I am totally hooked on the Olympics. Well, not yesterday, when I was at work and had to suffice with the hour-long highlights show, nor today nor tomorrow, I suppose. But on Saturday-Monday, I made full use of the interactive service 'Red Button' to pick and choose what I wanted to see. Notably the Equestrianism, Gymnastics, Badminton, Rowing, Sailing and Cycling. Weightlifting is always fun to watch, but I just don't 'get' judo.
In many ways I object to the very long hours of coverage. Although only in principle. I object more strongly to the endless hours of snooker, darts and golf that take over TV far too frequently, at the expense of the majority of the population who simply don't care to watch any sport on the TV, or who are discerning in choosing what they watch.
When it comes to individualistic sports such as tennis, I object to the rah-rah-rah nationalism. When I was young it was okay to like Nastase, McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Agassi, and, of course, my all-time favourite Navratilova, and no-one gave a stuff about their nationality. I abandoned tennis for a long time, partly because of the sheer boredom exemplified by Sampras but mainly because of the tedious nationalistic fervour behind the not-very-good Henman. I got back into it this year, delighted by the top two men (Nadal and Federer), and utterly engrossed in the final. I speak of course of Wimbledon, which gets blanket TV coverage, whilst all other tournaments are more-or-less ignored.
I delighted in watching the execrable Andy Murray lose on Monday to an unknown Taiwanese. I dislike Murray. I think he's a spoilt brat who seems to believe the world owes him a living. His attitude problem was very evident on court on Monday. It sticks in my gullet that his anti-Englishness should be ignored by the morons in the media less interested in sporting excellence than in flag-waving.
Something that has bugged me for several years and now has become a big problem for me is the fiction that all Gold Medals are equal. I suppose it's come to a head because of that swimmer who wants eight golds and has five, I think, already. I don't wish to diminish his achievement, he is so obviously the best at what he does, by quite a margin. And if he achieves the Eight, it will be a remarkable achievement.
But I can't think of any other sport where it is possible to win anything like eight golds. I suppose five are possible in gymnastics. But I enjoyed the cycling road races: all those competitors really worked for their medals or merely to finish. I suppose they could double up in the time-trial, as a Marathon runner could possibly double up in a 10,000m. But then I look at sailing, where they are going day after day for a single medal, and I don't think it's logistically possible to enter more than one contest. Or the Eight in rowing, or indeed football or hockey, which require eight (or nine) or eleven (or sixteen) individuals at the peak of fitness and ability just to score one Gold.
I'm not suggesting some ridiculous weighting of medals, for the Medals Table or for any other purpose, but when we talk about Olympic achievement I don't think it's fair to imply that someone who can pick up Eight Golds in as many days, sometimes two in one day, is, ergo, better than someone who takes several days, or several unbroken hours, to win their one. Greatest Athlete of All Time - I remain to be convinced.
One of the reasons why I am quite relaxed about the coverage is that I find it refreshing to see these sports-people, especially in 'minority' sports, who are essentially dull but perfectly normal. I accept that in order to achieve that sporting excellence they have to sacrifice building a personality...that tends to come later.
But what a refreshing change to see genuine pleasure at reaping the rewards of years of hard work, and talent. So different from these ghastly Reality Shows, or these pointless pretend Clebs, obsessed by their appearances and their ridiculous diets. Outside of gymnastics, are any competitors as thin as the narcissists that adorn the glossy mags? Even the gymnasts appear these days to have gone through puberty.
Another thing I find exciting is the future. So often over the years, when Team GB has disappointed, the commentators have fallen back on 'building for the future'. I have long become tired of that, because as some rise, others ebb. But,for the first time, I can believe 'better next time'.
This year is about preparing for London 2012. So much investment is going into developing sports people to excel in four years time. The more Team GB achieves now, and in four years time, the more delighted I will be.
Not out of some jingoistic notion where people randomly born in one country are 'better' than those randomly assigned to others, but as demonstration that the more the State invests in developing talent, in an intensive and properly managed way, the greater the rewards. It will be a kick in the teeth for those who want Government to 'do-nothing' or who decry the 'Nanny State'. Australia in 2000 and subsequently, China now, and hopefully the UK in 2012 will demonstrate the very real benefits of State Intervention.
