Results 341 to 357 of 385
08-03-2012, 01:12 PM #341
If you are the girl or the rich dude, you better learn the mistake and get some common sense (stay low profile, do not go out in dark by yourself, etc) to prevent same tragedy next time. If you acting like "oh, not my fault" and continue the non-sense on your own part, well, you will have a good chance to see more coming.
08-03-2012, 02:33 PM #342
Are people seriously using rape and murder as examples?
08-03-2012, 04:34 PM #343
I can understand why you might be upset about the Japan team (If your location is indeed correct) however in my opinion the group stage allows for not every match to matter. There is nothing stopping players from losing a match to gain a better draw, and anyway the match had no bearing on the overall standing in the group in terms of who went through.
Personally I do not consider this to be cheating, the purpose of the Olympics on my opinion is to win the best medal possible, if that involves losing a match in order to do better overall, then in my opinion so be it. I know this isn't great for spectators but you are competing for yourself out there, are you going to start handing out disqualifications to people like Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Ryan Lochte etc if they are comfortably in the lead of their race and then decide to ease up and not give 100% for the full duration - if you go by this logic, then I saw about 30 athletes today that should have been disqualified for "not using their best efforts to win"
The point I was making about the names was that, for many they will not have seen much badminton before or be familiar with the players. Some were booing because they won't have followed any of the draw and known what had happened or why it was happening. In fact the British tend to like to join in, if someone is being booed then they tend to join in with that even if they don't understand why it is going on.
Maybe the way they went about throwing the match was wrong, maybe they should have made it more of a spectacle, but the way the matches were set up meant that it was to an extent necessary for it to happen. You might not agree as to why they did it, or the people in the arena might not have agreed, but the players are getting no money from ticket sales for the event so there is nothing in it for them. What about the guy from the Maldives who played Marc Zwiebler? that match was not a spectacle either.
The end of the story is this: The BWF created a problem that should not have been allowed to happen, and as a result they have punished 8 players, shattering their dreams in order for the BWF to save their backsides. In my opinion, shame on the BWF.
08-03-2012, 07:33 PM #344
If the Wondergirls go up on your stage and suddenly start dancing like they're in a kindergarten ballet class, you're going to boot them off and hire some half-decent Canadians and Australians, too, if some are handy.
pjswift liked this post
08-03-2012, 08:02 PM #345
So if Yu Yang wins her match and decides that KOR advances in the first position then won't Denmark just decide that the other Chinese team will advance in second position from their group and face Yang and Co. ?
If team China didn't want a China vs China match in the second round then the second ranked in the world WD team from China should have won their group. Well they didn't, too bad. You are supposed to win your medals on the badminton court not off court.
08-03-2012, 08:37 PM #346
08-03-2012, 09:00 PM #347
08-04-2012, 07:01 AM #348
Usain Bolt just jogged his way through his heat, someone should disqualify him for not giving his full effort!
08-04-2012, 07:08 AM #349
08-04-2012, 07:12 AM #350
DQ ladies vs Phelps/Bolt/etc.
There's a major difference in not trying 100% to win vs trying 100% to lose on PURPOSE.
End of discussion. It's history.
limsy liked this post
08-04-2012, 07:40 AM #351
08-04-2012, 10:24 AM #352
The Goal Is Winning Gold, Not Winning Every Match
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/sp...?ref=sportsNew York TimesINSIDE THE RINGSThe Goal Is Winning Gold, Not Winning Every Match Wang Xiaoli, left, and Yang Yu were kicked out of the Games for trying to lose a match. But did they do anything wrong?By SAM BORDENPublished: August 2, 2012LONDON — Abby Wambach, the veteran forward on the United States women’s soccer team, said the other day that “no one gives you anything for finishing at the top of your group.” And the goal of every Olympic athlete, from Wambach to Usain Bolt to Ann Romney’s horse Rafalca, is to win a medal. The rest is just a journey.RelatedSo why the uproar over the tactics used by the four women’s badminton teams that were disqualified for trying to lose their final preliminary-round matches? Where exactly did the badminton players veer off into corruption?They did not organize the tournament. They did not arrange the draw.They simply looked at the information that was presented to them, looked at their ultimate goal and went in the direction that seemed to have the best chance of leading them there. A loss in those matches, they decided, would give them a better path to winning a medal. How is this different from, say, a swimmer who coasts to the wall in a preliminary heat or a runner who jogs past the finish line in a semifinal to conserve energy for the final? Is it even that much different from a baseball player bunting?Derek Jeter is a career .313 hitter. And yet in certain situations, sometimes even important situations in important games, Jeter goes up to the plate with the intention of not getting a hit. If he is successful — that is, if he succeeds at failing — he will be congratulated by his teammates when he returns to the dugout. The rules of baseball and other sports create situations in which a type of failure can be good strategy.In the badminton case, the teams’ ultimate goal was clear: win a gold medal. And what is one way to help do that? Avoid the best teams for as long as possible. This was not a sacrifice bunt because there was no sacrifice. The teams, after evaluating the tournament setup that was presented to them, saw an opportunity to give up nothing in the hope of gaining something significant. One could argue it would have been silly for them not to seize that opportunity.It is worth noting, too, that the notion of “always give it your all” or whatever other hoary chestnut you can imagine a hyperactive Little League coach spewing in a pregame huddle is largely Western. As the British have been so quick to remind us over the past two weeks, fair play and sportsmanship were invented here. But what does that truly mean? Play to win in a meaningless match, only to be rewarded with a more difficult path later on?To some, that defies sporting sensibility; to others, it defies logic.One can only imagine, too, how the local reaction to this situation might have differed four years ago in Beijing. After all, Sun Tzu taught a more sophisticated approach to combat in “The Art of War,” imploring a big-picture savvy that put a premium on positioning and strategy and an unflinching attachment to remembering the desired end result.That is what the badminton teams did, and the theory is put to use to varying degrees in every sport. Sometimes it is a football team purposely taking a 5-yard penalty so its punter can have more room to try to land his kick near the end zone. Sometimes it is a cyclist slowing down to help his teammate kick to the finish. Sometimes it is a basketball team playing less talented players to help its chances of receiving a higher draft pick.On Tuesday in Cardiff, Wales, the Japanese women’s soccer team purposely played for a draw in its final group game, hanging back in the second half and never pushing forward to try to score. This strategy was ordered by the team’s coach, and his reasoning was simple: a draw meant his team would stay put and play its quarterfinal in the same city a few days later. A win meant the Japanese would have to travel to Scotland to play the knockout game.To that coach, Norio Sasaki, less travel meant a better chance at winning the tournament. To those badminton players, a loss in the final group game meant the same. Fans who complained about having bought tickets to see something like that are not seeing the athletes’ big picture. The competitors’ main obligation is to do what sets them up best to win a medal. They trained to play well, yes, but more important, they trained to win a medal. And Tuesday, losing gave them the best chance to do that. If fans are still angry, they should be angry at the organizers who made the situation possible, not the athletes themselves.Was it pretty? No, it was not. And no one says fans have to celebrate losing to win. But we should also not be so foolish as to act as if it isn’t sometimes just another part of the game.
08-04-2012, 10:31 AM #353
08-04-2012, 10:58 AM #354
08-04-2012, 11:17 AM #355
heck, whatever they did, shameful or not, we can skip it if we want
it is just too painful to see a kindergarten class act like that. the audience paid a lot of money wasting their effort and time to get there and got crappy match like that
Locog said they will not refund the ticket
so are you saying the audiences were stupid for paying to watch the game?
are the audiences stupid that they want to watch LD VS LCW but suddenly LD said "I got stomachache since I drank too much cold water"?
08-04-2012, 10:56 PM #356
From the player's perspective, what matters is the result.
From the spectator's perspective, what matters is the spectacle.
Oftentimes, this will co-incide. Players (both sides) want to win, so we get a spectacle. No problems there.
But what spectators do not understand is that the players are not gladiators. They are not circus entertainers. If they are, then fancy-pants KKK is everyone's hero. The players are there to win. To win what? Think from the players' perspective. To win titles, prize money, recognition, ranking points or to maintain sponsorship, ranking, livelihood etc. If the top players just want to win matches, they can just go play in small tournaments, but no they want to win as big (title, prize etc.) as they can. It just happens that to win all these that they desire, they have to win their matches too. Most of the time...
When spectators don't get a spectacle of a match, there are multiple reasons. To name a few:
1. One side is weak, the match is unbalanced. We forgive the stronger side from playing to his best abilities. In fact, we implore him not to soundly embarass the weaker side.
2. Both sides sides are weak. We forgive those, they are not doing it on purpose.
3. One (or both) sides are not trying hard to win, but they are not trying to lose either. It's just that the match has lost its significance. Remember the times when dead rubbers are played in Thomas/Uber? Even spectators are disinterested in the proceedings, no matter how exciting the match turned out to be.
4. The match is thrown by one side to benefit the other. Could be acting for whole match, walkover, retirement. Proven or not, the (non)match is boring. I'll come back to this later.
5. Both sides are throwing the match to benefit their ownselves respectively.
Let's elaborate on the last two.
Even though the result is the same for spectators (uninteresting match), I feel that there is a sharp distinction.
The first is where one side sacrifices himself for the team. He gets eliminated (does not get the prize he may have deserved), but eventually, one of the players/pairs from the same team will have a better chance at the title.
The second is where one sacrifices a match for a better chance of the prize himself.
To play for the team (i.e. team orders) in individual tournaments naturally seem wrong; most of us feel this. To play for oneself in individual tournaments is what it should be, right?
In both cases, there will be victims who feel unfairly treated.
In the first, it will be the rivals outside the team who has a face a fresher opponent who just got a walkover or easy match. Or someone denied an Olympic spot due to another player raking enough ranking points from "winning" against a team-mate.
In the second, an example of a victim would be the Olympics IND WD who could have progressed had the JPN WD won their final group match. Or the victor of one group having a tougher match-up in the next round because the top player from the other group throws his match to finish second.
In these cases, all the victims will feel injustice being done. But there is a difference. In the first case, a whole team conspired against you to bring about a scenario most disadvantageous to you. In the second case, a single player/pair wanted to easier path for himself, and the easier path happens to be you.
We can also examine from the perspective of conflict of interest. In the first, there is a conflict between the interest of the player (who wants personal rewards) and the interest of the team. It just feels wrong that in individual tournaments, the player's interest is sacrificed for the teams's.
In the second, there is a conflict between the interest of the player to win all matches (perhaps due to pride) and his interest to do well in the tournament overall. I think it's understandable for some players to swallow a bit of pride for a bigger achievement.
I hope I have drawn the distinctions clearly. My view is that it is very difficult to have an absolutist view about this Olympics match-throwing incident, which I am surprised many people have.
AlanY liked this post
08-05-2012, 02:22 AM #357
And yes, staying home in the comfort of your own sofa and watch the matches is actually a very good idea. If it doesn't work out, you just need to switch channel.