Winners and losers in lottery funding

it's a bit early for the post mortems yet

Heptathlon bigger cut imo

Agree on the swimming, they may as well have chucked notes in the pool. Despite the swimmers talking a good game, the hype from the commentators and subsequent backtracking with the likes of Claire Balding saying it's all about the attitude legacy (spin or what?), the reality will hopefully be a more intelligent allocation of resources . Peter Wilson had his funding removed in 2008 as swimmers were favoured ahead of him. He produced a gold. The large team of swimmers didn't.

dismal effort by the swimmers tbf

yeah, useless swimmers....surely if you bung someone a few quid they'll train hard enough to beat Michael Phelps

the two shock golds in beijing were a false dawn and a bit of a smokescreen for the swimming team - millions pumped in for very little return

we are either rubbish and weak minded or the other teams are doing something we are not

Allocate 10 points for a gold,7 for a silver and three for a bronze medal won in every state funded olympic sport and then divide the answer into the amount of allocated funding and then compare the sports
eg  if swimming has received say  £52 million and got a silver and two bronzes,13 points  ave per point £4 million
   
and say rowing has received £126 million and got four golds,2 silvers and three bronze, 63 points   ave per point £2 million

you should scrap swimming funding and redirect to rowing to try to convert the 2 silvers and three bronzes into gold

Obviously it's more complicated than that but in essence the 'return' on funding has to be maximised

you have to take the number of competitors and competitions entered into account

some swimmers can compete in 5 or more events, judo players, boxers etc get one chance

it's far too early to be doing post mortem

As regards swimming, i was rather shocked by Australia's performance in the pool, one of the world powerhouses. A lot of silvers but only 1 gold, it seems the USA have got their act together, and i have a sneaking suspicion the Chinese will in future years get a very good team together, but GB swimming are very poor value when it comes to lottery funding, other sports will be snapping at the heels for any lost swimming funding, ie shooting and archery.

Also Ennis winning will do athletics no harm with extra funding.

I don't doubt our swimmers have trained hard, but when I see the likes of Alan Campbell, Mark Hunter and George Nash puking their rings out after burying themselves in their rowing finals, then comparing them with our swimmers telling Sharron Davies how pleased they were with fifth place, seconds after leaving the pool, I wonder....?

To be fair it's all relative.

Too many events in the swimming pool......

Imagine if there were more Gold Medals at cycling and rowing.....

Cycling for example has lost many of its main events and how many more Golds would GB have if you were able to enter more than one person in each event (like in Previous Games)....

Imagine in Athletics if you only had the opportunity to win 10 Gold Medals....

The whole games needs to get a focus.....

its a bloody conspiracy, as soon as there is a sport which we are good at they cut the number of events or restrict the number from each team , they will be doing it to rowing next