Toe Curling

I dunno Chris, your tastes and mine seem to be diverging rapidly! You loved Papstars, but hated the Curling??!! Curling is a great sport, combining the grace of figure skating, with the tension of bowls and the sportsmanship of darts.

Ok - put it like that and I kinda see your opint, but while I didn't see the final, I did see the UK team kick Sweden's arse! I didn't know where to put myself. Should I have cheered for Sweden or for the UK??




I ended up consoling the fact that we lost by celebrating that we won!




I dunno - next thing you know you'll be saying that you don't like computers any more and you're going off to be a market gardener! :-)

Hi Steve... hate to break it to you, but it was SWITZERLAND in the finals!

Maybe I was a little harsh, though.

But my main point was intended to reflect that if it wasn't for the UK team getting as far as they did, nobody would be interested in watching it.

In the event, the death of John Thaw grabbed the big headlines today.

PS. I'm not interested in gardening at all, so at least you have nothing to worry about on that front! 8)

Contrary to what a lot of people might think, I'm not interested in Pop Idol anymore. I won't be buying the single/album, as they're going to be shite.

I'd also hasten to add that although I'm happy that Will beat Gareth, neither of them are particularly good - I don't think any of the finalists particularly were!

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. One of those rare occasionas where we're clearly going to disagree entirely. Curling may not be the most visually stimulating sport in the world, but tactically, it's one of the most interesting I've ever seen or participated in.

Admittedly, the final was actually less exciting than the semi-final against Canada, but as one of the various pundits afterwards said, to have an entire Olympic final hinge on the precision and skill of the very last participant makes for a pretty good event.


And at the risk of seeming overly pedantic: I think Steve was referring to the earlier match in which the British team beat Sweden, not the final, and the event wasn't broadcast in its entirety (not on terrestrial TV anyway), the BBC's coverage started about a third of the way in. So there :-P

Whoops. I must have misread Steve's comment. Sorry Steve! It's me who has a personal blind spot regarding Sweden/Switzerland Switzerland/Sweden... they're not the same place, are they?! I'll admit it, I'm crap.

So curling may be moderately tactical, I'll concede that.

Each to their own, I won't go on about it as I've not played it, I've watched it for half an hour and maybe if I'd had a bit more exposure beforehand, I'd have appeciated it a bit more.

Maybe I wouldn't be so harsh if the commentators actually explained what was going on rather than referring obliquely to this and that, inanely prattling about ice rinks in the UK getting curling equipment like they'd recoup the investment required.

Anyway, you're bound to like it more if you've actually played it as you understand the rules.

A thought occurs:

I imagine chess looks pretty boring if nobody bothers to explain what's going on and which way pieces can move, and so on. But when chess has been on TV the commentators actually had something useful to say about the tactics being deployed.

That's where I'm coming from, anyway. It's the commentator's fault for being rubbish. I still need convincing though, so next time when a curling tornament is on TV, let me know and I'll treat it as essential viewing. 8)

must... make... textbox... bigger...

Actually, in the early stages, they kept apologising for how many times they were explaining what was going on and how it all worked, but by the time you tuned in, I think they'd given up.

Strictly speaking though, if there was plenty of tactical merit, they should have talked about that. But they didn't... I wasn't expecting to be spoonfed the rules.

Snooker commentary would possibly be a better example; the commentators talk about possible shots a player might make in order to achieve a pot that leaves them lined up for the next shot, etc. But they didn't even attempt to do that.

And if they kept apologising for explaining, then isn't that indicative of bad commentating too?

Gosh, I looked at this posting this morning, and there was no comments at all - I think you may have sparked a controversial debate! ;-) I was originally going to comment, but was too hungover. Now I am drunk, and feel more than able to make a point or three (although typing is turning out to be inordinately difficult!!).

Anyway, to address the points in turn ...

1) Curling is a fantastic sport to watch. Admittedly I am talking as the guy who can get into a night of watching darts or snooker, but I think the whole tactical breadth is great, and I do have a weakness for sports which are clearly pursued for their satisfaction rather than their potential monetary value (I believe all the scottish (sorry, british) participants have day jobs.

2) The commentary for the winter olympics on the bbc has been pretty awful in general. The ice hockey was extremely embarrassing, and the general chit chat that was indulged in by the main presenters was utter shite.

3) The "adopt-a-sport" approach of the general media is open to ridicule, but I prefer to look on the positive side and think that we should be glad that we actually have had the opportunity to to enjoy success in a sport. It's not like they suddenly started covering it, they just continued the coverage because we were still in it.

4) yes, snooker commentary is v good, the championships earlier in the month was an example of the bbc doing excellent coverage! ;-)

I'm gonna do one more here and then stop:

I haven't seen much of the Games, so I can't comment on the general quality of the commentary, but I will agree that the standard of studio linking was god-awful.

I think the fact that the Curling commentators were doing a lot of explaining early in the final was really just indicative of the fact they recognised that many people watching would not have seen the sport before, rather than any shortcoming on their own part. (Much as would probably be needed if the World Backgammon Championships suddenly started being televised, for instance).

That does of course reflect badly on the majority of the 5-point-whatever million people who were only watching it because of misguided nationalism stirred up by the media rather than an actual interest in the sport itself.

As with all these things, personal preference and taste will inevitably be the ultimate determinant of whether you find it enjoyable or not. For my own part, I think the most interesting reaction I had was my absolute conviction, despite having seen Rhona Martin make plenty of similar shots through the course of the previous matches, that the standard British sporting effect would apply and we'd end up being plucky runners-up. We really have got to do something about that.

Heheh! Storm in a teacup ;-) Your comments system is fun at times Chris! (Hmmm, is this what they call a community website?)

Uhm, I mixed up Switzerland and Sweden when I first met Lotta as well. She told me she was from Sweden and I said "Ah! Where they make chocolate and cuckoo clocks right?". Heh! And 6 years later we're still together!

Where was I? Oh yes! Sorry mate - but you are just plain wrong. I know Jon tried to smooth the waters with a namby-pamby "everyone's opinion is their own" comment, but in this case, I'm right and you are wrong! Curling r000lz and you suxx0rz!

;-b insert BIG pinch of salt here