Olympic sports program review

[JoshMartini007 2,508]

I think they're overestimating the depth from the West Indies. Once you get past  the other Caribbean nations are not relevant.

 

Cricket's issue is not interest as there are enough nations which compete at a high level it's the sport-specific venues required (like baseball/softball). Unfortunately, you can't fit a cricket field in a football stadium.

[phelps 7,558]

14 hours ago, JoshMartini007 said:

I think they're overestimating the depth from the West Indies. Once you get past  the other Caribbean nations are not relevant.

 

Cricket's issue is not interest as there are enough nations which compete at a high level it's the sport-specific venues required (like baseball/softball). Unfortunately, you can't fit a cricket field in a football stadium.

yes, you can!

 

provided it's a football stadium with the athletics track (it would only require minor adjustment, like a carpet to cover the track and make it a playable surface) 

 

I remember that they also played a world cup semifinal at the Eden Park in Auckland, which is a rugby stadium with some space around the rugby lines 

[De_Gambassi 1,198]

20 minutes ago, phelps said:

yes, you can!

 

provided it's a football stadium with the athletics track (it would only require minor adjustment, like a carpet to cover the track and make it a playable surface) 

 

I remember that they also played a world cup semifinal at the Eden Park in Auckland, which is a rugby stadium with some space around the rugby lines 

Eden Park has always been (also) a cricket ground. They kept cricket in mind when they refurbished it for the 2011 RWC. It's hardly comparable with regular rectangle stadiums around the world.

 

And there are not many cities who would have a somewhat decent athletic stadium on top of their olympic stadium.

 

There are no way around it. Having cricket in the olympic program would be a major issue for many of the possible future hosts.

[JoshMartini007 2,508]

Some athletic stadiums could squeeze in a cricket field, but it depends on how much extra space was left outside the long ends of the track.

[rajiv 31]

You can really expand the number of cricket nations by including all the territories which can contribute to the West Indies team _which is about a dozen but there are four main ones (actually Barbados has historically been the number one contributor) The total population of these West Indies states is about 6 million.

 

As for lacrosse I'm betting now that the gold medal game will be USA beating Canada, but I bet I won't find any takers it's such a sure thing. GB and Australia play lacrosse in a very small way so there's your bronze medal game. As for the rest of the world well I think they may have a national lacrosse team but don't really have much in the way of local leagues. But then that could also be said of China and (field) hockey so who knows what could happen. Look at USA and Canada in rugby7s where both are rugby minnows - once a sport is in the Olympics things can change.

 

Flag football will hopefully also be a oncer with USA the certain winners.

 

Maybe not so much here but I'd say plenty of people are becoming very cynical about the Olympics

 

[NearPup 2,984]

13 minutes ago, rajiv said:

As for lacrosse I'm betting now that the gold medal game will be USA beating Canada, but I bet I won't find any takers it's such a sure thing.

 

I actually think is going to be favourites to win both the men's and women's events

 

The format at the Olympics is sixes, which isn't the same as the traditional outdoor lacrosse format. It has a lot of elements that make it more similar to box lacrosse (an indoor version of lacrosse played on a pitch the size of an ice hockey rink), and that's a version of the game Canada absolutely dominated.

 

...but ya, and are almost locks for the gold medal game in both the men's and women's event. If the Haudenosaunee are allowed to compete then there is a real chance there could be a North American sweep in the men's event.

[NearPup 2,984]

18 hours ago, Federer91 said:

Many of the other sports are just host fodder and/or are basically a 3-5 country sports. Flag football, cricket, lacrosse, baseball, breaking have limited appeal. What is the justifiable reason for adding them, beside the host jerking for throwing a ton of money for organizing the Games.

Of those:

• I have no justification for Lacrosse or Flag Football.
• If Cricket isn't popular enough to justify being in the Olympic then we have to cut most sports from the Olympics.
• The main justifications I can see for Baseball not being deserving of an Olympic spot is that the women's game is extremely underdeveloped (to the point that Softball is substituted as a women's version) and that the top pros have never taken part in the Olympics. But Baseball is one of the most developed and competitive team sport in the world on the men's side. It definitively dwarfs exisitng Olympic team sports like Water Polo, Handball and Field Hockey.
• The main reason I think breaking being in the Olympics would make sense as a permanent inclusion is that it's dirt cheap to host - very few athletes, relatively few officials, very easy to produce for TV and re-using an exisitng venue. It really doesn't need to have very much appeal to be worth it.