Louisa Wall: Athletes can go fourth and then conquer

Some smart Kiwi this week commented that the Commonwealth Games should be renamed the Comingfourth Games. They have an excellent point that should be factored into any analysis of the success of our team.

But it was fascinating, if somewhat unsurprising, to observe our need to critique a set of performances and label them in black and white terms - as either bad or good overall. We seem not to be able to discern the grey in any context.

Our team won only 31 medals - 6 gold, 12 silver and 13 bronze. The Government's sporting body Sport and Recreation NZ (Sparc) expected 46 for their investment of $44.24 million..

And I know those excellence-or-nothing knockers know what they are talking about when they call our athletes weak because 34 Kiwis came fourth, because they have been there and done that themselves!

I don't think fourth is a bad effort. Obviously medals are better but being one step removed is not something to be taken for granted.

When we look back, do we rate the Games team of 1974 a failure? That Christchurch Commonwealth Games team produced 34 medals and has been regarded as the apex of our Commonwealth Games history. Why?

Because Richard Tayler won gold in the 10,000 metres and what has been written about as the greatest middle-distance race of all time produced silver for New Zealand when John Walker was beaten by Filbert Bayi of Tanzania in the 1500 metres.

So those knives that are out for our Kiwi team need a bit of blunting. The six golds meant we finished ninth on the gold medal table behind countries such as Jamaica, Malaysia and Scotland. This might highlight an issue at the elite end of our sporting spectrum related to our expectations of those who have previously performed well and won such medals.

But the potential is there and just how many Valerie Vilis and Nick Willis's are going to perform on such a stage in the future?

Our total medal count puts us in sixth overall, ahead of the countries previously mentioned. Our bronze and silver total of 25 is broadly in line with South Africa (26) and India (28) and we were all well beaten in silvers and bronzes only by the top tier teams: Australia (137), England (74), and Canada (60). And when we factor in the 27 fourth placings this looks competitive with all but the top three.

There is a saying that all that glisters is not gold, and if we selected only for realistic medal winners we would certainly have saved some taxpayer money, but what of the future gold medals we would be denying ourselves by depriving athletes of elite competition?

And what of the medals we might have missed out on if we had such an exclusive selection criteria in the likes of synchronised swimming and the women's high jump? We could go down the road of Scotland who selected only those in the top eight of their chosen sports.

So let's applaud this Kiwi team's success. Some of those who finished outside the medals in these Games will be the better for the experience and will go on to future success. How else do you go about developing people?

I wonder how all this negativity has affected those fourth place-getters. Putting the boot in when people are vulnerable might not be something we Kiwis think we would do but what has happened this week has been pretty close.

We need more money and yes, we need to develop and inspire our coaches, who in turn will develop and inspire our athletes. But what of our job, as the public, to inspire our athletes?
I enjoyed the Games and above all else I hope our athletes did too. Let's hope they are up for all future challenges, including public scrutiny, as it is they who will continue to represent us on international stages.