Editorial: Games far too valuable to be written off

The multitude of issues that have marred the lead-up to the Commonwealth Games have thrown a shadow over the whole concept of the event. New Delhi's woes have heightened calls for the 19th edition to be the last. The Games, say the critics, have become a costly anachronism that is shunned by some of the Commonwealth's biggest sporting names. For the sake of this country's athletes, it must be hoped this view does not prevail.

The Games are an important stepping stone for many of New Zealand's young sportsmen and women. It is there that they compete for the first time with the pressure of knowing a country's expectations ride on their shoulders. Some will be involved in competition that is close to, if not, world class. Success at the Games - a medal or a clear improvement on their previous personal best - will suggest they are well equipped to tackle the ultimate in competition, the Olympics. For others, such as the country's netballers or bowlers, the Commonwealth Games offers the toughest of challenges in their sport. For all, it will be an unforgettable experience.

The same cannot be said to the same extent for competitors from Britain or for those who are already world-class performers. British athletes have the considerable advantage of regular European competition to prove their ability to perform under pressure. The Commonwealth Games may well be a step down from this. The likes of world record-holders Usain Bolt and David Rudisha can also afford to bypass New Delhi, knowing their career paths have soared far above anything that may be achieved there. But that does not devalue the Games. Does anybody remember that Ian Thorpe and Paula Radcliffe did not compete in the 2006 Games in Melbourne? Their absence did not detract from two weeks of stirring endeavour and drama.

New Zealand, of course, fell well short of confident predictions about its medal haul at those Games. Funding agency Sparc is making no such forecasts this time. Yet even the Melbourne disappointment highlighted the Games' significance. Because many New Zealand competitors have limited opportunities to test themselves at a high level, it can be difficult to measure not only their progress but the efficiency and adequacy of this country's sports systems, coaching structures and funding arrangements. Targets must be set both for sports and individual athletes. A poor Commonwealth Games result should be the catalyst for change - and a better team performance at the next Olympics.

In reality, New Delhi might not be the greatest of Games, and not because of the hygiene, sanitation and security problems that have blighted the run-up.

The best of the "friendly Games" have been those embraced enthusiastically by the local people. There have been too few chances for that to be in evidence in New Delhi. Many Indians have seemed either indifferent, irate over cost blow-outs, mismanagement and alleged corruption, or angry over the international criticism directed at their country's organisation of the event.

Yet even they are likely to get caught up in the theatre of the Games when competition begins. New Zealanders will be captured to the same degree.

Whatever the generation, some of this country's most uplifting sporting moments have been at the Commonwealth Games. Those inclined to consign them to history are too quick to forget that.