The First Citizens Foundation Sportsman and Sportswoman of the year awards were predictable, not only for the results, but also the presentation. There will have to be new ideas if this very important event is to maintainits prestige and historical significance.Interest in the event is clearly waning, as evidenced by the low turnout. That told me people were not interested enough to view the awards on television or listen on the radio.
Firstly, something has to be done to ensure the actual attendance on the night is better. Year after year, it is a case of diminishing returns with less and less persons on seats. The method of seating by special codes may be the reason for this, and this separation should be postponed until a proper solution is found. In the meantime, all of the spectators should be brought to the front. This would present a much better image for all concerned.
While I understand that there must be some theatre, I believe that it was far too abstract to ever enquire an understanding of purpose. As Spartacus would say: "Absent expression." There needs to be some high points filled with applicable music and if possible adopt some mystery, especially in a year when the winners were as predictable as the fact that the sun will shine in March.The speeches were generally short and to the point, and it was clear that chairman of the foundation Dr Keith Clifford was prepared and had not only practised his speech, but was determined to live by it to ensure some of the wonderful programmes could be completed sooner rather than later.
It was generally accepted by even those that listened via the radio that Dr Clifford's tone and his way with words assisted greatly in lifting the the event. Some even suggested he should have spoken more loudly although his delivery was succinct and audible.Also lacking on the night was the disclosure when nominees were being announced of their presence or absence. In some cases, the nominees were not there, and while the information was given, there was no one present on the stage.
This is an inexcusable failing, unless the foundation was not notified in advance. If the foundation knew of this, then alternative arrangements should have been made to have a representative or the respective association on stage to acknowledge the performance.Several leading sporting personalities were missing, among them the eventual winner Keshorn Walcott. It is revealing that only Walcott had a representative in his manager, Sean Roach.
Better efforts should have been made for both Narine and Phillips to be represented. This is an area that needs to be improved.One also has to appreciate that this ceremony is live in a competitive television market–it needs to set itself apart with some pleasurable moments. For that reason, as this is a sports award, the tone of the presenters of the various profiles should be of a certain spirit and excitement for emphasis.I believe, as well, that one if not both of the presenters needs to have knowledge of sports, as this is integral to the credibility of the venture as a true sporting test of time venture.
In the past, Ato Boldon and Ian Bishop have both successfully managed this venture with skill and aplomb. Even Anthony Dennison would be a welcome voice based on his pedigree background in sports announcing.There is also a case to announce the names and qualifications one by one to all of the public of all of those involved in the decision-making process for the four awards on the night. This would help in alleviating the growing concern in this country, that sports administration is losing many of its transparency values.I thought that Jennifer Lander and her team at First Citizens did an excellent job in the processing and facilitating of all of the invited guests on the night. The transition was generally smooth and efficient.