Redscape - View topic - 2010 Vancouver Olympics

2010 Vancouver Olympics

Page 1 of 5 | Goto: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 next

Author

Topic

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:44 pm

Exactly who gives a crap...or so you'd get that impression from a severe lack of promotion. Has NBC just written off the whole thing as a loss because the promotions seem thinner than ever.

Or just maybe NBC will pull in the viewers once this gets going, and this will be a popular Olympics by winter standards.

_________________
“I enjoy crushing bastards.” Assange

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

Danivon
Ambassador

Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:59 pm

Apparently on Sunday night there was some major sporting event, but most people around the world weren't too bothered and probably couldn't tell you what it was all about.

I'll not be using expletives about it though.

_________________
World Cup 2010 - England

P 16(3) W 0 D 3 S 6(1) L 7(2) NMR 5
History

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Magister Equitum
Ambassador

Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:51 pm

I returned about an hour ago from downtown where the celebration of Canada's hockey victory over Norway is kicking off.

The art gallery has a Da Vinci exhibition, which is pretty nice. (If the Cafe Crepe restaurant got us our food faster we would have had more time to enjoy the activities...alas, such was not the case.)

_________________
Game History

Standard Russia

Sazerac

SIIN

posts: 1929 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007

Guapo
Dignitary

Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:55 am

I don't particularly care for the olympics--especially the winter ones. During the summer, baseball, soccer and gymnastics (yes, I like gymnastics) are fun to watch.

But I'm curious. How do those in the southern hemisphere feel about the "Winter" Olympics being in their summer, and the "Summer" Olympics being in their winter?

It reminds me of the "global north" and "global south" (think global was the term), which were to take over for first, second and third world--according to economic growth. Australia was in the "North" Laughing

posts: 1943 | location: Probably Your Spam Folder | joined: 28 Aug 2006 | medals: 2

Danivon
Ambassador

Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:33 pm

Guapo wrote:

But I'm curious. How do those in the southern hemisphere feel about the "Winter" Olympics being in their summer, and the "Summer" Olympics being in their winter?

When the Summer Games have been held in the Southern Hemisphere (both times in Australia), they are were held in Spring/Summer. Of course, the Winter Games have always been in the North, but there aren't many places with the facilities. Australia would be closest, and then perhaps the Andes.

But I think people can adjust to Winter and Summer being opposite at the antipodes. How people in the inter-tropical regions (where it's never Winter) think about it might be more interesting. But even the Cayman Islands sent someone to Vancouver.

Quote:

It reminds me of the "global north" and "global south" (think global was the term), which were to take over for first, second and third world--according to economic growth. Australia was in the "North" Laughing

Of course, hosting an Olympic Games (even a Winter set) costs a lot of money, and so does having well trained top athletes in a lot of sports. It's going to gravitate to the rich nations.

(and the 'third world' thing as a definition predates the idea of the 'first' and 'second' - it referred to the nations in which a majority of the population were in the poorest 1/3 of humanity, and is still relevant today)

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Ozymandias
Emissary

Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:48 am

Firstly, in one of the great farces of athletic competition, baseball is no longer an Olympic sport... it was cut a few years ago. And curling is? Unbelievable.

Secondly, I was under the impression the whole first, second, third world thing was a division between NATO/capitalist countries and communist/Soviet-dominated countries, with the third world being fence nations in Africa, Asia, and South America?

Thirdly, hockey. Who do we think takes gold? Canada has just a great all-around squad, and I think have the San Jose 3 is going to be a massive advantage when their on the ice, especially for the early rounds. They have to be the favorites. But if your gonna have to play Russia, you basically have no choice but to not commit a penalty. I mean, they can throw Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, and Semin out there, ON ONE LINE! And it hardly gets better than that after. For the record, those three players have scored 2% of every goal scored in the NHL this year, despite playing no better than about a third of a the minutes each game. They're going to be dominant on the power play. Absolutely dominant.

I honestly don't know much about the Swedes and Finns, since they pull a lot of their talent from the KHL and their domestic leagues, but the Swedes are always competitive and the few NHL names I know are good players.

Finally, the US. Losing Martin on the blueline was a big hit for a team that needed stout defense and good goaltending to gain a medal in a viciously competitive field. I think they can pull out a bronze, if they come together quickly and play hard. I also wouldn't be surprised to find Quick starting a game at some point. Miller and Thomas have both been in little slumps recently, and Quick is young, talented, and maybe finally rested (he's basically shouldering the entire LA workload). I've watched him play some, and he can make the most amazing saves you'll ever see, but during game-heavy weeks he also has a tendency to let bloopers in as well.

Anyone else following Olympic hockey?

_________________
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

posts: 788 | joined: 07 Jan 2005 | medals: 1

Pigmalia
Dignitary

Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:10 am

posts: 4738 | location: Autonomous Inland Empire - Occupied | joined: 02 Feb 2006

SuperAnt
Dignitary

Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:56 am

Ozymandias wrote:

Firstly, in one of the great farces of athletic competition, baseball is no longer an Olympic sport... it was cut a few years ago. And curling is? Unbelievable.

First - comparing the "validity" of summer vs. winter sports can't be done. There is a cap on the number of Olympic sports in the summer whereas the winter sports haven't even come close to this cap yet. So baseball faces competition from other sports to get into the Olympics, whereas curling doesn't. You could compare whether they deserve to be Olympic sports at all, but you can't say "Summer Sport A isn't in, but Winter Sport B isn't?"

Second - curling is like golf, almost exactly like it actually. Everyone and their grandmother's dog can curl. Everyone and their grandmother's dog can golf. Arguably, everyone could conceivably win a round of golf or a game of curling. However, very few can do it well, in either sport. At the top level of curling, you are talking about throwing rocks to within fractions of an inch of a target 150 feet away with a very specific level of force. That is not easy by any standard.

Is it boring to watch? For a lot of people, absolutely. But is it as "athletic" as archery, golf, table tennis, equestrian, shooting, bobsled, luge or skeleton? Definitely.

Quote:

Thirdly, hockey. Who do we think takes gold? Canada has just a great all-around squad, and I think have the San Jose 3 is going to be a massive advantage when their on the ice, especially for the early rounds. They have to be the favorites. But if your gonna have to play Russia, you basically have no choice but to not commit a penalty. I mean, they can throw Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, and Semin out there, ON ONE LINE! And it hardly gets better than that after. For the record, those three players have scored 2% of every goal scored in the NHL this year, despite playing no better than about a third of a the minutes each game. They're going to be dominant on the power play. Absolutely dominant.

I honestly don't know much about the Swedes and Finns, since they pull a lot of their talent from the KHL and their domestic leagues, but the Swedes are always competitive and the few NHL names I know are good players.

Finally, the US. Losing Martin on the blueline was a big hit for a team that needed stout defense and good goaltending to gain a medal in a viciously competitive field. I think they can pull out a bronze, if they come together quickly and play hard. I also wouldn't be surprised to find Quick starting a game at some point. Miller and Thomas have both been in little slumps recently, and Quick is young, talented, and maybe finally rested (he's basically shouldering the entire LA workload). I've watched him play some, and he can make the most amazing saves you'll ever see, but during game-heavy weeks he also has a tendency to let bloopers in as well.

Anyone else following Olympic hockey?

Analysing hockey is as much of a sport in Canada as actually playing it Razz

I have read dozens of points of view on the "favourite" status and in the end, I fall on the co-favourite status of Canada and Russia. Russia's weaker defence balances with Canada's "weaker" offence (ok, I'm not sure how you can have a weaker offence when you have Crosby, Nash, Iginla, Marleau, Heatley, and Thornton...but for argument's sake, Russia's offence is slightly scarier). Both teams have excellent goaltending. However, are these two teams clear favourites? I would only say yes in the strictest of technical senses. There is a "2nd tier" of countries that would make any Russian or Canadian fan sweat from start to finish.

In the arguable 2nd tier, these three teams have what I would say is an easy shot at gold. As one game, and potentially a shootout, determines the winner and knocks a country out, anything can happen in this tournament.

#1 - USA. Yes, I'm putting the USA as the third favourite. In a knockout style format, goaltending is paramount to success. If you need proof, just look at Sweden getting knocked out in 2002 by Belarus. A hot goalie who stood on his head and Sweden was out well before they should have. If this was the NHL, just having a hot goaltender isn't enough as they have 7 game series. If Miller plays like the best goalie in the world that he is in a hypothetical quarter/semi-final vs. Russia/Canada, there is no reason why the USA can't win. Brian Burke has done an excellent job portraying the US team as an underdog, but they are the strongest in the world in the category that matters most in this tournament so there is no way they should be overlooked. If I'm in the US, I'm not aiming for a bronze, I'm aiming for gold.

#2 - Finland. Again, goaltending. Kiprusoff is easily one of the top 3 goalies in the world. He faces a huge workload in Calgary and is consistently paying dividends. The Finns also have a decent defence corps to help him out. Like the US, their scoring punch is limited, but if your goalie shuts out the other team, you only need 1 goal to win.

#3 - Sweden. I put Sweden at the bottom because I have never been impressed with Lundqvist. Their D-corps is shaky. It is above average, but I wouldn't trust them as much as I would trust the Canadian defence. Their forwards are aging, broken and have not impressed very much this year (this does not include the Sedins). But they have experience and have a good chunk of their team back from the 2006 gold medal team. If they can form together as a team quickly and get some good play out of Lundqvist, I would never count them out.

_________________
Obstacles are only the things you see when you take your eyes off the goal.

posts: 3904 | location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | joined: 24 Sep 2001 | medals: 5

Ozymandias
Emissary

Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:32 am

Quote:

I wasn't denigrating curling as much as expressing outrage that one of the top 5 most popular sports worldwide isn't in the Olympic game roster.

As for the hockey, I'm shocked you left the Czechs off. I'd move Sweden into the #1 spot (I'm higher on Lundqvist than you, I suppose), drop the US to #2, and put the Czechs in that #3 spot. They've got solid goaltending, as Vokoun is having a spectacular season despite a team that gives him literally nothing in terms of goal support or even defense. And while I'm not big on the guy, Pavelec is at least not a BAD backup. Don't know much about that Stepenak fellow from the Czech league.

They also have that solid D and a respectable offense. I think that after the Canadians and the Russians, they have the most well rounded group, even if they don't necessarily excel in any one area. And maybe its because I was always a Jagr fan when he was in NY, but I think his presence on that team will mean a lot, both in terms of production and leadership.

posts: 788 | joined: 07 Jan 2005 | medals: 1

SuperAnt
Dignitary

Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:45 am

Ozymandias wrote:

I wasn't denigrating curling as much as expressing outrage that one of the top 5 most popular sports worldwide isn't in the Olympic game roster.

Ah, well in that case, I direct you to Exhibit A - the mass of players using performance enhancing drugs in baseball. My personal opinion is that until the faces of the sport are cleaned up and drug testing in MLB is raised to a respectable level, it doesn't belong in the Olympics.

And top 5? Really? I wouldn't think so. Maybe in the Americas and coastal Asia, but I wouldn't say the "world".

Quote:

As for the hockey, I'm shocked you left the Czechs off. I'd move Sweden into the #1 spot (I'm higher on Lundqvist than you, I suppose), drop the US to #2, and put the Czechs in that #3 spot. They've got solid goaltending, as Vokoun is having a spectacular season despite a team that gives him literally nothing in terms of goal support or even defense. And while I'm not big on the guy, Pavelec is at least not a BAD backup. Don't know much about that Stepenak fellow from the Czech league.

They also have that solid D and a respectable offense. I think that after the Canadians and the Russians, they have the most well rounded group, even if they don't necessarily excel in any one area. And maybe its because I was always a Jagr fan when he was in NY, but I think his presence on that team will mean a lot, both in terms of production and leadership.

Meh, I don't give the Czechs a shot at gold. I think they have almost have a tier of their own between the USA/Finland/Sweden group and Slovakia. They'll need to get lucky several times over as the underdog to get there. They got a huge lift by beating Slovakia and have a shot at automatically qualifying into the QFs if they don't give up too many goals to Russia. But as soon as I say that - assuming Russia will beat them - that shows that I don't give them half a chance at gold. Vokoun is good, he's on my fantasy team, but he isn't Brodeur, Nabokov, Kiprusoff or Miller.

Bronze? Maybe. Same with the Slovaks. I just see too many weak links and too deep of a field for their teams to make an impact.

posts: 3904 | location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | joined: 24 Sep 2001 | medals: 5

Magister Equitum
Ambassador

Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:44 pm

There is an activity called the zipline available during the Olympics where people can attach themselves to a cable suspended above a few city streets and slide from one tower to the next. Looks like quite a bit of fun. Unfortunately there is a three hour wait.

posts: 1929 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007

SuperAnt
Dignitary

Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:53 am

Regarding my point about goaltenders being the most important category...case in point:

- Jonas Hiller has an excellent game against Canada and Switzerland nearly repeats their stunner from 4 years ago

- Jaroslav Halak plays an even better game against Russia and the Slovaks upset the Russians in group play!

Oh the beauty of 1-game tournaments!

posts: 3904 | location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | joined: 24 Sep 2001 | medals: 5

Ozymandias
Emissary

Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:28 am

SuperAnt wrote:

And top 5? Really? I wouldn't think so. Maybe in the Americas and coastal Asia, but I wouldn't say the "world".

Yes. Soccer is #1. Then what? Cricket? Basketball? Basketball is big in China, but so is baseball, and it has a wider appeal in the Americas and the rest of the Pacific Rim. I can't think of another really popular sport. Golf? Tennis, maybe?

posts: 788 | joined: 07 Jan 2005 | medals: 1

Danivon
Ambassador

Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:40 am

Ozymandias wrote:

SuperAnt wrote:

And top 5? Really? I wouldn't think so. Maybe in the Americas and coastal Asia, but I wouldn't say the "world".

Rugby? The IRB World Cup is a pretty big occasion.

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

GMTom
Administrator

Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:36 pm

I think all would agree soccer (football) is #1 by a wide margin
But this assumes we are talking about team sports!? Track, swimming, c'mon everyone can run or swim and every single kid the world over has run a race or two in his life!

I would argue basketball is number 2
and #3 ...Volleyball! It's HUGE in Asia and South America while enjoying pretty good popularity everywhere else.
Baseball is huge in some areas but it is near non-existent in some wide sections of the world as well so that one is tricky. Same with Cricket and Rugby. Tennis is played in many areas but isn't exactly 'huge" in many if any at all and is relegated to the wealthier even more so with golf!

posts: 8593 | location: Rochester, NY, North Coast USA | joined: 14 Feb 2000

Page 1 of 5 | Goto: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 next

You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Jump to: