cycling - women's sprint

GB can win the dressage and double trap shooting

Australia will take the real events

ul GB, better luck next time

lol aus v kiwis for the booby prize!!

Great Stuff Vicky Gold and Silver (plus disq. in medal pos.)

dressage, cycling, long jump, 10,0000m ... oh i'm getting rsi typing them all

DQ looks completely wrong on reflection

armchair you really hate it when britsih people lose dont you?

WE ARE ABOVE NEW ZEALAND NOW!!!!

GLORIOUS OLYMPICS

Well done Australia. You have now drawn level on gold medals with Yorkshire

LOOK YEAH NO, US AUSSIES ARE A GREAT SPORTING NATION WE'RE ELITE, WE'LL FINISH TOP 5 WITH AT LEAST 60 MEDALS. WE DEFINITELY WON'T FINISH BEHIND GB.

Aussie sport at its lowest ebb ever, have to feel sorry for them.

What "real events" will australia be winning, dfsdfs? Be quick...

Thought those backing Pendleton after the first race turnover / amendment were barking up the wrong tree .  The Aussie girl looked stronger and was slightly impeded by the move off .  Proved it in the second race , Pendleton gave up .  No bet on it , hard on Victoria , would have been nice to finish on a real high .

b1tch bottling pendleton cost me £50.79 in comm.

Time to lick yer wounds lads and move on.

Get ready for Hoy to tear Perkins a new one.

dfsdfs 07 Aug 12 17:53 
ANNA MEARS TOO GOOD

TAKE THAT GB





Yes we're gutted, your whole country has less gold medals than 1 of our English counties

So are we dfsdfs.  18 medals clear!!!   You?

we can even smash them at cricket now while resting half our team!

Oh feck there's an Aussie in the men's keirin, the rest have no chance

Aussie sport at its lowest ebb ever and still more medals per capita than GB

22 gold

Australia gold medal at two up!

What "real events" will australia be winning, dfsdfs? Be quick...

Probably Fencing being a nation of convicts.

how many people live in australia 1432?????

dont slag the aussies of too soon ,we ve not had the 4x100 sheep shearing relay - thats a certain gold in the bag,or should i say shed.

they ve got areo dynamic shears and anti slip sheep dip to help them.

Lol at the Aussie tactical awareness .

WTF was that, did u see that

How strong was that

HOY DESTROYS THEM ALL

another gold for GB getting boring now!

Another win for Hoy. Perkins nowhere.

22 Golds.

Had to scroll down about 5 minutes before i found the Aussies on the medal table

Erm... Is maths not your strong point HansUlrich???

Hoy brilliant.

THE KNIGHTRIDER SMASHES THEM AGAIN

did a Denman

Another gold in the bag, Aussie mugs

23 golds

Kiwi 3rd,Aussie 5th.

bronze for NZ!!

Breaking News ... Aussie keyboard thrown from window injures wombat

Hoy and Pendleton off to the breeding shed imo

Somebody should tell New Zealand to stop beating up those poor Aussies. Haven't they suffered enough??

almost everyone in that race got a medal!!

(except for the Aussie)

given their great weather ,massive sporting involment by their citzens,had a recent olympics - and size - australia should be hammering us,

Hoy=Braveheart
VP=Loveheart
AT=Sweetheart

LOL Dylan

LT=Sweetheart*

HonkyJoe 07 Aug 12 18:05 Joined: 20 Mar 12 | Topic/replies: 27 | Blogger: HonkyJoe's blog
Erm... Is maths not your strong point HansUlrich???


Australia 24 medals, 23 mill population. > 1 medal per million of population.
GB&NI 48 medals, 63 mill population. < 1 medal per million of population.


My Primary School Maths just about covers it thanks.

Hope this helps.

HonkyJoe 07 Aug 12 18:05 Joined: 20 Mar 12 | Topic/replies: 27 | Blogger: HonkyJoe's blog
Erm... Is maths not your strong point HansUlrich???


Australia 24 medals, 23 mill population. > 1 medal per million of population.
GB&NI 48 medals, 63 mill population. < 1 medal per million of population.


My Primary School Maths just about covers it thanks.

Hope this helps.

Both light years in front of Germany though Hans.

we all know its golds that count Hans, how are the Aussies doing per capita on that count??

Erm.. That's more down to the fact that the Brits were more interested in winning everything rather than coming 2nd or 3rd.  Golds are the real proof of how good a nation are.

Did I say that Germany was not light years behind.

Brilliant scenes.

Aussies seething.

What's the maths like on Golds/Population, how are Germany and Aus getting on?

Exactly Dylan.That one won't count.
That feck they managed a gold in the pool.

Germans can't even get their horses to dance as well as ours now!!!

Only golds matter.

Silvers and bronzes for first and second place losers.

Only golds matter.

Silvers and bronzes for first and second place losers.

kiwis are the best in the world for golds v population

Ok we have now decided to change the measure to just golds all of a sudden.

Perhaps someone should tell the IOC to stop awarding Silver and Bronze medals to save some cash.

Hans seething!

Well the medal tables are decided on how many golds a country gets, Hans.

Gold is for first place, the winner, the triumphant etc.

Hope that helps.

Hans: Do IOC take into account population?

Don't mention the war!

Seething me?

I point out a simple maths question I was asked to answer and then I am seething when Englanders then want to change the measure?

population tells only some of the story too, cos of the climate im guessing the actual numbers of Australians doing sport is close to the UK despite the population differences.

You guys crack me up

Hans trying to re-write sport so 1st 2nd and 3rd are equal

When did I say 1st=3rd?

I only pointed out 1st to 3rd get medals?

Germans can't even get their horses to dance as well as ours now!!!

We'd have a load more medals if we could enter more than 1 into each cycling event

Anyway, people, have really enjoyed the cycling, I know the old boy commentating  for BBC gets a bit of stick on here but for me he really does convey the excitement and emotion involved.

Yes apologies Hans. You were quite right, and I apologise for being nasty about your maths.  I was discounting the bronzes and silvers, since that's essentially what the medal tables do.

However, you were trying to imply that the British medal-winning efforts weren't particularly impressive. On most normal measures (ie, the number of WINS), the results of the British team have been astonishing while the results of the Australian team have been (by previous standards) humiliating. 

I don't remember the French and Germans being particularly complimentary about our team on Day 3. Now, though, we're supposedly (according to the French!) a nation of cheats because we've been so successful ever since that slow start.  We're not the only ones who change our tune..

We'd have a load more medals if we could enter more than 1 into each cycling event

and if they hadn't got rid of a load of races to try and stop GB being so dominant.

Errr I was not trying to down anything.

The posts on this page were downing Australia - why do that? You should be celebrating your own achievements.

Brits do seem to have a huge inferiority complex when it comes to a much smaller country like Australia. Should be comparing yourselves to similar sized countries like France and Germany who doing much better to in comparison.

'The posts on this page were downing Australia - why do that?'

Because that Aussie mug piped up when Mears won which is what started it

Mind you, I like Hans' logic. China have around 22 times the population, and the USA around 5 times the population. And neither country have anything like twice as many overall medals as we do. So we're actually kicking their ****!!   Great stuff..

Australia are a small country why should they not be happy about picking up 1 gold?

Yes indeed Honky, should be looking up not looking down on small countries. Be positive not negative.

Go and ask them!   I think you'll find they won't be terribly happy with their medal position. Last time out they were fighting us for 4th place - and quite miffed we were finishing ahead of them.  Now they're struggling to shake off New Zealand!

Hans Australians define themselves by their sport, its such a sport orientated country and culture, as someone that lives out there for 6 months of every year i can tell you they will not be very happy with their Olympics. Check out a few Australian sport websites and you'll see how upset they are by their return this Olympics, but its not just that, their other sports have suffered of late too, especially things like cricket.

Aussies are all about coming first so i can assure you they will not be celebrating silvers and bronzes too much.

Of course they are not doing as well as they have. But they should be realistic, probably over acheived in the past.

Much like Scotland in football.

maybe for their size they've overachieved but sport is so important to Australia im guessing they have one of the highest participation percentages per capita. I think its more that other countries have caught them up in their traditionally strong sports like swimming, its not just the USA and Australia anymore you have China.

Australia is alot bigger than GB have a look on the map Helmut.

You think it's all about population figures Hans.  A country with strong sporting structures and a desire to win can often compensate for a much smaller population.

Actually, Australia's reduced success at sport could well be partly down to their greater success in non-sporting arenas. For decades, Australians have been looked down upon by most Western countries. They've had to scrap and fight for every bit of respect, and that fighting attitude has been most apparent in their sports teams. Now that Australia's more successful financially, and more comfortable with itself, the desire to win at all costs is probably ebbing away. That's why they're becoming a nation of bottlers on the world sporting stage.  Not going to help their self-respect when it comes to sport though.

Much of it is relative wasteland though, GPT. Once you get outside the cities, you can travel for huge distances without seeing a sign of civilization.    And I'll avoid making a joke there...

I think on the contrary Honky you should get economies of scale from being a larger country.

For example a big country can hire one or two top international coaches in a particular sport who can coach all top athletes in that

Also having a larger pool of participants will assist in the many team events. Eg. USA in swimming, athletics, UK in rowing, cycling etc.

Your whole arguement is disengenouos Hans as you well know,nice fishing though.

Yes a well thought out and reasoned argument you have there as rebuttal GPT.

But if a country revolves around its sporting culture (as, quite rightly, Dylan points out is the case with Australia) then that can compensate for the smaller population Hans. Australia has been punching well above its weight in sport for a long time now, but that's partly down to the immense importance of sport within their culture. They certainly aren't going to pat themselves on the heads for getting a small number of golds when, previously, they were jockeying for position in the higher echelons of the medals table.   You seem to have a rather defeatist attitude.

Not at all as said before they have punched above their weight for years.

Other countries catch up that is a fact of life.

Australia may well have a higher sport participation rate than most nations I do not know. But that will only get you so far in professional sport, people playing sport recreationally will not win you medals.

Would imagine football is by far the highest played sport recreationally in England, has not won much for the English national team though.

football is interesting because if you look at the number of qualified coaches in the UK its much smaller than countries like Spain, Italy, Holland. So you might have a high participation rate but if they aren't being coached properly from a young age that might explain why England hasn't had much success.

This is exactly my point earlier Dylan about population.

Bigger countries will have a bigger budget for sport to hire top coaches and set up elite training centres which can be used by all athletes. UK in cycling be an obvious example.

Giving everyone in the country a free bicycle may have increased participation but would not necessarily have produced any results at olympic level.

Australia have always invested heavily in sports, the Australian Institute for Sport being a good example. Population size only tells some of the story, not all countries are so sports obsessed as Australia is and not every country has the climate Australia has which is ideal for playing sports from a very young age.

Australia may well have a higher sport participation rate than most nations I do not know. But that will only get you so far in professional sport, people playing sport recreationally will not win you medals.


Of course that'll only get you so far. But if you combine significant participation with a strong management structure that can foster a desire to win, that can develop skills and strength properly, that can teach players the right tactics to employ and when, and that can keep scouting effectively for new players, then you have something.  The Australians were very good at doing all of those things for many years. Now they appear to be faltering.         I would say they've become complacent, and that they need to be looking very long and hard at how they can put back in place the strong sporting structures that they used to have. You seem to be saying that their previous decades of success were probably aberrations, and that they should now be contenting themselves with jostling with the Kiwis rather than competing with the big boys.

It is a tabloid argument to suggest Aus and NZ are competing with each other at the Olympics. NZ won all their golds and most of the their medals at one sport. May as well say Aus are behind Kazachstan in sporting terms.

Lots of developed populous countries have warm climates like Australia, not sure why they are being highlighted as much as any other. Seems to be a bit of a British obsession. Of course Australia would like to do better. All countries should aspire to.

Since hosting in 2000 Australia have been winning less and less at the Olympics. It is not like this is a recent trend. As discussed they still have a decent medal total. In 1988 they only got 14 medals in total. In the 3 games in the 1980's combined they won 9 golds in total. Bit of a myth to think they have always been all conquering. These things are very cyclical and as you say probably an element of complacency setting in at elite level.

Football in this country trains players using full-size pitches and balls. On the continent, most countries use smaller versions of those things. As a result, the English system picks out lots of large well-developed players, while the smaller ones (many of whom are more skilful) often can't cope physically and so fall away.

And English football training of youngsters very much revolves around playing competitive matches. On the continent, the emphasis is more on developing skills and passing. 19-21-year old English players are often very good at doing what needs to be done to win matches (we often fare reasonably well at U19/U21 level, and have reached several SFs and Finals over the last decade). What our U19/U21 players lack are ball-skills and a natural affinity for passing, and we instead rely on physical strength and on hoofing the ball forwards.  Continental players, obviously, fall very much into the opposite camp.

Young players will often spend their early 20s learning how to use their skills more effectively. So the continental players will discover how to 'win matches'. Ball skills, though, get much less time spent on them, so if you didn't learn to pass and dribble when you were a teenager, you'll only ever have limited skills as a senior player. 

Those are the main reasons why English football is abysmal at international level.  If you want to change that, you'll need to change the whole youth system.


A large pool of available players is a good start for a country, but it is only a start. If you don't have a desire to win and good structures in place, you'll underperform dramatically. Just look at the Indians in almost anything other than cricket.

Have the Australians really been in decline since their own Olympics?  The 16 Golds they got at their own games were obviously good, but they went one better in 2004, and in 2008 they still had a very impressive 14. The Games haven't finished yet, obviously, but it certainly looks like this is going to be a meagre haul for Aus, and they're unlikely to be content with that.


The Aussies were being highlighted because an Aussie came onto this thread and starting laughing at the Brits. Unsurprisingly, he got sent away with more than a few laughs of derision.

And the British obsession with Australia is reciprocal. They have a go at us when we do badly against them, and we have a go at them when they do badly against us.    If you actually are German, you may not understand the 'special relationship' between the Poms and the Aussies..  Just go on the Australian forum and see the sort of response we get when we try and talk about sport with them!!

It is more understandable that the Australians would have an obsession with the "Mother" country.

I don't understand why Brits have such an obsession for Australia, why not for Canada, South Africa, India etc. all far more populated countries than Australia?