The Olympic coverage gave us more dramatic highlights in 16 days than a year of news, drama, reality shows and football. An integral sideshow to the events themselves was the seemingly relentless track-side interview by the lagubrious-hand-on-shoulder Phil. Athletes, whether in victorious ecstasy or abject misery, couldn’t avoid his questions.

” Can you describe how you feel?” Where do you go from here?”  “Talk us through the race”. Not easy questions to answer on camera seconds after the race of your life, which you have just lost or won. What was very interesting was how many of them both wanted and were able to articulate “I did not execute” or “I executed” (the race just run)

 Usain Bolt would describe precisely how he had maintained the drive phase from the blocks.

Jessica Ennis could relate detail of her best  jump. 

Mo Farrah seemingly was aware at every step of his position relative to his key rivals

The brilliant execution of their race strategies is not surprising, all have demonstrated perfection in their preparation for the ultimate competitive moment.  What I found surprising , and most impressive, was that even in the moments of despair or ectasy,  athletes had already critiqued their performances. For them a natural part of the constant search for improvement.

Is there a lesson here? Post -pitch the norm is a perfunctory ‘how did you think it went?’ then off to the pub/back to work. Perhaps a more forensic and immediate critique of ’how did we execute’ would pay dividends. It works for Usain.

An  exhibition at the Morgan Library in New York, Churchill: The Power of  Words, celebrates  his extraordinary oratory and way with words. It sounds fascinating. The New York Times in its review commented,  “England might well have fallen had not Churchill been a master of words” and referrenced a quote from Edward R Murrow, “Churchill mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.”

Admittedly it is a bit of a stretch from the Battle of Britain to the business pitch but it seems to me that the majority of pitches  neglect one of the more effective weapons in their armoury, words!

Typically the weapons will include a good technical solution, clearly expressed content, a strong core proposition and well rehearsed performances. These constitute the entry level. Superior firepower is the emotional connection of an original idea, relevant theatre, something that makes for memorability.

All pitches are tough and few lack in effort. Too often however so much time is spent on arriving at the content that no time is left to craft words that are compelling, emotive, distinctive and, above all, memorable. Pitch teams may not include poets or lyricists or copywriters but that is poor excuse for not spending time on better language. Churchill spent one hour crafting each 60 seconds of a speech.

Probably the greatest pitch of the last ten years was that of the London 2005 bid team. (London 2012. A triumph of emotion ) In making the emotional connection with the voting IOC members it used every weapon in the armoury but arguably it was words that won the day. Coe captured their hearts by saying “To make an athlete takes millions of children around the world inspired to choose sport”. This was London’s promise to the IOC.

 Today those memorable words are translated into the bold promise of London 2012 to “inspire a generation”. Who knows these words just could mobilise and send us into battle to increase participation.