Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:27 am

same everytime. any time any money is spent its: what about the starving millions

fecking heck, we cant drink, smoke, have any fun, there is always some kind of moaning twit about anything. Sabre, you are the type whod write to points of view everytime an advert was put on that might offend someone.

gonna bung some uncle bens in the post, that should sort it out. the games have been cool so far, all that rowing and stuff tho is a bit much, bring on the athletics!

and whats that 10 metre pistol shoot, why no crips or bloods in that? theyd be in with a chance right?

by **laza** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:20 pm

Dont cry for me Argentina..........you slimy b.....ds

by **Effes** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:23 pm

GB's first gold - some bird cycling.

by **Sabre** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:35 pm

fecking heck, we cant drink, smoke, have any fun, there is always some kind of moaning twit about anything. Sabre, you are the type whod write to points of view everytime an advert was put on that might offend someone.

What?

I'm not sure if the moaning "twit" it's you this time, as I only gave an opinion of mine, and you're being the thought police this time (ner nor ner nor).

I drink, I smoke, and I live in a country full of fun. I also like let others having fun, but, since I believe in my freedom of thought, I tend to use it.

I believe you can have cheaper and better opening ceremony. In all seriousness, when it comes to opening ceremonies creativity should be the main factor, as it's an art. The Chinese ceremony was very visual, the amounts of points to throw the fireworks was of the order of tens of thousands, and the computer system to time them all had to be huge.

Lots of visul impact, but in that ceremony there was little creativity, lots of computer controlled synchronizations, and it was a bit robotic for my taste. Did you see the panic faces of the organization when the Spaniards broke the lines when they came in to the stadium? too rigid protocols, and too much automatization.

On the relevant part, the sports (may I say this Dawson?), I've seen some nice women judo (<48Kg) combats, and a quite unexpected draw in handball of South Korea against Russia (women). Even saw the first Badminton game in my life, it wasn't bad.

If you want to discuss how I like to spoil other's fun, let's do so after I come from the beach! see you later!

by **66-1112520797** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:05 pm

GB football team 2012 ?

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:36 pm

GB should have a football team for 2012.

If the Scots, N Irish and Welsh FA's don't want to participate, then fook them.

The GB football team should consist entirely of English players under the age of 23 with a few more experienced players.

Football should be given much higher priority at the Olympic Games.

by **Bad Bob** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:05 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:Football should be given much higher priority at the Olympic Games.

Can't really agree with that, myself. Football's huge enough already and doesn't need a greater share of the Olympics limelight.

This take on footy at the Olympics sums it up for me:

-----
Football Has No Business At The Olympics

The reason Football365 will not be covering the football tournament at this summer's Olympics has nothing to do with human rights, Tibet, drug cheats, propaganda, visas or even manpower. F365 will not be providing coverage for the simple reason that we do not believe football should be part of the Olympics.

Assuming they can still see clearly through the smog, the sportsmen in Bejing this summer should regard the goal of winning a gold medal as the ultimate achievement in their field. It is a simple glory: win gold and win indisputable proof you are the best at your particular business. Sadly, football, along with tennis and a host of other box-office events added on to the Olympic timetable, is an unpalatable distortion of that golden rule.

The football team that wins the gold medal in three weeks' time will not be the best in the world. That honour is reserved for the team that wins the World Cup - football's own exclusive one-sport version of the Olympics. To publicise events in what is essentially a glorified under-23 tournament would be to discredit the achievements of the runners, cyclists, swimmers and rowers who rightfully regard the attainment of a gold medal as the pinnacle of their sport.

LINK

Spot on, that. :nod

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:23 pm

Can't really agree with that, myself. Football's huge enough already and doesn't need a greater share of the Olympics limelight.

I think it would be good for Olympics for football to be a higher priority. It adds more world attention for a popular game, increases advertising revenue, and I do think that winning a gold medal at the Olympics should indeed be a big deal.

Now, onto this article:

The football team that wins the gold medal in three weeks' time will not be the best in the world. That honour is reserved for the team that wins the World Cup - football's own exclusive one-sport version of the Olympics.

Bad argument. Olympic records are considered seperate from World records anyway. So no one actually actually argues that winning the Olympic gold medal for football equates to being the best "in the world".

To publicise events in what is essentially a glorified under-23 tournament would be to discredit the achievements of the runners, cyclists, swimmers and rowers who rightfully regard the attainment of a gold medal as the pinnacle of their sport.

Runners/athletes, cyclists, swimmers, and rowers all have seperate recognised world championships too.

At most this article from Football365 convinces me that the FULL national squads should be included in the Olympic Games rather than just under-23's.

by **dawson99** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:23 pm

perfectly put BB and i agree 100%
at least softball will be gone after these olympics, usa only put it in in 96 when they held the event and this is last time for it... and baseball i think. maybe we can add darts in 4 years

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:26 pm

Baseball has been held at 12 Olympic Games.

There is an argument that it isn't widely practiced by enough nations to be a regular fixture at the Games.

The same cannot be said for football, the world's most popular sport.

I wouldn't be opposed to darts at the Olympics since I don't see how it's so different from archery and shooting.

by **LFC2007** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:41 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
The Manhattan Project wrote:Football should be given much higher priority at the Olympic Games.

Can't really agree with that, myself. Football's huge enough already and doesn't need a greater share of the Olympics limelight.

This take on footy at the Olympics sums it up for me:

-----
Football Has No Business At The Olympics

The reason Football365 will not be covering the football tournament at this summer's Olympics has nothing to do with human rights, Tibet, drug cheats, propaganda, visas or even manpower. F365 will not be providing coverage for the simple reason that we do not believe football should be part of the Olympics.

Assuming they can still see clearly through the smog, the sportsmen in Bejing this summer should regard the goal of winning a gold medal as the ultimate achievement in their field. It is a simple glory: win gold and win indisputable proof you are the best at your particular business. Sadly, football, along with tennis and a host of other box-office events added on to the Olympic timetable, is an unpalatable distortion of that golden rule.

The football team that wins the gold medal in three weeks' time will not be the best in the world. That honour is reserved for the team that wins the World Cup - football's own exclusive one-sport version of the Olympics. To publicise events in what is essentially a glorified under-23 tournament would be to discredit the achievements of the runners, cyclists, swimmers and rowers who rightfully regard the attainment of a gold medal as the pinnacle of their sport.

LINK

Spot on, that.

One one level, I accept that winning a gold medal in football, Tennis, Baseball, Basketball, and perhaps one or two other sports, cannot be considered the pinnacle of achievement for their respective fields. If you were to view the Olympics purely as a competition, I would agree wholeheartedly with this.

On another level, the Olympics represents much more than that - an opportunity to embrace sports which are played in many different countries throughout the world, and football is the foremost global sport. More than any other global sporting event, at the Olympics, the competing itself counts for a whole lot more. It's completely unique in this respect - it doesn't have to be about 'simple glory' for every sport.

I don't think the Olympics should be framed as a global competition like any other, it has different values and I think those values are borne out by the comments of those who are competing in it - including those from the events in question. For example, winning an olympic medal may not be the pinnacle of a tennis player's career if you're viewing it from within the circles of that sport, but on a personal level it can be different, and special in its own right, and some players do consider it as significant as a Grand Slam event.

Serena Williams;

"I love playing for my country. This is the Olympics, it doesn't get any bigger and from all my trophies, my gold medal is my favourite. For me, this is as big as the US Open."

Andy Murray;

"To win any grand slam would be huge and also the same with the Olympics. A gold medal in the Olympics is something that I think if you look at it over all sports is a big deal for everybody."

I don't think it's limited to Tennis players either;

Mascherano;

"It's the way you experience the event, especially as a footballer. Perhaps here in our hotel, you could say it's no different from a World Cup. But when you arrive at the Olympic Village, it's a real eye-opener and you see so much more. I had the good fortune to be in the Village in Athens, and I came across stars I never imagined I'd meet. That was a real delight and an aspect we thoroughly enjoyed."

by **Bad Bob** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:45 pm

I understand where you're coming from LFC: I'm sure footballers, tennis stars, basketball players etc. that compete are thrilled to represent their country on one of the world's most pre-eminent sporting stages. As a viewer, though, I can't get excited by football at the Olympics. For me the Olympics are entirely about watching brief snippets of sports that, quite frankly, I don't give a toss about and completely forget exist until the next Olympics.

Sure, I'll get caught up in the excitement of Olympic diving or swimming or shot put for a few minutes but my interest in these sports is decidedly short-lived. That's fine, though, because so is the coverage: ten minutes of this followed by twenty minutes of that--it suits my fleeting interest perfectly (or does it create it?

). Anyway, the thought of watching football in this context makes me cringe: seeing the one sport I am truly engrossed with served up at the grand Olympic smorgasbord with all that other stuff? Meted out in 25 minute parcels or truncated highlights packages without any of the build-up and punditry that makes World Cup football, say, so compelling? No thank you. :no

by **LFC2007** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:59 pm

No contest in comparison with a World cup, or the Euro's, or Premiership football, or Champions League football etc.

On a personal level, I only find it interesting as it can be an opportunity to see some good football, and a few up of the world's up and coming stars.

It's not really that though, it's the fact that it's the most prominent global sport, and the olympics - albeit the pinnacle for most, is also very much about the spirit of competing and uniting different cultures through sport. That's why I feel it should retain its place.

by **Sabre** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:32 pm

Interesting discussion the one of football and I can see truth in both sides. But I'm more positioned in LFC's view.

I've read an argument stating that when it comes to football it's the World Cup the one who decides who's the best. True. You could tell the same about cycling on route. If you asked 15 years ago to a cyclist whether he liked more a olympic gold medal or the rainbow jersey, he'd answer the latter. But olympics have gained importance in the last years, the sport still has it's competitions in which the best cyclist is decided, but olympics are seen as an opportunity to promote the sport on a world level, as literally every country of the world sees the olympics.

As a football fan, I don't like football becoming more of a show rather than a sport. It's bad enough that millions rule football and one Russian can buy a club and win titles. Playing in the olympics is the chance we have to show the world how good is our SPORT, and why it's so popular. I'd like that millions of children see how Gerrard shoots in range, or Messi dribbles. I don't want olympics without football.

All that said, it's all very difficult. For starters, the competition has nothing to do with FIFA and UEFA (which is nice, because I don't want football competitions to be a monopoly), and the competition is held in a month in which it clearly interferes with club football. I did like when in 1992 the NBA superstars forgot about their best league of the world and went to Barcelona to impress the world. That team will be always remembered. In a nutshell, if it was me I'd take very seriously the olympic competition, but I think it's very difficult these days.

by **Yessicajax** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:03 pm

they asked Huntelaar..what he prefer more...Europa cup or Olympics.. he said EC..

Babel scored today the first goal against USA what was ended in a 2-2 score (in the very last minut holland scored the 2-2. )

Liverpool FC Forum

BEIJING 2008 OLYMPICS - Discussion of the Games

Who is online