How many golds for team gb

My personal view is people are underestimating the home advantage. Some people are going over every event and estimating that way. And that's good as long as you adjust for home advantage at the end. My general feeling is 25-30 being most likely.

I think there us good money to be made from the olympics. People don't understand it because it only happens every four years. There are excellent opportunities. For example, I layed £74 on Chris hoy in the sprint last night after it was known he isn't even in the event! Now, thereis a chance through illness etc. that ge will, but that's remote.

That's exactly wat I mean

u see most countries probs do well wen they have home advantage but it's different with the uk.

Maybe they won't get as many medals simply because of added presure.

The media put alot of pressure on them. They could break

If you put GB on 15 gold medals in 2008, which I would argue was a fairer reflection of where we actually were in 2008 in terms of Olympic sporting prowess, then a 54% increase actually leaves you on 23.

That's about 20 golds. Let's say 5 or 6 suprises and they hit 25 or 26. Max IMO.

Added presure could see them lose a 2 or 3 golds leaving them on between 15-17.

So IMO if they do well it's 25-26 golds. If they fold under the pressure then I'm afraid abt 15sh.   

If u feel iv left summit out than feel free to add in the gold medal contenders.

Of course diving could bring a gold.

Surpassing 19 will not be a doodle IMO. 25-30 golds will be difficult. Over 30 in my opinion is too optimistic.

Of course it's about opinions and I ain't got a problem with any1 disagreeing

So 20 golds +54% is 31 golds. I know we don't know where they will come from but no home country ever does! Yet that's what happens on average. There is no evidence countries buckle under pressure. It is not supported by evidence.

Seems like u got 24 there.

5 golds in cycling is a bit high IMO as is 4 in rowing.

Boxing could be uks best sport in 2012. Very good chance of 3 golds and a further 2 or 3 outside  chances of gold.

Boxing could have 5 or 6 golds.

Dnt u agree for team gb to 5 golds they can't afford any slip ups.


Let's try and be realistic instead of optimistic or negative.

Keep it real cus money means more to us than anything

I just feel that in football for example we wouldnt even question the idea there is a big home advantage, even though it's all in the same country. And past results say there us a big advantage in the olympics. Ladbrokes had us at 40-1 for over 33 medals. They cut it to 25-1 then they took it down as I'm sure they realised they'd got it very wrong.

I don't agree it's because of investment years in advance. Look at football. Huge advantage at home. Why? Not investment years in advance. It's due to travel, crowd support, and being familiar with the pitch/environment.

Why is Wimbledon an example? We've always performed to the world ranking of the British players, I would say better even. We never had anyone good enough to win it.

slayerofthe'kins     20 Jul 12 21:46  
I just feel that in football for example we wouldnt even question the idea there is a big home advantage, even though it's all in the same country. And past results say there us a big advantage in the olympics. Ladbrokes had us at 40-1 for over 33 medals. They cut it to 25-1 then they took it down as I'm sure they realised they'd got it very wrong.



Bang on. I remember mate. But tbh I have to say team gb were very lucky to get 19 golds. I'd say they got 7 more than they were due too.

This time the opposite has happened. Market opened at 24sh golds now at 22.5.

31 golds is too much. I can't see it. Odds at laddies are excellent for it to happen if u fancy it. 16/1 for 31-33 golds

without US + China is just a match between Russia and GB with Germany as a very big outsider

Russia will win that one.  4/6 would be massive.  More like 1/4

Agreed

surely home town advantage in olympic games is particularly prevalent in judged sports. GB could profit in the likes of boxing and gymnastics.

plenty of examples of shocking hometown decisions - the korean boxer shamefully getting the nod over roy jones jr and sarah stevenson originally being robbed in the bout against the chinese girl last time. suppose subconsciously the home crowd cheering massively must affect the judges

Murray never beat anyone ranked above him when he was a contender plus he lost to Roddick who he was expected to bt.  He never won at odds against.  Henman possibly the same, whilst Rusedski was awful at Wimbledon from memory.

I gave us a gold in taekwondo too which was generous tbh and obviously we cant get more than 2 triathlon.  That said I could have given 3 in athletics and I've ignored the claims of Ton Daley and Louis Smith.  Swings and roundabouts and all that

I understand wat ur saying clydebank. It's a tough 1 to evaluate. The way I see it gb will get 15 medals plus 8 suprise medals:

Athletics 3
Swimming 1
Boxing 1
Canoeing 1
Equestrian ??? Dnt know about this
Taekwondo, Diving, judo, gymnastics 1/2
Cycling 2
Rowing 3
Triathlon??? No idea
Sailing 3

so on the above I say 15sh golds.

Now add between 3-12 more golds on to the 15 and IMO u will get the finishing tally for team gb. I say 15 being the lowest and 27 being the highest under normal circumstances.

If team gb do realy badly I say 12 golds is as low as they get.

If they do extremely well, above expectations I see them getting 30.

Just the other day I was studying team gb and found it is possible for them to win 44 golds. I'd expect them to get about half of them.

U win some u lose some.

I'm going for 22

I backed every combination over 24 with Ladcrooks before they hacked all of those prices back at a combined 2.85.  This is still worse than the 3.65 26 and over on here, which I think is a great price.  Call this idiotic patriotism if you like (I might even end up cheering on Murray at this rate), but looking back to Beijing, we had very few short-priced favourites that didn't oblige - Shanaze Reade was the obvious one but having backed her in all sorts of short price doubles, trebles and up with all of our track cycling winners, my first sight of BMX made me realise the folly of taking a short price in this crazy sport - and we had a few surprise winners such as Cooke and Degale.  Also, events of the last week or so look to have increased our chances, e.g. Wiggins and Cavendish, Ohoruogu and Shakes-Drayton.  I think that we will do better than other posters have suggested in Athletics - Farah is in great shape and could win two, Ennis should win and Greene only has Coulson to beat and he is a great championship competitor. We then have half a dozen others who have good chances if things fall right, incl, Christine O who really wants this, and some field events where results are always more unpredictable.  We should win 4 track cycling golds in both team pursuits, Hoy in the Keirin and Trott in the womens' Omnium, and all of our other trackies have realistic chances, and Wiggins and Cav will now both be hot favourites for road events. Adding Swimming 2, Rowing 3-4, Sailing 2-3, Boxing 2-3, Triathlon 1-2, Equestrian 1-2 and Canoeing 1 takes us up to 25ish with barely any surprises and even allows for a first-round Murray exit.  I also think that most of our Olympic sports are so much better prepared than they used to be and they have been preparing for this and nothing else this for years.  Cycling is still the best prepared but Swimming, Rowing and Sailing are all pretty good.

I'm not forgetting this.  I don't need 30, 25 will do.

Tbh most firms were doing under and over 11.5 which IMO was the correct Market.

Team gb got about 7 unexpected medals:

degale 1
addlington 2
cycling 1
rowing 1
orgaragh 1
1 more I can't remember