What better way to start this all off than with the proverbial starters gun. The signal for athletes, from nursery school to olympic finals to jump into action.
Starting 3 October 2010, in Delhi in India, this sound will reverberate in the stadium, lounges, bars and pubs around the world... Or will it? It's time for the "not quite" olympic spirit, and watered down sporting event of the Commonwealth Games.
The games were first held in Canada, in 1930 under the title British Empire Games. It was re-named twice after that until it landed up with its current title in 1978. Australia has dominated the medals table in 10 of the events, with England being at the top 7 times. Only one other nation has finished at the top of the pile... Canada.
Currently there are 54 members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and 73 teams participate in the games. the reason for this is that a team like Great Britain break up into their home nations and crown dependencies. So the United Kingdom is represented by: England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, as well as Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. A similiar thing happens in Australasia with Australia and New Zealand being represented further by Norfolk Island, Cook Islands, Niue and for the first time in 2010, Tokelau.
The number of athletes have grown from 400 in 1930, to 4049 in 2006. this compares to 11028 athletes who competed in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. A third of the competitors for a third of the hype... And that is me being generous...
Has an event ever been so pointless? The major drawback is that traditional sporting powerhouses such as the United States, China, Russia and the majority of Europe doesn't form part of the Commonwealth of Nations... The competition levels are no where near what an IAAF Diamond League meeting would be for instance. As an example... What resistance will Caster Semenya Have? Who's going to touch Australia in the pool? They are up against the might of Botswana and Mozambique... Countries where the number of suitable swimming training facilities could be counted on one hand.
So I pose the question... Is the Commonwealth Games necessary? What value does it add to global sport? Or was it something that Britain devised because they couldn't touch the Americans or Central & Northern Asians?
Either way... Amidst all the boredom and one sided competition, I'm sure there'll at least be one or two classic moments to come out of it...
Think it provides a good platform for the minow nations and athletes to try and compete and gain some exposure. I guess it comes down to the question of if there were no commonwealth games, no other event would replace it, then there would be one less event and I reckon any event is better then a non event.
ReplyDeleteThe brits have given the world most sport and with it tradition and these games are part of such tradition. So yes I think it adds some value and as you rightly pointed out there will be a few highlights along the way to catch the eye.
bips