Am I the only one that likes Olympic football?

Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,870
Location
Hampshire
There seems to be a generally held feeling of 'meh' towards the football tournaments held at the Olympic games, perhaps in part because Team GB is normally absent, or just because it is viewed as a bit of a 'Mickey Mouse' tournament of trivial importance. Played in the same summer as the European Championships, people may have seen all the big tournament football they want.

Personally, I love it. You get to see a lot of up-and-coming stars together with a few big names playing in a more 'friendly' atmosphere than a traditional competition. I'm not suggesting it has the same pull as the WC/Euros, but it is certainly infinitely better than random friendlies.

Atlanta '96 was, IMO, one of the best football tournaments I've ever seen. Nigeria were on the verge of establishing themselves as a force in world football and I was in awe of a 17 year old Babayaro, who at the time was heavily linked to Arsenal (he went to Chelsea eventually). Kanu, Okocha etc were in the side too.

Their semifinal against Brazil was unbelievable, Nigeria winning 4-3 in extra time, a proper gripping football match well worth staying up for. The games were played quite late due to timezone differences but fortunately due to exams I had a long summer break :) Brazil themselves were no pub team, Ronaldo, Bebeto, Juninho, Roberto Carlos, Rivaldo etc etc.

Then Argentina were hugely impressive as well, taking the tournament seriously, this was the first itme I spotted a young Hernan Crespo (before he'd come to Europe) and I was thinking, this guy looks useful.

So the question is when it comes to London 2012 what should GB be doing? By the sounds of it Scotland/NI/Wales want to boycott the team due to fears about losing independent status. Not sure I follow the logic of this as even in Athletics we compete independently at the Commenwealth games but still together as GB in the Olympics. But anyway my attitude is **** 'em, if they don't want to be involved at least it means no need to make any political decisions about the manager or team, lets show up with an English team and make Britain, er, England proud.
 
I've never particularly like it or the tennis* there - I think because there are one or several competitions where the standards are higher for them. The Olympics should be for the pinnacle of the sport as far as I'm concerned and with those sports it's just not.

*I suppose the same argument applies to basketball and ice hockey but I'm not as interested in watching those two sports anyway so it bothers me less.
 
I've never particularly like it or the tennis* there - I think because there are one or several competitions where the standards are higher for them. The Olympics should be for the pinnacle of the sport as far as I'm concerned and with those sports it's just not.

*I suppose the same argument applies to basketball and ice hockey but I'm not as interested in watching those two sports anyway so it bothers me less.

I'm pretty sure that with Olympic ice hockey the best of the best compete in it. I know that a lot of the NHL players have an Olympic medal, not sure about basketball as I don't follow it. :)

But on the subject of football I've never really watched an Olympic match, maybe because the Euro's are also on, I get my fix from that.
 
I agree with SPW, an Olympic gold medal should be the ultimate achievement in your chosen sport and with football that is clearly not the case.

As for how we should compete, i would have liked to see the Home Nations Internationals brought back this summer with the prize for the winning country being representing GB at the Olympics. This would have had the bonus of testing the water as far as interest in these games are concerned as it seems to get spoken about every couple of years.
 
I'm pretty sure that with Olympic ice hockey the best of the best compete in it. I know that a lot of the NHL players have an Olympic medal, not sure about basketball as I don't follow it. :)

I'll take your word for it since as I say I'm not a huge fan, it was just another team sport that I thought might be the same given the general quality of the NHL.
 
Basketball Olympics you have to have to best of the best, mainly because of just how good the USA players are.

Agree about football not being taken quite seriously, there doesn't seem to be as much glamour around winning and Olympic medal in football.
 
Well the olypmics is, under 21's except 3 senior players or something? So Spain couldn't play their strongest side, neither could England/gb team, they've put too many artificial limits in for football in the olympics which basically stops a lot of the best players actually being able to play in it.

Then you've got the whole, "oh no, the day after the season ended I broke my foot bone, and it will be broken till August the 5-7th" issues to deal with.

In terms of football, theres some good matches, theres epically poor matches just like internationals, or league footie.

For the 1984 Los Angeles Games, the IOC felt a change was necessary to bring interest back, and decided to admit professional players. FIFA still did not want the Olympics to rival the World Cup, so a compromise was struck that allowed teams from Africa, Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF to field their strongest professional sides, while restricting UEFA and CONMEBOL teams to players who had not played in a World Cup. Many teams fielded young teams, including France, who won the 1984 Olympic title.

Young teams were favoured by FIFA and the IOC, and since 1992 male competitors must be under 23 years old, with three over-23 players allowed per squad


So 23 years old, 3 older players, and no one who played in the world cup, which is where it makes it a bit of a cheat and pointless frankly. African teams get to be competitive but European teams basically can't field any of their best players, doesn't mean it can't be good but its like watching an Arsenal vs Utd game, but Arsenal aren't allowed to play anyone in their first squad, only reserve squad, and its all a bit pointless.
 
Doesn't bother me if the best players aren't on show, that's what the Euro/WC is for. Fact is you get to see some very promising talents especially from South America, just look at some of the names who played in 1996, we are talking players who fairly soon after started being transferred for huge fees, winning accolades and trophies all over the shop.

Also dunno why we are quoting stuff about the 1984 Olympics, the important bit is the paragraph below, U23s plus 3 senior players, there is no restriction on them having played in the world cup. GB could field Terry, Lampard and Rooney if they wanted.

Main reason European teams won't do well is because it falls right after the Euro champs so most countries will rest their senior players.
 
Thing is it will clash with the qualification rounds for European competitions, I can see there being a massive falling out if European federations tried to call on players who'd played in Euro2012 and then denied them playing qualifiers for their clubs.
 
If you believe the rumours the vast majority of that Nigerian side were rather older than they say...
 
Agree about football not being taken quite seriously, there doesn't seem to be as much glamour around winning and Olympic medal in football.
It's the bottom line isn't it. Not as much money involved in playing Olympic football as there is the UEFA/FIFA tournaments.
 
Not only should the Olympics be the pinnacle for a sport, but surely it shouldn't have artificial rules placed on it to "generate interest"?

The whole point of a gold medal being such a target is that you've beaten all competitors to reach it. Not all competitors under 23 except for a few who are older. If you're going to restrict it, go back to making it amateur and have England C and similar teams play in it instead.

There are already plenty of existing youth international tournaments, I don't see why there's another.
 
Back
Top Bottom