FWIW, I've felt for a long time that cricket has always had the potential to be *visibly* more global than what it is...but b/c the grubs @ the ICC (ie. the old Marylebone CC toffs and their Indian Subcontinent counterparts) couldn't care less about legitimately (20/20 is a gimmick that doesn't count for sh1t IMHO) growing the game outside of its strongholds, nothing changes.

It's funny; I'm originally from a football-mad country only a proverbial stone's throw away from the West Indies...but no-one there knows what cricket is. You'd think due to the geographical proximity someone would've heard of it in passing, but quite apparently not.

In a decision taken by the International Handball Federation on 8 July 2014 the spot allocated for a nation from Oceania was revoked on the grounds that Oceania has no continental confederation. The national team, qualified for this spot through the 2014 Oceania Handball Championship, was Australia. The spot was instead handed out as a wild card to the nation with the highest ranking at the previous world championships not qualified for the Qatar tournament. This nation was Germany.

Was a big joke and very unfair even in the eyes of many Germans who were pissed enough their team hadn't qualified properly. [/quote]
Yeah but because they'd competed in the past and it at least appears on the surface like a "last minute decision". I assumed there was some politicking from the heavy hitters in the IHF to get Germany back in. Of course IHF isn't FIFA so maybe it's different :lol:

quote=mcjules]
Handball's a great game. Shame it never really took off here. There must be some political reasons for ruling us out of the last world cup. Looking at how we went last world cup, we're a long way off the top 24 though :lol:

Might start following our progress in this tournament.

Edited by mcjules: 25/6/2015 10:51:10 PM[/quote]

In a decision taken by the International Handball Federation on 8 July 2014 the spot allocated for a nation from Oceania was revoked on the grounds that Oceania has no continental confederation. The national team, qualified for this spot through the 2014 Oceania Handball Championship, was Australia. The spot was instead handed out as a wild card to the nation with the highest ranking at the previous world championships not qualified for the Qatar tournament. This nation was Germany.

Was a big joke and very unfair even in the eyes of many Germans who were pissed enough their team hadn't qualified properly.

We do.

Exactly.

As cycling goes, I'm not much of a fan of track cycling as a spectator. I used to sit mindboggled wondering how people could even bother watching road cycling, but it is actually really in depth in terms of tactics. I watch all the races on EuroSport now. Good stuff.

Road cycling is like Tennis and even football, everyone would like to win an Olympic gold, but it's not the pinnacle of the sport.

Handball rocks. The crowds go full mental berko and are massively boisterous.

Huge amount of fun.

Handball's a great game. Shame it never really took off here. There must be some political reasons for ruling us out of the last world cup. Looking at how we went last world cup, we're a long way off the top 24 though :lol:

Might start following our progress in this tournament.

Edited by mcjules: 25/6/2015 10:51:10 PM

wow, was that a joke about mental health? people get banned for that around here draupkick

Shit, it's like you need to insert conspiracy theories into everything you say whether you're being sarcastic or not.

Have you not been taking the pills this week?

these people might not have been born fat, but they're fat on the inside and if they decide to go transweight when they get older its because they're discovering their inner self

please be more accepting of these generous donors to the consumption and pharmaceutical industries

Our handball team is currently playing in an emerging nations tournament. Today or tomorrow we're up against Great Britain. Bit of a fiasco with our last WC qualification ruled out. Read up about it.

Hahah, I know. I made that criteria to avoid having sports like darts and snooker included, but then realised that it would preclude golf, F1 and MotoGP. Need to think of a way in which it can be reframed. Sorry.

There actually is no definitive answer as to what is a sport.

are formula 1 & moto GP/Superbikes sports by definition? if they are change your criteria

"A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means. It is governed by a set of rules or customs "

I know your tongue is firmly in cheek but I think I read somewhere that more people go to the arts (museums, concerts, shows) than attend sport.

Maybe we need a string of "elite" art academies.

Because pretty pictures make me feel good and stuff.

Little Johnny and little Janey are going to grow up to be a member of the most, or second most, obese country on earth. I hardly think whatever we are doing now is working out peachy keen.

Re: Cycling. I'm going on medals at the WC's and Olympics.

The fact is little Johhny or Jane don't want to play sport without heroes to look up to.

And you clearly don't understand cycling if you think our track squad is better than our rode team.

I think we should cut all sports and arts funding. Only focus on things that have a direct financial benefit to the tax payer

That we should have a hard look at whether we are getting the best bang for our buck funding elite athletes.



No argument.



Maybe. Could be here all day if you want to argue deregulation.



They are mutually exclusive unless there is a bottomless pit of money. There isn't.

Maybe, gambling could be taxed more. It is already heavily taxed.



Once they cross a certain threshold of earnings. Simple really. (I don't see how you can't see this.)



Sure can. One's a valuable member of society that will contribute to the betterment of it for the next 40 years. One got to do what they love for a short period of time paid for by the taxpayer. That bit is very clear.



No argument. Refer "threshold" proviso.



My argument exactly. It is healthy. And the more people that can do it the better. Thanks.



The US doesn't fund an AIS setup.



Ergo is the reverse is true? Do we sink into a depressive funk because we lost a series or were booted from the World Cup? Is that a good thing?



I'm not telling anyone it doesn't matter. I'm saying Australia winning a gold medal in trap shooting does not make my life better by one iota. Does it make your life better?



I never derided swimming. I said not many nations take it seriously.



Not true. See page one.

Seems I did have time after all.

Just out of interest exactly how many federally funded AIS type setups are there in Africa, The Americas and Asia?

The cream rises to the top QF, but you can't make cream without milk and grass. Funding for little Johnny and Jane so they can run around is the "milk and grass" from where the cream comes from.

I know, I know. Fund both.




Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 25/6/2015 02:17:52 PM

Again a comprehension fail.

Go back to the first page. I said Australia punches above our weight in the following (global) sports:

Field hockey. Men's and women's.
Waterpolo. Men's and women's.
Basketball. Women's.

Maybe Cycling. (Track cycling.)



Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 25/6/2015 02:17:25 PM

@ quickflick.

I don't have enough time to rebut your argument at length because you are either wilfully (or ignorantly) not comprehending what I've written.

I have repeatedly said I do not want to stop elite funding. (You seem to think I want it canned.) I said it should be toned down and some hard questions need to be asked as to whether we, as a country, are getting the best bang for our buck or the money could be spent better elsewhere.

It seems you are happy to fund elite athletes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to feel warm and fuzzy. Good for you.

I'd rather little Johnny and Jane have the facilities and the means to play sport.

To you it's not an either/or proposition. Unfortunately for your position it is exactly that. There is not a bottomless pit of money and hard decisions are made when it comes to funding.

As I said before given the choice of funding a couple of dozen swimmers to the tune of $39 million dollars for 4 years or paying $200 a year rego for 19 500 children for 10 years straight I know what I'd pick. (But that's just me.)

As for your abhorrence at having a HECS style repayment system for the AIS again you have shown you can't read. I said for those athletes that cross a certain threshold. What the hell is wrong with recouping some of that from those that do well out of it. A nurse would have to work for 83 years (@ $60k / year ) to earn what Michael Clarke is on per year now. Not to mention for example a bloke like Bresciano and the dozens of others earning millions that passed through the institute of sport at some stage.

And also (I think) the US government doesn't fund an AIS type setup in America. So take them out of your argument.

Australia is the 6th or 7th strongest nation in men's road cycling.

I have to admit I played it down a bit when I mentioned it. Partially because every suggestion was getting shouted down as "no one plays it" or a "rich white boy sport". :lol:

Fair point about the cycling. Cycling would have made the top ten if the list was for men's and women's sports, but it's just men's. At London 2012, we were good in men's but not great. For women's we were outstanding. Even still, when you look at some of the guys doing road cycling, maybe it should still be in the top ten. I'll have a think.

Trouble is for some of the other sports, we're either the best, won gold medals for at London or likely to medal at Rio.

Munrubenmuz

Feel free to respond to post which comprehensively listed reasons why funding of elite sport is important :d

Or you can just cherrypick things and go around in circles and claim, erroneously, that the wording of the initial post has been significantly altered. When in fact the only alterations have been to the list and the requirement that the sport be played in the Olympics or have a Commonwealth tradition.

Edited by quickflick: 25/6/2015 02:26:56 AM

Less government money for football and athletics, more for table tennis and starcraft.

What, pray tell, are you trying to prove?

Absolutely agree that we should be doing better in terms of things like medical/scientific research. But for that the universities need more money.

Actually, if you truly want to see Australian universities produce a bunch of Nobel laureates, the fees for university students will need to be deregulated (is it so surprising the US has 353 Nobel laureates?). Universities in Australia don't get enough money to produce that kind of research.

But again, you're guilty of creating a false dichotomy. I want Australian universities to to be at the forefront of medical and scientific research and for Australia to win a bucketload of gold medals. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I've set out a model by which sport can be funded without hurting other services.

You're guilty of using false equivalence too. Training at the AIS/VIS/NSWIS is not a degree. If you're training for, say, steeplechase, you're not going to leave the AIS/VIS with qualifications by which you can reasonably be expected to make an income once you have finished competing in the sport. Moreover, while you are competing in the sport you're not going to make much money either. This begs the question how the hell are AIS scholarship-holders expected to pay back HECS?

Nurses are undertaking a degree which is expected to get them a job with an income whereby the can gradually pay it back and still make enough money to live on top of that. Can you see the difference?

Most people at the AIS don't have endorsements and have to pay their own way for heaps of things as it is. You've deluded yourself into thinking that because some of them are in TV ads, all of them make a bucketload of cash. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Australians love sport because we're human beings and human beings like to win at things. Sport is a healthy platform by which human being can compete.

In case you haven't noticed those other nations you've mentioned (Britain, the States, France, Germany, etc) also love sport, also love to win and with Britain and the States, at least, spend more money on elite sport than Australia does. The USA doesn't have an inferiority complex, they like to win as well. I admit that many Australians have inferiority complexes. But even if nobody had an inferiority complex, we'd still want to win in sport (just like people in other countries do).

When Australia does well at something like the World Cup or in the Ashes or in the Olymipcs, you can tell that a good many people are really happy. It's almost palpable. Maybe that's sad, but that's the way it is. The same in Britain. When England won the Ashes in 2005 people were just about singing in the streets.

It's obvious that you're falling for that which you're accusing others of. You're saying that we care about sports that nobody cares about. If we're not out to impress anybody, why would we care that nobody cares about them? The fact of the matter there is an element of international one-upmanship in international sport and that's fine. It's the last healthy form of patriotism. And secondly, you're mistaken about nobody caring about some of those sports.

Try telling the billion people in India that cricket doesn't matter. Cricket matters to Australians and the English, as well. We don't care if people in China haven't a clue what it is. In the context of the Ashes, only Australia and England matter. It has been that way for over 130 years. And for the 130 years for many people from Australia and England, both in the highest and lowest classes of society, it has been the most important sport in the world. In the context of cricket more generally, only the handful of nations that play it matter. Other countries are welcome to follow it and to try and get involved. But if they don't want to, it's their loss, that's all there is to it.

Try telling somebody who gets up at 5am 5 days a week to train as an Olympic rower that rowing doesn't matter.

As for sports like swimming, which you've derided, I've demonstrated that plenty of countries care a lot about swimming (as evidenced by amount of money they spend on it and the nature of their competitions). Australia, USA, China, Russia, France, Germany, UK, Japan, Italy, Netherlands are some of the most powerful nations in the world and they care about the sport. Just because not every African country competes, it doesn't reduce its right to be regarded as an international sport.

As I've said all along, by your criteria, football is the only global sport.

Edited by quickflick: 25/6/2015 01:30:01 AM

Edited by quickflick: 25/6/2015 02:19:47 AM