1 - 15 of 16 articles
next 
Only the good go on
Michael Jones
25 Nov 2009 9:30 AM
As a parent of pre-teenagers, I am finding that it is becoming difficult to keep my kids in sport, but the Sunday Maccas tradition keeps on.
(See Let's get physical, November 18).
Sports clubs at a junior level (which benefit from grants) generally promote involvement for all, but as kids get older, the opportunities narrow back to the more talented, as sporting codes focus on finding the next 'stars of tomorrow'.
So how do I stop my teenagers getting fat because they don't make the grade anymore? By watching Fox Sports?
Raising the funding bar
Ken Innes
21 Nov 2009 11:36 AM
I couldn't agree more with the sports panel's findings. (See Let's get physical, November 18.) In fact I believe that institutions like AIS should be funded by those attending taking out loans like HECS for university students and then repaying when they have achieved a level of success like any other undertaking training to pursue a career to make a living.
Business' grand slam
Greg Walker
21 Nov 2009 10:26 AM
Yes, John Alexander we have lost community tennis courts (Lobbed into the same court, November 19), but we have lost much more than that. When working hours were more circumscribed, it was easier for many more people to participate in the traditional Saturday afternoon timeslot for sport. Like many, I remember eagerly finishing work at precisely 12.30 on a Saturday to rush off to suburban tennis.
Now business demands greater 'flexibility' with a consequent loss of community.
A fall in tennis rankings is the least of the costs we have paid.
Finding ways of maximising use of existing courts (which are often vacant for most of the week) offers only a partial solution: the strength of the competition (and potential for social interaction) depended on mass participation at a set, communally-agreed time. This brings us to a fundamental question: whether the insatiable demands of the business sector outweigh all other legitimate aspirations of our society.
We need to redirect government grants
Brian Morgan
20 Nov 2009 11:02 AM
I agree with John Alexander's comments. (Lobbed into the same court, Conversation contribution, November 20.)
I grew up in the 50s and the 60s and learned to play on public tennis courts. Frank Sedgeman's father owned tennis courts around the corner and several others were just a bike ride away.
The standard of local competition was high, very high.The disappearance of these courts in the suburbs has made it harder for children to play.
How about redirecting government grants to local councils to develop, run and maintain tennis courts for the public and in liaison with local schools run regular competitions rather than the current practice of parents sending their children to a professional coach for a few years until they lose interest and give the game away.
Lobbed into the same court
J Alexander, sports club developer, JAclubs
19 Nov 2009 12:04 PM
As a former tennis player my concerns for the sport are not what may be expected.
Australia's decline as a tennis super power over the last 30 years is actually the final card to fall in a fundamental systematic breakdown. Courts lost, participation decimated equals fewer world class players produced. Some tennis associations claim that they have lost 90 per cent of their courts over the last 25 years which would pretty much be in line with our production of world class players.
In the 50s and 60s Australia had the highest number of courts per capita and the highest levels of participation and we dominated the world of tennis to a greater extent than any other country before or since. Australia had no tennis academies or nationally sponsored player development schemes, the greatest tennis players the world has seen were produced naturally as an extension to the popularity of the sport.
The real benefit to Australia and Australians was the social and health benefits of this family active recreation called tennis. We have gone in a relatively short period of time from the most active and fittest nations to our health services being burdened with lifestyle illnesses. The key to our health care costs which are crippling is preventative medicine in the form of physical activity. Australia needs a renaissance of our lost culture of the fun and exhilaration we enjoyed through active participation in sports. (See Let's get physical, November 18.)
Grass roots games are good
Ant Frosh, director, Galus Australis
19 Nov 2009 11:22 AM
Alan,
It seems neither the AOC, Crawford, nor even you are understanding the real issue. (See Let's get physical, November 18).
The problem is not so much which sports are funded, but rather at what level.
The real problem is "90 per cent went to high performance programs".
For example, I play water polo – not at an elite level, but it keeps me fit. It costs players nearly $1000 a year in match fees, registration, training (pool) fees etc. While that is not an obstacle to my own participation, I imagine that it is to many others.
Let's have less funding aimed at winning gold medals, and more funding to subsidise grass roots participation.
I agree with one thing: sports like AFL, golf, tennis etc do not require government funding as they earn millions, and should fund grass roots participation from their own earnings.
A clear focus
Alan McCrindle
18 Nov 2009 9:52 PM
Congratulations.
This is the only media article (See Let's get physical, November 18) that has focused on what the report was actually about.
If I hadn't read this I would have no idea that the trust of the report was on how we can best invest our tax dollars for the benefit of the health of all Australians.
Whose Olympics is it anyway?
Dick Rowe
18 Nov 2009 7:09 PM
I have not read the Crawford Report, (see Let's get physical, November 18), on which basis I am not qualified to contend whether its findings are legitimate or not.
I would hope, however, that the debate over Australia's financial contribution to ensuring that it continues to 'punch above its weight' at the Olympics, and the Crawford Report's conclusions on this matter, include a full analysis of the nature of the modern Olympics themselves.
My strong argument would be that the four-yearly Games have become a travesty of what was originally intended, and that this has a direct impact on the cost of Australia's preparations and participation. How does the involvement of golf, tennis, baseball, softball, indoor and beach volleyball, handball, football, rugby union, basketball, synchronized swimming, all forms of cycling, all forms of shooting, arguably sailing (I could go on) contribute to the Olympics ideal?
The seemingly never-ending expansion of the Games to include what must be seen as non-Olympic sports undoubtedly feeds the egos of their office-bearers and the coffers of the IOC, but increasingly brings into question the relevance of the Games themselves. All of the above team sports have their own regular World Cup and/or international competitions. Why do they need to clutter up the Games? This is the real issue that must be addressed. This is why the cost of Australia's support for the national Olympics team and between-Games funding of participant sports and competitors has got out of hand.
Australia should be leading the fight to return the Olympics to its roots. As a first move, Olympics public funding should be reserved for non-team sports that recognise and applaud individual endeavour and excellence, surely the Olympic ideal. The others should pay their own way.
Great aspirations
Roger Wilson
18 Nov 2009 4:35 PM
Olmpic aspiration should be every reasonable competitivesports person in the vast aray of Olympic sports!
When the Olympics are on – much like the golf masters last week at Kingston Heath – many of our young peole and athletes are inspired to greater personal heights of not only success, but also to aspire to participate and do better!
Australia needs to keep funding our elite athletes so that our younger generations of people aspire to do better and participate more!
Don't damn the dinghies
Martin Lodge
18 Nov 2009 3:48 PM
A sport that is accessible to many around the country, and can be played all your life, is sailing (dinghy or otherwise). (See Let's get physical, November 18.) Whilst, at the top end, it is an expensive sport, a dinghy for a kid costs relatively little, teaches independence and – contrary to some assumptions – at all levels and ages is physically challenging (many change their boat type as they age gracefully so that they may exercise gracefully!). The same argument can be made for golf: but golf is well funded by its participants. In contrast, many dinghy sailing clubs are relatively poor.
The new Winnie Blues
Craig Hjorring
18 Nov 2009 2:22 PM
Getting Australian's to give up Olympic gold medals is like asking them to quit smoking in the eighties. (See Let's get physical, November 18.) We might know there is a better way to burn our money but we just can't beat our addiction to gold! I don't see this debate ending anytime soon.
Standing up for seated sports?
Russell Spinks
18 Nov 2009 1:56 PM
"The challenge is to get people off their backsides and do something" – what? Like archery and shooting? The physical benefit of these 'sports' is nil. I completely agree that the bulk of funds should be directed at schools, youth and grass roots to get the participation rate in physical activities as high as possible. Elite athletes serve a purpose to the nation and to themselves but the more important goal should be the health and participation of the broader population especially youth and that is where the bulk of funding should go.
Gamesmanship from the government
Tim Wightman
18 Nov 2009 1:20 PM
Or, how about this? (See Let's get physical, November 18.) Instead of the government sticking it's grubby paws even more deeply into our daily lives, why are we are not left alone to decide where to spend our money? If health is the problem, how about cutting subsidised health care so that people take care of themselves. Less government not more.
The overwrought overweight
Rick Gould
18 Nov 2009 1:07 PM
As former director of the US ski team, the arguments are well focused. We got no government funds, some contributions from supporters and large and crucial dollars from sponsors/manufactures. That model is probably not viable here, without a great trimming of the Olympic sport menu and a clear, focused "what's in it for me" campaign for sponsors – a real shift for Australia.
To make the Olympics responsible for national health is bordering on silly. Just as silly as it is to make participation sports or the AFL and other leagues responsible.
If there is a national health component to the Olympics it should be a part of every athletes contract to be available to assist with the young gaining a positive view of being healthy and strong. Olympic participation happens because it has always happened, for national ego and pride – not a bad investment in this day and age.
Just try limiting, more than it is already limited, Australian participation in the Olympics and the overweight will become the overwrought and vocal. Don't confuse why we participate with other crucial national issues.
Where everyone is a winner
Jan Harrison
18 Nov 2009 10:31 AM
Thanks Alan for your article Let's get physical (November 18).
I think the argument about the merits of elite sport such as the Olympic Games versus everything else goes even further. The Olympics encourage the perception that winning is all and the behaviours that result, such as the use of drugs and violence towards opponents. It is also bloody hard work for the athletes. It may discourage participation in sport as the vast majority are unlikely ever to achieve that standard. What we need is a revival of the idea of enjoying physical activity for its own sake and the social interaction that accompanies it. In other words, having fun, where everyone is a winner.
1 - 15 of 16 articles
next