You are hereForums / General Discussion / Off Topic / What number comes after 6 (as in - Olympic cycling Gold Medals)?
What number comes after 6 (as in - Olympic cycling Gold Medals)?
I'm going to say it since no Aussie is going to mention it - what a phenomenal and inspirational performance from the British road & track cycling teams in the Olympics. If you're British, of course..
What next - a podium finish in the MTB events?
Huzzah!
- Login to post comments
- Bookmark & share
Tags
when is the mountain biking BTW? (quick change of topic)
.. MTB Girls on Friday and Boys on Sat.!!!
http://www.olympics.com.au/ScheduleAndResults/In...
Bernd
..channel 7's bad coverage of the Olympics is even going to bother showing 1min of MTB? Seems so they will only show something where an aussie has a chance of getting a medal...
Tom
.. chance would be SBS, they show a lot of the Cycling....
Bernd
It seems the remaining outdoor cycling events are not going to be televised - that is the MTB XC (23rd) and BMX (20th, 21st). On these days SBS is televising most of what they have been already - basketball, football, volleyball, table tennis, handball, waterpolo...
_____________________________
my Intense 5.5 ~ my NS Suburban
Anyone know if this is possible
No one here is going to argue with the tremendous job GB has done at the Olympics, particularly their cycling team. You could see the glimpses of this domination with the performance of the riders that were in this year's TDF. GB have dominated the Beijing games from start to finish. In that respect, it is very well deserved. The curious thing will be to watch what happens after the London games are done. Does the same funding carry on after 4 years from now? I don't think so.
the funding started with the national lottery well before 2012 was announced.
we realised we were shyt and under achieving and reacted, unlike oz who in their arrogance rested on their lorrels.
go you brits!
Topic switch to the TV coverage, I did see that BMX will get some coverage on 7 today(?). In particular there was a chap called Kamakazie, also known as Kama - only aussies could shorten a nick name
The track looks awesome
Spent $280 to change his name by deed poll to Kama Kazi
Nice to see something a bit more progressive and a few characters in the Olympics
Rather than the 'face of an angel, heart of a lion' chunder that Ch 7 comes up with
Don't think anyone will come up with that description for Kama
No-one at Ch 7 can get past the fact that he doesn't wash his clothes during competition
is on 7 now
its good being off illluke maddill (aus) to go now
14th
poor, like the rest of the ozzies at the olympics
Valierm, you sound like the English after beating Australia for the Ashes in 2005. Beat the world champion, and suddenly that makes you the world champion? Not likely.
both of the last two rugby world cups?
and completely tongue in cheek with a bit of seriousness
What if England won Gold Medals at the same per capita figure as Australia?
hmm that makes about 33 vs 16 at this present time
Anon
ants competed, they'd win outright, possibly defeated by a hoarde of locusts.
I don't think the per capita thing really works, as China and India have not won most of the medals. It appears to me that the medal haul per sport is directly proportional to the amount of money the country's sporting bodies receive in funding from their government. Only through large investments in time, money, coaching, training techniques, diet, technology etc will individual teams do better, per capita.
The example used so far is the GB cycling team. Although the "across the board" investment that China has made on most sports over the last 10 years is another good one. GB has substantially increased their cycling team's budget to employ the best coaches and new technology. It is paying dividends already, which I suppose is immediately obvious. No one here can doubt that GB will be the dominant cycling team at the London games too, especially as you will have the home town crowd factor. This always counts for much.
But after the games, when the funds dry up and all your foreign coaches (i.e. Aussie) are off contract and go home, it will revert back to the status quo. Unfortunately for GB, it has traditionally enjoyed a rubbish sporting reputation, and unless more is done to fund your sporting 'heroes', your slide back into sporting mediocrity is inevitable.
Unfortunately the Olympic venues are too small to have all 60 million Brits and 20 million Aussies competing for the 350 odd gold medals on offer. Plus I was busy so wouldn't have been able to make it.
We can, however, compare the number of athletes from each country that actually went to the games.
That is: so far, GB = 311 athletes, for 16 golds (or 1 for each 19.4 athletes)
Australia = 434 athletes, for 11 golds (or 1 for each 39.4 athletes).
On that ratio the Aussies would need to have sent another 200 athletes to the games to match GB's results. And preferably women, seeing as the men haven't been able to win much yet..
We only have more athletes there because we are team players, competing in more team events, so there are more athletes chasing the same medal.
Unlike the poms, who because of their poor hygiene, avoid team sports at all costs. Oh yeah and don't forget that the athletes that win medals need to be able to have a nice smile on the deus, so that immediately eliminates 3/4 of the British population.
That number of athletes thing is rather embarrassing for the poms. It shows that despite having 3 times the population they can only muster world class competitors in a much smaller number of sporting disciplines.
That said, Aussies should watch out - this is now the fattest nation on earth (yes, even more so than the US of Fat). Any sport and rec. ministers listening - give us more bike trails and let us educate the slothful young on the wonders of MTB!
I'd suggest that GB took the 'let's enter events we've got a chance of winning' approach, whilst Aus used the old "if you throw enough sh**, some of it will stick" tactic!