Criticise all you want, the Commonwealth Games were fantastic

I'd be willing to put a fair bit of money on a USA/China/Russia/GB/Germany top five in 2016. After that GB may slip down but I do expect Germany to solidify a top five spot over the next few OG's. Economic and population factors will maintain the European/Pacific monopoly of the top ten for the forseeable future. Who can challenge France, Germany, GB, Italy, Russia, Australia, China, Japan, S Korea, USA for a top ten spot? To answer my own question I suppose Brazil in 2016 assuming they don't perform like their football team in front of their own fans.

Sports tend to go in cycles my friend. With some, the investment .... and interest dies out straight after the big event (think Sydney & London) especially it's a "non traditional sport" in your country and it was a case of fielding a home team for appearances sake. Much may hinge on the level of continued investment and for how long ...... and whether the "target generation" continue to progress and have continued success .... and whether they spark a flow on to another generation. AUS Swimming had that for much of the 00s, the men's program has fallen back whilst the women have remained strong. Maybe we are seeing it with GBR track cycling when their peak generation 'peaked at or before London' but are now mostly gone from the sport .... and the issue is whether the next generation can meet those standards ? AUS women's hockey's "cycle" peaked at Sydney .... went into decline with the assistance of poor coaching choices but now MAY be on an up-swing. I suspect GBR will have another strong "Olympic" cycle thru 2016 and to a degree through to 2020. Some sports may continue to prosper, others may fall away with the retirement of the "golden generation" of athletes. They may hold a top 5 in the medal table in Rio but beyond that, I suspect its back to a position in the top 10 alongside the likes of FRA/GER/JAP and prob AUS

The issue of Australia competing at Asian Games has been raised but was knocked back in 2007 by the head of the Asian Games Federation. Whether the door is permanently locked is unknown as was the issue of whether AUS actually formally applied or merely made enquiries. To be honest; it may be advantageous for AUS to compete at Asian Games. I would use it in a similar way to how I would use Comm Games; as a valuable lead-up/preparatory event for World Champs and/or Olympics and experience of a large multi-event meet prior to Olympics. Rather than try to play "big kid in the playground" at either meet; it may pay to send selective teams to either event depending on which has the better completion/is the better yardstick of performance for the specific sports. Both have sports/events where the level is championship standard and others where it's less than B grade; just a matter of making the call on which best serves the purposes of your sport. This may mean smaller teams and medal counts but may probably serve many of the sports better in the long run .... and see better results in the championships that really count

I wasn't complaining about re the "Home Games", merely stating it as a fact due to it's location AND the home crowd response to British athletes. In no place was I claiming it to be an unfair advantage; just mentioning it as an aiding factor for Home Nations athletes. And, Empireman, I salute good performance WHEREVER it comes from. There were many performances from Home Nations athletes that were medal worthy in "Championships" (World Championships for their sport/Olympics); just as there were some medals that are "fools gold" ....... same goes for AUS and other medal winning nations at the Games. Such is the nature of the event. Nick. Good points re previous Games. Manchester was very well done as were Melbourne although dear old Ronald Walker suckered the public purse to spend far more than was really necessary for new facilities or upgrades that may've been warranted for Olympics .... but arguably overkill for CG.

Australia's best hope of topping medal table is if England does not take CWG thousands of miles away seriously but uses them as stepping stone to develop talent as Home nation cycling teams -really GB cycling-does constantly

Can you explain something Commonwombat? Australians often complain that GB, apparently unfairly. comprises four nations against whom heroic Australian competitors-bless them!-have to contend, Now, Wombers. If Glasgow is 'home ground' for English competitors doesn't that suggest that GB is a legitimate unified sporting entity? Calm down! No offence! I'm just trying to understand the Australian sporting mind.

you are on fire nick!

Very judicious comment , if I may say so,Nick

I would say three of the last four CW Games have been successful with the exception being the shambles of Delhi. Unfortunately, that has been allowed to overshadow Manchester - which like Glasgow played to sellout crowds - and Melbourne. Hopefully Glasgow has got things back on track. Is the standard as good as the OG or a world championship? No, of course not, but then that applies to the Asian Games, the African Games, the Pan-American Games or any other multi-sport event which isn't the OG, although it is stronger than most. And let's not put the OG on too great a pedestal because even there it is often easier to win a medal than it is at a world championship. As an example in track cycling countries are only allowed to enter one cyclist in each event at the OG, so that countries like Oz, GB, France, Germany, NZ, etc have to omit world class riders who would be allowed to compete at a world championship, thus weakening the level of competition. The reason the CWG remain relevant is that the coaches and administrators see them as a vital steppiing stone for athletes to gain experience of competing in a multi-sport event in front of large crowds, of living in an athletes village and mixing with sportsmen from different backgrounds, so that competing in the maelstrom of an OG doesn't come as a complete shock. It's worth noting that almost every country including Oz sent either their biggest ever delegation to a CWG or their biggest team to a games held outside their own country which together with the spectator numbers hardly suggests an event on its last legs. The UK have increased funding for their Olympic program in the 2013-17 cycle over and above that invested in the run-up to London in order to try and avoid what happened to Oz after Sydney, so we shouldn't be surprised by the performance of the host nation(s). It could have been worse from an Australian perspective if they had been able to field full strength track and field teams.

How would that help Australian sport given that the standards in many sports in Asia are lower than those in the Commonwealth, particularly athletics and cycling? Are Japan and China any stronger than GB, SA and Canada at swimming? I guess the third of the big three olympic sports, ie. gymnastics would be stronger with China, Japan and S Korea but then GB is now counted as one of the big five in this sport with even the Chinese and Japanese sending their coaches to the UK to study British training methods. Overall it seems to me like a downgrade and therefore the exact opposite of what Australian sport should be doing.

I also enjoyed the games. We need to improve vastly on artistic gymnastics, weightlifting, wrestling and track and field, especially the men. If we can, we will top the medal tally in the Gold Coast.

I think one of the issues is that the Commonwealth feels irrelevant for a lot of people these days. What does it mean and what does it matter and why is it so? Glasgow appeared to do a sterling job, but I wonder if Australia should look at perhaps seeking eligiblility to participate in the Asian Games. China have an extremely strong dominance in this competition and Australia could certainly eat into their medal haul, and the Games would be all the better for Australia's involvement.

Tricky to get a real read on Comm Games and just where they stand with regards to "credibility" in a sporting sense. As an event in themselves, Glasgow DOES deserve great credit for hosting a Games both efficiently and with the right spirit and hospitality. The future of these Games WAS on the line after the Delhi shambles but they have at least a 'stay of execution" for another cycle or so .... though much may depend on how Gold Coast handles things. In a sporting sense, you need to look on a sport by sport basis and even within those sports, the depth and quality may vary from event to event. - Netball and Lawn Bowls could be said to be of World Championship standard. - Squash = a good international standard tournament - Track & Field = varied from event to event. Some had depth in fields and top international contenders. Some had a couple who were a class if not several classes above the rest of the field. Others were akin to a 2nd level intl competition if that - Swimming = Variable in standard. Some events had depth whereas others had medallists at times which would not make finals at Worlds/Olympics. - Gymnastics. Rhythmic below top standard. Artistic had a smattering of intl medallists and competitors with "international records" but little depth in fields. - Diving. As per above comments for gymnastics. - Triathlon. Strong fields with World & Olympic champions and medallists but overall depth of fields below that of a usual World Series event. - Cycling. Track had strong teams from probably the 3 strongest track nations but standard fell away after that. Mountain bike had little depth in the fields. Road fields had a thin spread of WT riders plus a slightly wider spread from other Pro teams but fell right away beyond that. - Shooting. Varying standard with some int medallists in some events but others well below. - The fighting sports - generally below top level - Weightlifting - well below world class - Table tennis & Badminton: Only 1-2 of the prominent nations in these sports in the Commonwealth indicates this being a 2nd tier standard at best - Rugby Sevens. A strong tournament with most but not all of the leading nations present - Hockey. Fields contained maybe 5 of the top 12 nations in both mens and womens but standard fell right away beyond them. It was very much a "home games" for all the "Home Nations", not just the Scots and in many Olympic sports, the investment for London is still "paying off" which was a similar experience for AUS post Sydney. For some sports, this may continue for maybe half a decade (more if there is further funding from whatever sources) whereas for others it may fall away much quicker or at the retirement of the current generation of competitors. How serious should AUS approach these Games ? I think this needs to be on a sport by sport basis. For those where it is akin to a World Championship OR there is no other major event for that year, then look to send the best team possible. For other sports where there are arguably higher priorities during the year, then it may be an issue of how the timing works out as against the key event. It worked out quite well with the Hockey World Cup being before CG. I'm of the belief that Pan Pacs should be prioritised ABOVE GC and the strength of future CG teams be dependent on the timing in relation to PP. For individuals in other professional sports; it should be a matter of whether it can fit in with their competition schedule and priorities for the year ..... and whether the competition in their sport/event IS of a worthwhile standard.

Yes it was awesome to see athletes from the smaller countries perform. Guys like this for example! http://www.mypuretv.com/positubetv/glasgow-2014-weightlifter-dances-away-with-kiribati-gold/ I know the Malaysian team honoring MH17 as well as the general reflection on the disaster at the opening ceremony brought tears to people's eyes here (I'm in KL). A nice acknowledgement of support from the Commonwealth family.

There you are again trying to get people to bite, better luck next time

Great comment.

I'm surprised that no one has expressed concern at this further evidence for Australia's sporting decline. There has been a 46 Gold medal swing away from Australia and towards England since Delhi 2010 and the CWG are a competition that the Poms use as a stepping stone to Olympics rather than a competition worth of dominating in its own right!

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

I agree. The Comm Games doesn't pretend to the the Olympics, or the World Champs and it doesn't need to be, although some performances are world class. It's great for smaller nations to get the chance to compete with some of the world's best. It's great for 'smaller' sports to have some time in the spotlight. No netball at the Olympics and it is fantastic to watch. I was born in Wales and I like seeing athletes compete under the red dragon. NickOS is right though - way too many ads on a not-great 10 coverage. Roll on Gold Coast 2018.

Nothing against the games themselves, I did enjoy what I watched. But the ten broadcast was abysmal: adds every 5-10 min, endless talks on the couch instead of live events, exaggerated enthusiasm for any aussie performances yet nothing much for other great performers.