Tuesday, July 17, 2018

The Athletics World Cup: A Poorly Executed Good Idea

Last weekend was jam-packed with sports.  With the World Cup final and the Wimbledon finals, it was easy for the Athletics World Cup to get lost in the mix.  Not surprisingly, the United States won the inaugural event, which featured eight national teams at London's Olympic Stadium.  I have no idea if and when the Athletics World Cup will continue, but if it does several improvements need to be made.

Originally, this was supposed to be a dual meet between the United States and Great Britain at the London Olympic Stadium, but six other countries were invited and the event was expanded into a full-fledged World Cup.  It wasn't a terrible idea (although, I liked the USA-Great Britain head-to-head a little better).  The execution left a lot to be desired, though.

For starters, there was the schedule.  They shoehorned it into an already-busy weekend, not just in world sports, but on the track & field calendar, too.  There was a Diamond League meet in Morocco the day before, and two more next week, including the two-day London meet.  The World U20 Championships were also going on simultaneously in Finland.  The European Championships are also coming up at the beginning of August, too, and that's the focus for most of the European athletes in this non-Olympic/non-Worlds year.

I understand they were limited on when they could hold the World Cup because of stadium availability, but I think the timing was one of the biggest issues they faced.  Diamond League meets offer appearance fees.  The World Cup didn't (only prize money per team based on finish).  There was also the issue of certain athletes being sponsored by shoe companies that are different than their national team, which led to some uncomfortable conflicts and kept some athletes away.

As a result of all these issues, the Athletics World Cup was considerably lacking in star power.  Some big stars did show up.  But not enough.  Especially since the most notable names, the ones that they used in all of their promotion, were absent.  That included several of the top British stars.  The American team had some national champions, but there were also some fourth-place finishers at Nationals.  (And let's not forget the lack of star power at U.S. Nationals this year to begin with.)  

Germany didn't even send its B team.  They were represented by younger athletes that are too old for World U20s, but aren't at the same level as their top athletes, who are getting ready for Euros.  Great experience for them, but certainly didn't do anything to enhance the quality of the meet.  And they clearly didn't care about winning the team title.  At the European Team Championships, Germany usually finishes first or second.  In London, they were the fourth-best European team and seventh overall.

That's more than I can say for China, though.  Why was China even there?  The whole idea was one athlete from each team in every event.  Wanna know how many of the 34 events China entered?  Just 21!  They didn't have a competitor in nearly half the events, including some of the relays!  One or two events is one thing (Jamaica doesn't have any female pole vaulters, for example), but not entering half the events when you're supposedly one of the eight "best" track & field nations in the world?

They determined the participating nations based on their finish in the World Cup events at the 2017 World Championships, but I'm still not sure how they got China.  Maybe it was because they wanted an Asian representative.  But, if there is another Athletics World Cup and it's not in London, they should replace China with Australia.  Australia wouldn't only enter every event, they're a stronger nation than China overall and it's kinda silly they weren't among the eight nations to begin with.  Rumor has it China wants to host the next edition, though, so this whole thing becomes moot in that case.  (Speaking of that, once Russia and the IAAF are back on speaking terms, Russia should obviously be one of the World Cup teams, as well.)

Back to the schedule.  They promised a "fast-paced" meet where everything would be completed in three hours.  Except it wasn't.  The relays, which were supposed to be the last event, finished and the field events were still going.  This despite the first hour on each day being just field events.

My problem with the schedule has nothing to do with that, though.  That's easy enough to fix by adjusting the start time of the field events.  But, despite the fact that they promised "fast-paced" action, it still dragged.  There were 17 events each day, but eight of them were field events.  And it doesn't take two hours to do nine track races, especially since none of them were longer than 1500 meters!

There was more than one instance where NBCSN went to commercial, came back to show a handful of jumps in the long/triple jump, then went right back to commercial.  Six minutes of commercials in an eight-minute span is not fast-paced!

It makes sense that they didn't want to include the longer distance races, which weren't really conducive to the type of meet they wanted to have.  But, how about doing a 3K instead of a 5K?  A 3K takes only about eight minutes.  Or, even better, include the steeplechase.  That would also balance it out with five running events per gender each day.

This would also be the perfect opportunity to try something different.  I'm not talking about the crazy events at that Nitro Athletics thing they tried in Australia last year.  But, the IAAF has added a mixed 4x400 relay to the World Championships and Olympics.  How cool would it be to close the meet with a mixed 4x4, especially if the team standings come down to that final event?  They could also do a mixed 4x1 to end the first day.  If it's a combined men's & women's team, have them be teammates!

The future of the Athletics World Cup is very much up in the air.  Where does another international event fit into a sport that already has either an Olympics or World Championships three years in a row before taking a year off and starting that cycle again?  Not to mention the European Championships in the non-World Championship years.  Yet there are also the European Team Championships, which have firmly established their place.

So, yes, I think there can be a place for the Athletics World Cup.  But improvements definitely need to be made first.  This meet has potential if it's done right.  But unless everybody buys in, we'll get the same thing we saw this year--a second-rate meet that was an afterthought on an already crowded calendar (which is even more crowded in other years).

No comments:

Post a Comment