First of all, I want to mention the audience - it seemed to be very sportsmanlike, very enthusiastic, very fond of sports. I will never forget how the audience even cheered for Germany's equestrian team when it won the gold medal in eventing, although that meant that their home team had lost gold. I think that they deserve an award for that, just like it has been awarded to the equally fair spectators at the Stuttgart 1993 World Championships and the Munich 2002 European Championships in athletics.
The venues were excellent and I loved London's approach of incorporating the Games fully into the host city, especially with staging the cycling, race-walking and marathon events in the heart of the city. No other host city can offer an equally glamourous tennis venue, hardly any other host can offer such a stunning venue for the equestrian events right in the middle of the city, and the transformation done in the Olympic Park deserves a gold medal of its own.
Even the weather was mostly pleasant, despite all the fears beforehand that those could be "rain Games".
The organisation was highly professional and smooth (at least judging by what I saw, heard and read in the media), although with flaws once in a while (as we could see just last night at the women's hammer throw competition). But hey, every Games so far had those, so who can blame London?
The ceremonial (as far as we know it at this point) was very decent, I liked the opening ceremony and found it very entertaining and truly British. It was not the best ever, but it was a good kick-off with a very charming amount of (also self-deprecative) humour. That humourous approach of not taking oneself and the ceremony too seriously should really be a role model for future ceremonies. Although one might say that they could have composed new music for the medal ceremonies, I say that "Chariots of Fire" was a logical choice due to its strong connections to British sport and its inspiring, truly Olympic melody. So it's good that previous hosts didn't have that idea already and left it for London.
The competition was exciting as always, with many memorable moments and truly exceptional performances. That said, I don't trust in the fact that no medallist has been found guilty of doping so far. I think that it's dangerously easy to say now "See? Already in Vancouver we had hardly any positive doping tests. So the doping tests work." Instead, I get the increasing sensation that the athletes are simply becoming more clever in disguising doping or choosing the "right" drugs which can't be found yet by the testers.
So all in all, I'd say that these were very, very good Games - but not the best ever. I can't say why, but the London Games still lacked that "je ne sais quoi" of Barcelona and Sydney. I would most likely compare them to the Vancouver Games which were also characterised by an enthusiastic and very gracious audience and a great surrounding for the athletes. Just like Vancouver wasn't a second Lillehammer, London is no second Barcelona or Sydney. But: They were a wonderful relief after two Summer Games overshadowed by shaky preparations and the feeling that a small country is overstraining itself (Athens 2004) or overshadowed by political controversy and the stale feeling of over-perfection (Beijing 2008).
London 2012 were very humane, fair and charming Games. The Brits did themselves proud - and I would love to see the Olympic Games return to the UK as soon as possible (although this might take at least three or four decades).
