney is too Boring....Beijing and New Delhi are cool !

the international media created the hype regarding venues and the possibility about the Games being cancelled....look today...The Op Ceremony ws Brilliant and the Games are going superbly as well...The CWG Prez, Mike Fenell said tht the Atheletes Village has turned out to be the best he's ever seen ! The Venues and the infrastructure is Olympic-level This is what the Games shall be remembered for by those who really matter-the Atheletes. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cwgarticleshow/6698492.cms

I agree somewhat that the CG can appear boring if held up against the Olympics and other world events. However, for me the CG is a very large rendition of "yearly family get together in the park to play a few games". It's an event that is friendly and about 'family' -- our cousins in the world. It's nice to remember who we are and where (most whitey's) of us came from. Plus it's really nice to beat the crap out of England /ducks LOLOLO :P

It’s not the Olympics so what…. It’s not meant to be. On the whole the standard of sport is excellent, and it’s good to see the smaller nations getting a chance to compete. Rather than deriding the games we should be trying to find ways to encourage the top class athletes who aren’t competing this time to compete in the next one.

Wow you really haven't kept in touch with the latest netball or sevens results have you? That nonsense is experiencing extreme international growth so you beat get used to more nonsense in the future.

Spot on Sheek.

The Commonwealth Games gives athletes the opportunity to compete and experience in the nearest environment we can to the olympics. The experience they pick up living in the athletes village at the Commonwealth Games is so vaulable for them when it comes time for the olympics. Being use to the atmosphere( I realise the olympics is way bigger than the CG) is an added bonus that athletes would be denied if not for the CG. I understand that it gets a bit boring seeing Australia dominate games after games but if we didn't eveyone would be crying how crap we are that we could not beat X,Y or Z. As I wrote a few weeks ago, with the cost of this Commonwealth Games and no doubt that of the Gold Coast bid for 2018, I can't see why Sydney would not bid, Most of the stadia are already built with only minor alterations needed for most venues. This would be cheaper than Gold Coast building new venues and a chance for the host city to make a profit. Same goes for London, they should bid for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. London will have most of the stadia from the 2012 Olympics and having Commonwealth games in say Sydney and London back to back would bring back an exciting vibe and glamour back to the commonwealth games

You miss the point Mister Duffy. It's not supposed to be the best in the world, an alternative to the Olympics or anything like that. To suggest, as you barely stop short of doing, that because a number of world champions are missing the Commonwealth Games are a non-event, is narrow minded. These games are about a lot of things, shared history and all of that as others suggest, but also about the many smaller countries having a fair go at a major multi-sports meet with a near world class standard. How many world championships or Olympics do swimmers from PNG and many similar countries go to, let alone advance past their heat? The same goes for every sport contested. And a lot of these smaller sporting nations are rapidly improving, because of their C'wealth games experience. Then there's the experience of hosting - not just the infrastructure (which costs a lot, agreed) but actually holding each event - the officials, timings, starters and the list goes on. Yes, there a few athletes missing, but they are a very, very few. For the vast majority of athletes (only a very few can be champions) this is a fantastic sports meet. Yes - the C'wealth games does deserve its spot on the sporting calendar.

....with India-Australia Tes/ODI series going on I dont see how the games will turn a profit in any way at all. They should have made t20 cricket a part of CWG, even if it is going to be all second XIs. That would have bought in more eyeballs in India. Currently the only reason CWG remains in my consciousness is bcos of the huge mess created by OC, Messrs Kalmadi &co. specifically.