I keep mentioning the badminton at London 2012. I'm bringing it up again. Two teams were both trying to lose a match, as coming second would give them an easier path through the knockout stages. They were both DQ'd and rightly so. People have paid a lot of money to watch matches and they deserve to see a proper contest. Chuck the wasters out if they're not trying.
Sport is about winning and always was. There have been examples of bad sportsmanship through out the history of sport it's just got more coverage in the modern world.
The problem there was the daft rule about yellow cards etc being used to decide places.
Although it was unwholesome it was perfectly understandable.
In 1982 W Germany and Austria stitched up their gane with each other to ensure they both qualified. Again reprehensible, but on the other hand teams play to win to progress. If you need take no risks to do it then why bother?
I keep mentioning the badminton at London 2012. I'm bringing it up again. Two teams were both trying to lose a match, as coming second would give them an easier path through the knockout stages. They were both DQ'd and rightly so. People have paid a lot of money to watch matches and they deserve to see a proper contest. Chuck the wasters out if they're not trying.
I'm not sure about "these days".
I remmeber the Bodyline series from the 1930s; the dreadful fouling in the 1966 world cup; the drug cheating that was rife in the 1970s/80s especially by East Germans/Soviets but also Ben Johnson, 1904 Olympic games when the marathon winner was found to have travelled almsot half the route by car; 1981 Trevor Chappel bowled an underarm delivery when the batsman needed a 6 to win; Francis Lee's diving for penalties circa 1970; plus lots more
The issue of manipulating results to ensure an easier progression is simply solved. The problem stems from having pre-determined draws. Competitions such as the World Cup should have no "Round Robin" formats but should be a simple knock-out. Once you lose you're out. This would have the added advantage of requiring only 16 matches to eliminate 16 teams instead of the ridiculous total of 48 needed under the current World Cup format. It would also reduce the ludicrous length of tedious TV coverage required. Added to that each round should be followed by a random draw (as with the FA Cup). Quite simple really if only a bit of thought was applied.
"Would you apply your proposed [random draw] principles to Wimbledon too NJ"
Yes. No seedings. A simple draw to pair the 128 participants and a draw after each round. If the top two favourites are paired in round one, tough luck.
"The TV coverage which pours £millions into the sport,..."
Which pours millions into the pockets of the participants, you mean (bearing in mind that some football league clubs in the UK disperse over 95% - some up to 99% - of their turnover in the form of "wages").
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.