I can't believe how negative the BBC team are in their comments on Mo's performance.>:( All they are on about is how he failed to break the British record, I haven't heard any of them mention that he set a new English record, which is pretty good going imo for a first time out!
What the hell happened to the coverage this year? NOTHING about the amateurs in fancy dress - camera crews running with them - the volunteers supporting them - SOD ALL about that..
Agree...far to much time spent on looking at Mo, he wasn't even in the running to win, yet time and time again spent watching him rather than the leaders, or any of the other runners. It's a competitive race, not look who's down in 6th or 7th.
The London Marathon has always focused on the elite racers for the first few hours once they finish they switch to the fun runners. It is about this time they start hitting the masses coming over the bridge. I can only assume those moaning about the focus on Mo / Leaders have never watched it much in the past. Don't forget this is an elite sporting event not just a charity run.
In terms of Mo's performance I think Brendan was very hard on him but I suppose only because he wants him to focus on winning medal on the track. It was a good performance don't forget it is his first ever Marathon.
The BBC do seem to have been overhyping Farah, and frankly putting too much pressure on him.
I do think that this is the case. For the last week or so it felt as if commentators and people interviewing him were hyping things up a bit, with Mo himself trying to be more measured to try and moderate expectations. He offered a pragmatic view and said that he didn't know how it would go, and that he was just trying it out to see.
This must be the first year I switched off the coverage before the end.
I thought it was supposed to be the Virgin Money London Marathon NOT the Farah Marathon!!!
And they put trackers on about 10 well known people.What happened to the coverage of that?
Agree with this, I switched it off long before the finish. Even on the odd occasions when they focussed on the leaders, or other runners, Farah invariably cropped up in the commentary as regards what he had to do, and how he was doing in relation. Hopefully he goes back to the track for next year, so we can actually concentrate on the actual marathon itself next year.
I do think that this is the case. For the last week or so it felt as if commentators and people interviewing him were hyping things up a bit, with Mo himself trying to be more measured to try and moderate expectations. He offered a pragmatic view and said that he didn't know how it would go, and that he was just trying it out to see.
It's just like Wimbledon. As soon as we have a player who is fairly good, and might theoretically win it one day, the media gets over-excited and acts as if they have a great chance of winning it this year. Not winning is then treated as a disaster. Some pundits and a lot of the public then act as if the player is a failure to be mocked for only reaching the semi-finals.
The article was written last week but sums it up. The tactic was for Mo to intentionally run slower than the leaders but to run evenly the entire distance anticipating the leaders to crash and burn towards the end. A sort of turtle catches the hare type of approach. I'm not sure what's happened.. if he's decided to run quicker at some point.. perhaps when he had to catch up with the pacers.. but it's possible he's burnt too much energy. However the plan does seem to have somewhat worked because he WAS catching up people at the end and passing them. So something worked yesterday.
Seeing Mo Farah struggle made me appreciate what a great runner Steve Jones was & how his achievements at the time have been largely forgotten. In his first marathon, he broke the world record who knows what he could run with advance in sports science over the last 30 years & altitude training.
It's just like Wimbledon. As soon as we have a player who is fairly good, and might theoretically win it one day, the media gets over-excited and acts as if they have a great chance of winning it this year. Not winning is then treated as a disaster. Some pundits and a lot of the public then act as if the player is a failure to be mocked for only reaching the semi-finals.
Crossing my fingers that the tabloids don't resort to calling him "Somali born athlete" Farah in response to just one bad race. Even if, Like /wimbledon within the tennis world, it's the only one they give a damn about, because it happens in their precious London. >:(
I was shocked at how negative the BBC were about Mo Farah; lets think about:
1) it was his first competitive marathon
2) It was in front of a home crowd
3) It's one of the hardest courses in the world
4) It was the best field ever
And yet NONE of this was said in the reporting, instead David Bond said "Mo only gets 8th" and the front page had a article saying "Why didn't Mo win!?" It is beyond ridiculous!
I was shocked at how negative the BBC were about Mo Farah; lets think about:
1) it was his first competitive marathon
2) It was in front of a home crowd
3) It's one of the hardest courses in the world
4) It was the best field ever
And yet NONE of this was said in the reporting, instead David Bond said "Mo only gets 8th" and the front page had a article saying "Why didn't Mo win!?" It is beyond ridiculous!
You must have been watching a different marathon then, as all of those things were mentioned.
The amount of focus that was actually on Mo, compared to lets say those actually at the front of the race was what was beyond ridiculous.
Comments
Thank you.
Agree...far to much time spent on looking at Mo, he wasn't even in the running to win, yet time and time again spent watching him rather than the leaders, or any of the other runners. It's a competitive race, not look who's down in 6th or 7th.
In terms of Mo's performance I think Brendan was very hard on him but I suppose only because he wants him to focus on winning medal on the track. It was a good performance don't forget it is his first ever Marathon.
I do think that this is the case. For the last week or so it felt as if commentators and people interviewing him were hyping things up a bit, with Mo himself trying to be more measured to try and moderate expectations. He offered a pragmatic view and said that he didn't know how it would go, and that he was just trying it out to see.
I thought it was supposed to be the Virgin Money London Marathon NOT the Farah Marathon!!!
And they put trackers on about 10 well known people.What happened to the coverage of that?
Agree with this, I switched it off long before the finish. Even on the odd occasions when they focussed on the leaders, or other runners, Farah invariably cropped up in the commentary as regards what he had to do, and how he was doing in relation. Hopefully he goes back to the track for next year, so we can actually concentrate on the actual marathon itself next year.
Mo Farah.
Once more, for old times sake. Mo Farah.
Mo.
It's just like Wimbledon. As soon as we have a player who is fairly good, and might theoretically win it one day, the media gets over-excited and acts as if they have a great chance of winning it this year. Not winning is then treated as a disaster. Some pundits and a lot of the public then act as if the player is a failure to be mocked for only reaching the semi-finals.
But was it really any different from when Paula was taking part?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/london-marathon/10756131/Mo-Farah-to-run-in-slower-group-in-London-Marathon.html
The article was written last week but sums it up. The tactic was for Mo to intentionally run slower than the leaders but to run evenly the entire distance anticipating the leaders to crash and burn towards the end. A sort of turtle catches the hare type of approach. I'm not sure what's happened.. if he's decided to run quicker at some point.. perhaps when he had to catch up with the pacers.. but it's possible he's burnt too much energy. However the plan does seem to have somewhat worked because he WAS catching up people at the end and passing them. So something worked yesterday.
Not really, hence why I was glad when she finally called it a day.
Granted the Olympics were always a bit of a soap opera, but the difference was that Paula genuinely was the best in the world at her peak.
But at least she had a chance of winning it.
Crossing my fingers that the tabloids don't resort to calling him "Somali born athlete" Farah in response to just one bad race.
1) it was his first competitive marathon
2) It was in front of a home crowd
3) It's one of the hardest courses in the world
4) It was the best field ever
And yet NONE of this was said in the reporting, instead David Bond said "Mo only gets 8th" and the front page had a article saying "Why didn't Mo win!?" It is beyond ridiculous!
You must have been watching a different marathon then, as all of those things were mentioned.
The amount of focus that was actually on Mo, compared to lets say those actually at the front of the race was what was beyond ridiculous.