OLY 4th on the medal table for GBR

[d pickup]

'UK targets 4th place in Olympics medal table'

Moynihan holding forth - for fourth. Do I hear third anywhere? Going, going gone - and it might go down to fifth .. - and as we see CHN was listening. So how will the medal table pan out? '08: CHN, USA, RUS, GBR, GER, AUS, KOR, JPN, ITA, FRA

see
www.chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2012-01/11 ... 424781.htm

[SteveK26]

I'll be happy as long as we finish ahead of the Aussies!!
Seriously though, 4th seems a bit optimistic.

[djlovesyou]

4th seems a realistic target to me.

I can't see anyone beating China, USA will likely be second.

I think it'll be close between Russia, Germany, GB and possibly Australia given their improvements in cycling for the next two spots.

So fourth is a good target, and we'll almost certainly finish between 3rd and 6th. Can't see any lower than that.

[rembradt]

It depends what you believe is the more appropriate way to assess the position on the Medals table ; in the States its based on Medals won and then Golds, whereas here its based on Gold medals first and then total medals gained.

Our way is not my preference. A country with one Gold medal and no others is ahead of a country with no Gold medals and twenty silver/bronze medals. Weird to me.

I se GB in the top six.

[larkim]

I think by golds is the best (of a bad bunch) of ways of measuring it. To measure on total medals gives a country with 5 bronzes a higher ranking than one with 4 golds.

I agree its almost equally unfair to give a higher position in a table to a country with one gold over 50 silvers and bronzes though.

At the end of the day, all athletes are attending with the aim of winning. So it doesn't seem too unfair to measure on golds first, then sort the placings by silvers and bronzes. After all, it is completely arbitrary that we only give out medals to the top 3, rather than say top 5 or 10 in any event.

What ever way you do it, there are some events (swimming springs immediately to mind) which distort the picture which (IMHO) have far too many events / medals on offer in relation to the number of competitors and (crucially for me) the actual difference between the events (cf. multiple medal winners in the pool).

(Actually, having checked my facts, I think trampolining is the worst - 2 medal events are on offer, with 32 participants; thats a medal for every fifth competitor (on average). Swimming is 1 for every 9, athletics 1 for every 14, wrestling 1 for every 6.)

Matt

[djlovesyou]

But surely if there are less competitors in an event, this means that qualification is tougher to actually get a place in the Olympics.

[larkim]

But surely if there are less competitors in an event, this means that qualification is tougher to actually get a place in the Olympics.

Possibly, but not necessarily. There are 32 trampolinists who need to qualify - out of a population of how many "competitive" trampolinists world wide? 2000 T&F athletes out of a population of how many competitive athletes? Difficult to say.

(And its "fewer" competitors, not "less" - "less" if you can't count it ("less water"), "fewer" if you can ("fewer litres of water") - one of my pet peeves, sorry I know its bad form to correct language and grammar (and I'm no saint) but that's one I can rarely resist - ask my 12 year old son!)

Matt

[trickstat]

Medals tables can never be a perfect measure of relative strengths of nations because of the differing numbers of medals available in different sports. As an example, a country at the last Olympics might have won both men's and women's tournaments in football, basketball, volleyball (indoor) and handball but this would have only boosted their place in the medal tally as much as Michael Phelp's contribution to the USA's total.

[rembradt]

Which is precisely why many people know that the Medal Table stuff is a lot of Media nationalistic hot air.

And in addition to the excellent points made by other posters the fact that China ansd the States are and will be on top means very little when you consider that nations of 1.3 billion and 310 million, respectively, can be expected to do rather well (India being the exception) .
Actually my true admiration is for the top nations per head of population who would be Jamaica, Kenya and Australia, to name three.

[djlovesyou]

Jamaica, Kenya and Australia? Countries that basically get all their medals in (one small part of) one sport? Yep. All credit to them. Sporting giants.

As for larkim's comment. I agree, some sports have different depths but it's pointless to debate which gold medals are worth more than others. The amount of competitors is certainly not a deciding factor.

Are there any grammatical errors in that lot? I actually hope there are so you can get all mastubatory over it and point it out, you pointless waste of air. (sorry, I can't help it, it's just how I am, ask anyone!!!)

[rembradt]

Doesn't matter if you get your medals in only one or two sports, and tiny countries are hardly going to shine in a dozen sports. What about that country which got 7 Golds in cycling and the guy who got 8 Gold medals on his own. The fact is that despite the indifference of many of us about Medal Tables, I am quite sure that if we had a couple of top three places in the entire Games people onthgis Forum would be a little upset, and much more important the nation do expect us to come high in the medal table after the amount of cash, private and public, spent on individual sports and the athletes within those sports.

[larkim]

Are there any grammatical errors in that lot? I actually hope there are so you can get all mastubatory over it and point it out, you pointless waste of air. (sorry, I can't help it, it's just how I am, ask anyone!!!)

I asked for that, didn't I!



Matt

[LiamRiley]

Some of the weighted methods outlined in the Olympic medal table article on Wikipedia are pretty interesting, particularly the New York Times ranking of four for gold, two for silver, one for bronze (e.g. you might equate two silvers to a gold medal, but not a silver and a bronze).

In terms of athletics, I find the points-per-placings analyses interesting too (though they tend get little coverage...)

[Guto Nyth Bran]

April predictions from the USA Today website.
Athletics only.
Gold – Mo Farah (10000), Idowu (TJ)
Silver – M4x4, Greene (400h), Farah (5000), England (1500), Ennis (Hep)
4th – M4x1, Dobriskey (1500), w4x4, Meadows (400)
6th – Turner (110h), Sayers (Jav)
7th – Aldama (TJ)
8th – Porter (100h), Shakes-Drayton (400h)