Appropriate that the picture at the top should be the GB football team - the only low point on "Super Saturday" (TM all British newspapers) for the British Olympic squad.
Six gold medals in one day, with three of them coming in just 46 minutes in the Athletics! And yes, I know a lot of countries like the US, China and Russia get that sort of score on a regular basis, but it just doesn't ever happen like this for us - home games or not. Until Sydney 2000, we hadn't got more than six in an ENTIRE Olympics since 1924! If you can't guess, I'm more than a little psyched right now.
And I get to see USA vs Argentina in the Basketball tomorrow night, which should be fun.
The attitude in England the last couple of days seems to be mirroring that of Canada two-and-a-half years ago with the Vancouver Olympics. Great achievements, lots of pride. It's great to see, and I find myself cheering for Team GB a lot as well.
Loved watching Andy Murray win this morning over Roger Federer in straight sets. It was impossible to turn away and there were some incredible shots played.
In highlights, the holding the ball and the handball calls look bad. In the context of the full game, they're horrendous. I don't think the Olympics are in the business of fixing women's soccer games*, but I might believe it a little bit if I was the Canadian coach.
Just nothing but total bullshit officiating in that game. Canada got robbed of a legendary victory. The only consolation is that now Christine Sinclair is a legit national hero.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
Out of interest, how come all the US sport sites (ESPN, SI, etc.) order the medal tables by total medals, rather than the right way, where gold medals have primacy?
Originally posted by Captain FerretOut of interest, how come all the US sport sites (ESPN, SI, etc.) order the medal tables by total medals, rather than the right way, where gold medals have primacy?
Simple. Because they want to minimize the lead of the Chinese over the US and everyone else. The US has more medals overall but China has more golds. If it were the opposite, then the US outlets, especially NBC, would play up the golds much more than the overall totals.
And that's one of the bigger problems (among so many) I have with this coverage: we're basically pretending that China doesn't exist. I find it ridiculous that they have lead the medal count in golds from the very beginning and there has been next to no mention of it nor has been much in the way of profiles of the Chinese team or its athletes. I know it's not the Cold War anymore, but I would like to know a little more about the clear arch rival to the US these days. But then that's NBC screwing up yet again for you.
Originally posted by Captain FerretI've actually found one that does it right, CBS. Well done CBS (there's a sentence you don't see every day)
It's irked me the last few days when I've gone on ESPN's mobile site to see their homepage proclaim Russia as being third in the medals table. Morons. In retaliation we should petition the BBC to cover all NFL games as though touchdowns, field goals and safeties are all worth one point for the next four years. Granted this would be something of an empty gesture given that roughly zero people go to the BBC for its coverage of the NFL, but principles must be stood upon. Or beside. Or something.
Originally posted by supersalvadoranAnd that's one of the bigger problems (among so many) I have with this coverage: we're basically pretending that China doesn't exist. I find it ridiculous that they have lead the medal count in golds from the very beginning and there has been next to no mention of it nor has been much in the way of profiles of the Chinese team or its athletes. I know it's not the Cold War anymore, but I would like to know a little more about the clear arch rival to the US these days. But then that's NBC screwing up yet again for you.
In watching individual sports where the Chinese are prominent, NBC can't/didn't avoid them. Gymnastics and diving, for instance. And NBC was all over the athletic tragedy of Liu Xiang, the hurdler who bowed out early of the same event in consecutive Olympiads. I know he got a video package during the track coverage.
I don't remember many video packages for non-American athletes. South Africa's Caster Semenya got one this weekend. But I saw the original Dream Team documentary twice on NBC channels.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
The same thing is happening in Canada, for the record, so it's not just NBC/American coverage. TSN has been ranking medal counts based on total medals, which puts Canada at 13th instead of 36th. This wouldn't be quite as glaring if not for the rankings at the Winter Olympics from Vancouver being based on gold medals, because Canada did win the most there.
Oh well, whatever helps our Olympic committee sleep at night.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeIts the MEDALS count, not the GOLD medals count. What's the difference anyway? Did it really effect your enjoyment of the Olympics?
No, my enjoyment had to do with NBC's coverage. Even muting the sound only helped a little.
Muting the sound gave you the international feed, which NBC had no control over. Well, they could cut away from it at will, but the majority of the visuals were just the pool feed, so to speak.
"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Originally posted by Mike ZeidlerMuting the sound gave you the international feed, which NBC had no control over. Well, they could cut away from it at will, but the majority of the visuals were just the pool feed, so to speak.
my problem was that with all the competition we had to put up with a retrospective on the last US women's gymnastics team to win gold and then interviews and comparisons. If you work for a living, you miss out on a lot of stuff.
and one other thing, I know they think I am a moron but I really knew the evening coverage wasn't live.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeIts the MEDALS count, not the GOLD medals count. What's the difference anyway? Did it really effect your enjoyment of the Olympics?
I'm not claiming it spoiled anyone's Olympics, it's just really strange that if you're going to go to the trouble of ranking countries, you're going to do it on the basis that first is the same as third. Does anyone think that if Michael Phelps had won 23 bronzes instead of the 18 golds, 2 silvers and 2 bronze he actually has (total 22), he'd be regarded as a better athlete?
Originally posted by StaggerLeeIts the MEDALS count, not the GOLD medals count. What's the difference anyway? Did it really effect your enjoyment of the Olympics?
I'm not claiming it spoiled anyone's Olympics, it's just really strange that if you're going to go to the trouble of ranking countries, you're going to do it on the basis that first is the same as third. Does anyone think that if Michael Phelps had won 23 bronzes instead of the 18 golds, 2 silvers and 2 bronze he actually has (total 22), he'd be regarded as a better athlete?
Yeah, mostly what he said.
If a few of the biggest news/sports organisations in the world are going to produce and prominently display something that's demonstrably retarded I think you'll find some people might point out how retarded it is.
On the bright side I've used the ESPN/NBC methodolgy to review the Donovan McNabb era in Philly and see they got four third place finishes and one second place, which is precisely the same as winning five Super Bowls. Quite the dynasty. If only I'd known I'd have celebrated much more at the time.
Well first of all, as the U.S. overtook China and finished both with more golds than any other country and more total medals than any other country, this debate about this particular Olympiad has become moot.
Second, the problem I have with the argument that is taking place is the possibility for a strict gold medal count being misleading is going totally ignored. For example, South Korea finished fifth in gold medals with 13, but ninth in total medals with just 28. Is South Korea's performance automatically more impressive than that of Germany, which finished behind South Korea in sixth with just 11 golds, but had 16 more total medals with 44, fifth overall and four spots ahead of South Korea? It's not that using the ranking of total medals simply puts bronzes on equal standing as golds - the top four bronze medal winners were also the top four gold medal winners and also the top four total medal winners, so I don't think either ranking really presents a version of history really that different from the other. Some countries look better using one method, other countries look better using another method, the top countries look great using either method. And there are countries whose performances were close enough that neither method can objectively determine which nation did better - it is an individual judgment call.
I can't take this show. Four minute rounds are taking two minutes. Fights are being shown out of order. This is supposed to be legit, yet they're trying to "book" this into something else.