Sports Funding

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Sports Funding

Post by Doc on Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:07 am

In light of the comments made yesterday by the head of British Olympics, it got me thinking about some of the performances we've seen at these Olympics. The rowing team deserve plenty of plaudits for bagging more medals than they've ever done before. It just goes to show that the rowing team is organised/managed correctly and deserves funding. The GB Cycling team under the stewardship of Dave Brailsford were not expected to replicate their sucesses of Bejing, but they have moved the bar even higher and they still haven't finished yet. Beteween the rowers and cyclists they have already accounted for 50% of Team GB's medal haul between them, and yet again cycling is managed correctly and always produces. How many world records have this brilliant team broken in the past week.

Saturday night showed what excellence is in sport is all about with Mo, Jess and Rutherford winning gold. The gymnastic team have produced 4 medals, and they were not expected, so well done to them and they also deserve funding. A couple of Olympic's ago it was decided that boxing didn't deserve funding as much as results didn't warrant it. We went to the games with just one fighter who produced a silver. This time our boxing team is small, but should come home with a decent medal haul, so deserve funding. But last night I watched a few of our fancied athletes just not turn up. Martin Rooney was 6th in the last Olympics, so was expected to medal this time, but failed to get anywhere near qualifying for the final. In my view he's wasted 4-years on the so called 'Elite athletes programme'. There are other cases like this too. So feel that athletics needs sorting out as should follow the model of the cyclists/Rowers. The swimming team managed to bag 3 medals and 2 of those were Becky Addlington, and thats not good enough neither. Millions have been spent on funding failure, so why should we spend a fortune sending our next Olympics team to Rio, if they have no chance of doing anything. I accept that some will get fantastic experience by competing, but unlike what's happened with Rooney and others, we need to ensure they are able to compete at the folowing Olympics. So we should only send athletes who are capable of medalling, or getting experience to Rio. It will save a fortune by sending a more targeted/focused team. That's unless athletics and swimming accept that they need organising properly by someone like Brailsford. What was the point of Clive Woodward? I believe he's 'joined up' some of the blue sky thinking, alongside CVC, but up to now 4 field and track medals is shocking, and they were 'bankers' anyway, yet plenty of other 'bankers' haven't even made a final. We've always had world class sprinters and this time not one of ours qualified for the final. The only bright spot was the young kid who only started in January. An obvious talent to be natured and coached, and he equiped himself very well against Bolt, which would be fantastic experience for him.

At the time of writing this we have 16 gold medals, with 9 gold coming from rowing (4) and cycling (5) with more medals come from the cyclists. 77% from just 2 sports.
avatar
Doc

Posts : 1083
Join date : 2011-12-12
Location : Crewe, Cheshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sports Funding

Post by Davie on Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:39 am

Doc wrote:up to now 4 field and track medals is shocking, and they were 'bankers' anyway

I think that's a little harsh Doc. It's still early days in track and field, though I agree Jess was *maybe* one of the bankers - yet it still wasn't nailed on that she would do it in such a tough event. Only one cock-up in any of the 7 events and she was done

I certainly don't think Rutherford was a banker (maybe he was considered a chance of some sort of medal but certainly not a gold) and even Mo was far from a favourite - I actually thought he would be another Becca Adlingtons, built up by the media as a cert but ultimately failing.

There are still 5 or 6 days of track and field left(?) - in my mind Jess was our biggest hope but as I said she was far from nailed on. What we need is more Greg Rutherfords
avatar
Davie
Admin

Posts : 2170
Join date : 2011-12-09
Age : 57
Location : Thames Valley

View user profile http://golf-chat.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Sports Funding

Post by Doc on Tue Aug 07, 2012 6:15 pm

Davie I agree regarding Rutherford, but yet again last night one of our bankers, world champion Dai Greene didn't medal. Yes he gave his all, but didn't hit his normal time for the event, if he had he would have got a silver minimum. So he peaked at the wrong time. I felt sorry for Holly Bleasdale who will hopefully use this experience to her advantage next time, but from recording the 3rd highest vault in history ....... Cycling now has 6-golds as they won another last night, with the chance of reaching double figures tonight.

Yes anything can go wrong at any time, in any event, and even more so in the cycling because of machanical/punctures etc. The cyclists training regime is refined so that they peak at the event. When you consider the number of events for the cycling team, they have only failed in 2. Road race was supposed to be a banker for Cavendish, but failed due to other teams tactics. The only other failure was the girls being disqualified from one event for a minor infringement. All the others were won by team GB except for Clancy's bronze. We're also in the last 3 finals on the track tonight, so have been involved at the top of each event, which is amazing. The rowers were also heavily involved in most of the events on the lake. So my argument is that organisation/coaching and funding should be targeted, because anything is possible. Any athlete who won't get into the programme, should have funding stopped. There are too many disperate sections, coaching, locations and personal preferences involved in athletics. Phillips Isodwu allowed to do whatever he wants and hasn't spoken to his coach in 3-weeks. Athletes training all around the world with no contact from the main management (How do the management know these athletes are fit) The cyclists were all told that if they want to be involved, then they need to relocate to Manchester. They all stick to a training regime and then all go away together for altitude training as a unit. If tonight they bring home another 3-medals then thats 83% success rate.

I also accept that because its a home Olympics that we've put out teams in almost every sport. Water polo, handball, basketball .......... No chance of doing anything, so why bother when cash is tight. Today we may see the bejing medal haul eclipsed, but I argue that it has nothing to do with track and feild or swimming as I expect them to have worse results than expected. Gymnastics, ladies judo, the eventing and show jumping teams, boxing, tennis etc have exceeded expectations to hide the true issues.
avatar
Doc

Posts : 1083
Join date : 2011-12-12
Location : Crewe, Cheshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sports Funding

Post by Doc on Wed Aug 08, 2012 12:41 am

Sport funding for Team GB, of which over £51m has been wasted for no return. It also seems like £2.5m per medal is the acceptable price of success, but as yet athletics is massively under achieving at a cost of £6.275m per medal, but athletics is not over yet. Canoeing is so far costing us £8m per medal, but may see more in the sprints later this week. Is £16.m acceptable per medal for equestrian events, with maybe some more to come. But sailing so far is costing £23m per medal.

So I think we need to target where our limited funding goes and penalise/sanction those who seem to have wasted money or even stop funding of some minor sports and give more where needed. But also look at how much money is pumped into sailing, and if £23m per medal is value. Swimming at over £8m is not value for money and I would hope for some more success in track and field because over £6m per medal in athletics is not value for money.

Archery £4.4m zero medals
Athletics £25.1m £6.275m per medal (so far)
Badminton £7.4m zero medals
Basketball £8.6m zero medals
Boxing £9.5m £2m per medal
Canoeing £16.1m £8m per medal
Cycling £26m £2.1m per medal
Diving £6.5m zero medals
Equestrian £13.3m £6.5 per medal so far
Fencing £2.5m zero medals
Handball £2.9m zero medals
Hockey £15m zero medals so far
Judo £7.5m £4.25m per medal
Mod Pent £6.3m zero medals so far
Rowing £27.3m £3m per medal
Sailing £23m £11.5m per medal
Shooting £2.5m £2.5m per medal
Swimming £25.1m £8.4m per medal
Syncro Swm £3.4m zero medals
Table Tennis £1.2m zero medals
Taekwondo £4.8m zero medals so far
Triathlon £5.3 £2.6m per medal
Volleyball £3.5m zero medals
Water Polo £2.9m zero medals
Weightlftg £1.4m zero medals
Wrestling £1.4m zero medals
Tennis self funded and returned 2 medals
avatar
Doc

Posts : 1083
Join date : 2011-12-12
Location : Crewe, Cheshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sports Funding

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum