The Medal Count

The difference, as I've already explained, is that the vast bulk of people, (in Britain and throughout the world), don't care about cricket. Whether the upper class twits that run the Marylebone Cricket Club managed to get their fellow upper class twits that give out the gongs, (who all went to the same schools and are members of the same gentlemen's clubs), some meaningless trinkets is another matter.

Statistically speaking, nobody, (or hardly anybody), cares.

... and yet 10 Brits started the Champion's League final, the highest level of football there is), this year?? How strange.

We've had that one, twit!

Shhhh.... they're trying to keep that a secret.

 

The win by the former leukaemia patient was terrific, even if it meant our fella, (who unfortunately can't swim in a straight line ), got second. I didn't hear the broadcast but I can imagine.

As you say, the Dutch did well bearing in mind their population.

 

I'm surprised the BBC didn't consider the medal ranking where each sport is "normalized" so that no one sport counts more than another. By that I mean, men's football is worth, say, 10 points and men's swimming is worth the same amount: 10 points. For example, Argentina would get 10 points for winning football gold. USA would get 10 points for winning 10 swimming gold medals. Similarly, a bronze in football is worth, say, 2 points. 10 bronze medals in swimming is also worth 2 points.

I think that would create the best ranking system since no one sport would be over-respresented. Afterall, why should having the best gynastics team or best swimming team be worth more in the medal table than having the best football team?

I think Mr. Bolt might have something to say about that.

 

Very gracious he was about it as well, the Brit who took the silver.

 

The US won 79 gold medals and 242 total at the 1904 Summer Olympics, but again there weren't that many non-American entrants.

 

China got their wish and topped the medal tally (the official one not the "total medals" one)

For me Bolt was the "king", beating out Phelps. The athletics is always the centrepiece and Bolts performance was more impressive IMO.

Other than these my greatest memories would be:

The amazing finish to the mens road race
German Matthias Steiner winning weightlifting gold (with photo of his wife)
Sally McLennan's silver in the 100m hurdles (and her reaction).
Benjamin Boukpeti (Togo) Bronze in the Kayak (and his reaction)
Steve Hooker winning Australias first field gold medal in over 60 years in the pole vault.
Matthew Mitcham winning the 10m platform with a 112.1 in his last dive.

The worst part for me was the abysmal coverage we got over here - nothing live (except swimming), more adds than sports, more replays than first time showings (even if they weren't live), no multi channelling, no internet streaming. Channel 7 - worst Olympic coverage ever.

 

Ouch!

The BBC did a good job - around 16 hrs terrestial coverage a day, no adverts, 6 constant channels on digital, hd coverage and all sports live streamed on their website plus all major show's/sports archived on their IPlayer.

 

I think everywhere outside of Australia and the US had it this good and the US were much better than us. The only way I could watch the first Aussie football game live was via an "illegal" stream from the Iraqi broadcasters. If Iraq could do it why couldn't we?

 

Sounds a lot like NBC's coverage in the USA. At least the main channel. Big difference being that we had many other channels showing coverage, much of which was live.

Yeah, nothing worse than tape-delayed coverage of olympics. Hmm.. I wonder who's going to win? Oh yeah.. the American, otherwise you wouldn't even be showing it!

 

Yes but goals change, they are variables. France were one of the favourites pre tournament but after the Romaina game they were never going to win hence fell in the favourite stakes. You lot did very well in the groups so your goals changed as you were the BEST team at that point, but you choked. Yes you reached the Quarter finals and fulfilled you pre tournament goals but to say you didnt underachieve is naive, you know you should have beaten Russia after you did so well beating better teams.

 

I saw plenty of tape-delayed US losses. The relay teams, tyson gay, the womens volleyball team. But it was centered around US teams and athletes as it should be.

 

USA Men's Water Polo as well, although them getting to the final was an achievement in itself so I'm pretty sure they weren't completly distraut at only getting a silver

 

Says who? That's not how its done in any other country that I'm aware of (sure there's some bias, but nowhere to this extreme).

 

ding ding ding.

 

So if history is so important why do the brits compete in the olympics when there have been event changes etc. If you look at the history of olympics, you will see events being replaced or introduced over the course of time. All sports do it to survive, it is just a fact of life. So if the Brits can't change their composition of their team ie GB because of history and tradition, why are they competing in events which were not around in the first few olympics?

We are not sore losers, we are quite happy with the fact that we won 14 gold medals and helped you guys win 8 gold medals by lending one of our cycling coaches. In hindsight that was a bad decision. We are happy to see you guys celebrating one of your best results ever. We were tired of beating you at everything. It is good to see the mongrel back in the bulldog.

[removed gaysmack]

Aussies have no real affinitywith football so we have to hire coaches from o/s to help us and we have no problems to admit our shortfalls. But for a nation which lives on football and invented the game, it just seems a bit hard to swallow that you do not have ex players who have the intelligence to coach your national side. It will never happen to us in Cricket or Rugby League.

 

Its called not being so narrow minded. I find it hillarious you are arguing agaisnt Great Britain when Australia is just the people Great Britain didnt want in our country. Australia has contributed a lot to the world, A world class cricket team and 90% and [edited by mod]

 

Great Britain did send a few descendents to australia and that should have solved the rampant crime problem but it seems there is still crime in the dark, wet land of the unified nations. So you guys look like you may have sent some wrong people on the boats.

Atlanta Games - transport issues
Sydney - Perfect
Athens - logistics
Beijing - pollution

London - wet, wet and very wet

Don't forget we are still only one world cup win behind you guys. We will catch up. We given you a head start and all that jazz. I can't even remember when a British (yes, I will even unify all the countries) person won a tennis major.

 

So, in answer to my point that most people in the world, (and particularly Britain), don't really care a great deal about sports other than soccer you respond with a comment about.... TENNIS???

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be funny? What are you gonna come up with next... celebrity pro-am basket weaving? Carpet laying, possibly? The truth is that, generally speaking, only the middle and upper classes play tennis in the UK. It's very, very much a minority sport.

TBH, you're just proving my point.

 

If your trying to say the only sport we care about is football, then you couldn't be wider of the mark.

 

Hang on Andy, does this mean that only sport the british ever care about is football? I mean honestly if that is the case, what did you do when euro was on and none of your 4 nations were in it? So all the people who were watching cricket, tennis, ruby etc in your 4 nations are elitists?

 

Last time i checked we managed to draw with Croatia, you lot couldn't even beat them, on two occasions.