Related coverage
So another Olympics has been cast for posterity, and back here in Australia the post-mortems are beginning in full swing.
Like most fans, I was initially disappointed with the performance of our team, especially the swimming team, and especially during the first week, which ended with just one gold medal.
But as things picked up in the second week, and after some reflection and research, I realise now our performance wasn’t that bad.
Like many fans, I was predicting an overall medal haul around the 40 mark, with gold medals anywhere from 10 to 15, hopefully at the upper mark.
Australians are still basking in the after-glow of the Sydney Olympics, and the success of 2000 carried momentum forward into Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008. But sooner or later we were going to cop a reality check.
Let me tell you that Beijing 2008 was a reality check delayed.
You see, we won 46 medals, which was only three shy of the 49 we won in Athens and an acceptable 12 shy of the 58 haul in Sydney.
Our swimmers saved us then. They won 20 medals in the pool, our historical best-ever effort, and also 43% of all our medals. What the swimmers ‘hid’ from the public back in 2008, was that some of our sports were already slipping back to pre-Sydney obscurity.
The swimmers won 20 medals, and all the other sports 26. Now fast forward to London 2012. Our swimmers managed just 10 medals and all the other sports 25.
Eerie huh!
Before I continue with Australia, let me throw some medal tallies at you. I have looked at the cumulative medal counts of the past six Olympics, since Barcelona 1992.
Barcelona is a significant starting point, because the world changed significantly in the four years between Seoul 1988 and Barcelona 1992. Much of the world today evolved from events in that time period. Here’s some of them:
1. The former Soviet Union empire collapsed, with it’s member states going their separate ways. Many other former Soviet-bloc states shrugged off communism.
2. The Berlin wall collapsed, leading to the reunification of West Germany and East Germany.
3. The Tiananmen Square incident of 1989 humiliated the Chinese leadership and led to a softening of their then strict socialism.
4. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela was released from prison, to begin a chain reaction which would se the dismantling of apartheid in that country.
Barcelona reflected a world that looked forward hopefully to a better future. It was a ‘happy’ games. And over the past six Olympics, much has remained fairly regular.
Australia ranks fifth in overall medals won in that time, sixth in gold medals, having being passed by Great Britain in London. Here are the figures for the top ten nations:
1. USA – 620 medals, 236 gold.
2. Russia (including Unified Team 1992) – 511/178.
3. China – 413/181.
4. Germany – 335/104.
5. Australia – 255/71.
6. France – 212/65.
7. Great Britain – 206/74.
8. Italy – 175/58.
9. South Korea – 165/62.
10. Japan – 152/43.
Australia has the smallest population of these nations, so we have done exceptionally well. Now if we get an average of the number of medals per sport over these past six games, then looking forward to Rio 2016, this is what we might expect to end up with.
RIO 2016 – Swimming (14 medals), Track/Road Cycling (6 or 7), Rowing (4), Athletics (3), Canoeing (3), Sailing (2), Diving (2), Shooting (one or 2), Equestrian (one), Field Hockey (one), Basketball (one), Water Polo (one), and perhaps one other sport (one).
That’s 40-42 medals overall, which would be exceptional. As for the breakdown of gold, silver, bronze, it might be in the region of 11-14 gold, 13-16 silver, and 13-16 bronze.
The reality is this – the Olympics is getting harder. And you realise this when you breakdown the various sports into their components, and see the competition available.
Athletics might have 47 gold medals up for grabs, and swimming has 32, but rowing and track/road cycling have 14 each, and sailing 11. The competition is intense!
If Australia can continue to reach 35-40 medals at each of the next four to five Olympics, we will be doing outstandingly well. And if we can achieve anywhere from 10-15 gold medals at each, that will also be outstanding.
But make no mistake, winning at the Olympics has just got a lot harder. That’s the reality.
I used to think I was a pretty good rugby lock, but now realise I was deluded. My nickname is a truncation of my surname, so I'm not Arabic - phew! However, sometimes I imagine myself as a Beau Geste in the French Foreign Legion, fighting evil, righting wrongs, promoting good and rescuing damsels in distress.
August 14th 2012 @ 9:01am
Johnno said | August 14th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Sheek good morning once again. I have just had a coffee with milk and 4 sugars to wake me self up.
-The point you make about the Olmypics getting harder is compelling, . And in real terms maybe just maybe Australia did better than we did at Beijing, or Athens.
-Why i say this is this
-Our beijing stats
14 15 17
-London Stats
7 16 12
-So we won more silver or the same amount in reality, and yes 5 gold off but in a more competitive olympics, and some of the gold we just missed out on magnussen in the swimming, sam williougby world champion in Bmx got silver and could of won gold, steve hooker had the yips, stef rice had a busted shoulder,kookaburras 50/50 vs germany and should won that match in the semi. The point is with more Nations getting better our medal haul doesn’t in real terms represent a decline if you ask me Sheek.
-And with our gold medal rank of 6 of all time that is simply exceptional for a nation of our size. Australia when they get there admin right eg and yes i am sending that out to rugby union, can be world beaters.
-Just look at aussy soccer as an example. In 2001/2 we were a basket case aussy soccer was well in danger of being well totally ignored or even more ignored by mainstream society a bit like the warpaths have been this year in there own city invisible.
-4 years later a a new administration with some money and know how, same players, a world class coach, and we almost knocked the 2006 world champs Italy out of the 2006 world cup, and we were the fittest team in the world cup thanks to hidings ultra tough bootcamp before 2006 in germany.
-So australia when the backroom is right and coaching staff right history shows we can beat anybody. Heck we pushed team usa hard and we were the only team with spain whp could match team usa a bit in the athletic department eg pat mills is faster than any player team usa even have, and other than spain we were there toughest match, and we had no andrew bogut too who is just about the no 1 centre in the world.
We beat russia the bronze medalists in this basketball olympics, and they beat spain, so we can beat anybody on our day Australia. We have beaten brazil before to 1 time in soccer in 1997 at the confeds cup. Australia hasn’t lost a meaningful soccer qualifier in soccer at home in 30 years china is our only loss but we had already qualified for 2010 and played a mickey mouse almost youth team as we were home and hose.
Heck during the dream team years, shane heal took it to team usa and rattled them like no other individual had.
August 14th 2012 @ 12:20pm
sheek said | August 14th 2012 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Johnno – 4 sugars? That explains it then…..
August 14th 2012 @ 11:01am
Fussballs AFL tracking spreadsheet said | August 14th 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Pretty good analysis Sheek, I particularly like your selection of the time period 92 – present day based upon the fundamental geopolitical events that took place (or at least were initiated) immediately preceeding the Barcelona games.
I agree with your overall conclusions that a) Australia has done very well over this period; and b) we’re likely to struggle to attain that level of success in the future. Put simplisticaly we have three strategic options moving forward as follows:
1) The acceptance strategy. So we finished 10th on the medal table – that’s actually pretty good, let’s be happy there and learn to appreciate the value of a gold medal rather than expect them as a matter of course.
2) The focus strategy. Let’s select a few sports we know we’ll continue to enjoy comparative advantage – i.e. – swimming, sailing, rowing (the rich white sports) and throw all of our money at them, pretty much forget about track & field (too competitive) and the team sports (not enough gold medals on offer).
3) The credit card strategy. If the Brits spend $1 billion we spend $1.5 billion. If we have to sacrifice grass roots sport in order to achieve this success then so be it. What matters is the medal tally.
Personally option 1 is my preference. Just as long as we beat NZ…
August 14th 2012 @ 12:24pm
Kim Hart said | August 14th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Although like many I was disappointed with the lack of success from the swim team, it did serve the great purpose of focussing the national attention on sports other than swimming and cycling for once. I’ll bet more Australians watched the sailing finals than have throughout the rest of history (in fact I can’t recall when I last saw them televised)
August 14th 2012 @ 12:36pm
Worlds Biggest said | August 14th 2012 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Great piece Sheek, well done. That 5th placing during that time frame is exceptional. These games have showed us or me in particular how well we did in 2000,2004 & 2008 in regards to Golds won and overall medals. They are hard to win and I took it for granted we would win 12-15 at these games.
August 14th 2012 @ 12:52pm
sheek said | August 14th 2012 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
World’s Biggest,
Thanks & yes, I think many of us got carried away with the excesses of 2000, 04 & 08. Not only the fans, but also the officials & even the athletes.
Sometimes a reality check can be a good thing…..!
August 14th 2012 @ 7:57pm
Tom Callaghan said | August 14th 2012 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
I can’t help feeling that constructing a time frame for this particluar short era is somwhat arbitrary and obscures the fact that the UK stands third in the historic olympic medal table and several places above Australia. Great Britains lead has lengthened considerably over the last two Olympics :48-21 gold medals,
I wonder why Great Britain was able to exploit home advantage in 2012 so much more effectively than Australia in 2000?Australia finished fourth in the table with 16 golds to Great Britain’s 11 but in London Great Britain finished third in the table with 29 golds to Australia’s seven..
Perhaps a longer perspective would give a true measure of Great Britain’s sporting superiority in relation to Australia and its European neighbours?
August 14th 2012 @ 10:42pm
sheek said | August 14th 2012 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
Tom,
The article wasn’t about GBR, it was mainly about Australia.
The period 1992-2012 is extremely relevant to Australia, & indeed most other top 10 countries.
During these 6 Olympics, GBR has been all over the shop (medal haul-wise). They have generally been an exception to the rule.
Perhaps one reason why GBR did better at home compared to Australia is population & financial resources. GBR has what – 2.5 to 3 times the Aussie population? Anyway, who did better at home is largely irrelevant to this discussion.
August 15th 2012 @ 6:46am
Tom Callaghan said | August 15th 2012 @ 6:46am | Report comment
Hello Sheek,
Not the tired old population argument again!
if population was the key determinant it would be hard to explain why Great Britain finished ahead of Germany, 80 million, Japan, 100 million,Brazil,200 milion,and India 0ne billion? at successive Olympics or ahead of the Russian Federation, 180 million? in London.
Isn’t it also the case that GBs 29 golds in 2012 equated to one gold per two million, which is relatively few people per gold.
August 21st 2012 @ 12:44am
Nickyc said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:44am | Report comment
Think it’s a bit unfair to suggest that GB have been ‘all over the place’ medal wise. In fact after a worst ever performance in 1996 – 15 medals and 36th place (see Oz circa 1976) – the investment of lottery money in the late nineties has seen a steady improvement.
1996 – 15
2000 – 28
2004 – 30
2008 – 47
2012 – 65
September 5th 2012 @ 3:24am
Andy said | September 5th 2012 @ 3:24am | Report comment
In his post August 14 @ 7.57, Tom has a go at Sheek for picking a ‘somewhat abritary’ timeframe. He then immediately weakens his argument by picking a somewhat arbitary timeframe himself (2008-2012).
Whereas Sheek presents a good argument for picking 1992 onwards, as those years have provided a real step change compared with the years before it, for the reasons he gives. Note too that the decline of the Eastern bloc meant a decline (but not eradication) of drug-assisted performances.
Nobody can deny that GB is superior to Australia, and its European neighbours, in sport at the moment, especially Olympics. And Tom does make a good point about GB exploting home advantage in 2012 much better than Australia in 2000. And like Tom, I get tired of the population argument.
However historic Olympic tables are of little value given that for many years, we had little or no female participation, African/Asian participation etc.
From 1996 until 2004, we saw the effect of extra funding in sport upon Australia’s Games performance. At the same time, Australia had some champion tennis players and a world-beating rugby team and cricket team. From 2008 (and probably until at least 2016), we’ve seen the effect of extra funding upon GB’s performance. At the same time, Andy Murray has excelled and the cricket team has been ranked no.1.
Due to the effect of that Games funding, it is necessary to look at the total period from 1992 to get a level playing field, and that shows that Australia and GB are actually fairly even. We probably won’t get a real sense of true comparative performance until the ’2012 Games’ effect wears off, perhaps by 2020.
Finally, I would dispute Tom’s claim that the Wallabies are inferior to GB teams, and Nicky’s claim that they are even. Yes, there is the odd loss to home nations teams here and there, lost convincingly to England in 2010 (groan, I was there!) and including at crucial times in World Cups, but the Wallabies are reigning Tri-Nations champions, and have a much better record against the All Blacks that any Home Nations team has had over the past 20 years.
September 5th 2012 @ 8:58pm
Tom Callaghan said | September 5th 2012 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
Thjanks for the carefully argued comments Andy,
But I’ve got to say that I don’t think taking a historical perspective is without value and when I drew attention to 2000-2012 this was to balance Sheeks focus on an earlier period of time beginning 1992.
With regard to the wallabies I think its fair to say that they have played ABs on a more regular basis than six nations teams have and that the odd victory isn’t surprising.I believe, though, that the wallabies are currently in a prolonged drought of victories against ABs.
It remains true that both England and Scotland have beaten the Wallabies home and away in last two games and that Ireland, which for rugby purpose includes British players from Ulster beat Wallabies last time out.
August 14th 2012 @ 12:45pm
sheek said | August 14th 2012 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Thanks Fusballs.
There’s some things that remain consistent through the past 6 Olympics. The USA medal output has remained within the window between 94-110. China passed 50 medals for the first time in 1992, & have continued to steadily rise since then.
Russia & Germany have steadfastly remained between 2-6 in the rankings at each of these Olympics, & their medal output has generally been consistently good. Russia’s lowest medal haul has been 63 (1996) & Germany’s lowest 41 (2008).
France, Italy & South Korea have consistently appeared in the top 10 at each of the past 6 Olympics, producing in the medal band at each Olympics between 28-38.
It’s these 3 countries that I believe show how Australia will perform going into the future. I think we are a 35-40 band medal nation. What happened in 2000, 04 & 08 was exceptional for us, not the norm.
Great Britain & Japan have both been up & down a bit, especially GBR. They have lifted themselves magnificently from 1996, where they finished with 1.8.6 -15.
Those nations who have been on the cusp (either side) of top 10 over the past 6 Olympics include Ukraine, Netherlands, Hungary & Cuba.
There might be something in the timing of the US team’s trials. Especially in swimming & athletics, they usually carry over well into the Olympics. I read somewhere recently from an Australian swimming official that the US is stuck with their national trials timing, but this is rubbish.
If the US thought there was a better timeframe elsewhere, they would have moved to it. This is a cop-out from our officials.
Another thing to admire about the US is their excellent college system. I don’t know if/how we can replicate this, but it’s important to have several athletes competing for every position in every sport.
Competition is the key. Americans are great competitors at major meets, because they understand the psychology & physiology of competing. They’ve grown up with it from a young age. It’s their bread & butter.
As Magnussen & Seebohm discovered to their horror at these Olympics, it doesn’t matter if you came in with the best times, or blew the opposition away in the heats. It’s how you perform at the pointy end that counts. It’s also about managing yourself physically & emotionally to produce your absolute best when it counts.
With respect to our medal haul in London, could we seriously have done better? Maybe 3-4 silvers could have been converted into gold, but overall, the 35 medals was close to the mark. You are always going to have individuals or teams fall short of the mark.
We lament the “ones that got away” like Magnussen, Seebohm, Rice & Hooker. But we conveniently forget the “pleasant surprises” like our women’s relay team, & Anna Meares upsetting Queen Victoria Pendleton.
August 14th 2012 @ 9:16pm
Worlds biggest said | August 14th 2012 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
Tom, just curious but outside of the Olympics where does Great Britain have sporting superiority over Australia ?
August 21st 2012 @ 12:13am
Nickyc said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:13am | Report comment
Some sports where GB currently lead Oz – athletics, badminton, boxing, canoeing, cricket, cycling, equestrian, football, formula 1, golf, gymnastics, judo, modern pentathlon, rowing, squash, table tennis, taekwondo, tennis, triathlon.
Some sports in which Oz leads GB – basketball, netball, rugby league, shooting, swimming, volleyball, water polo.
Some sports where GB and Oz are more or less equal – diving, hockey (men – Oz, women – GB), rugby union, sailing
Have tended to ignore winter sports as GB and Oz only have 1-2 areas of strength.
August 21st 2012 @ 12:47am
Tom Callaghan said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:47am | Report comment
Nicky C
Can you remind me who won Australia’s golds in shooting in London?
Would you really say that Australia and british teams are equal given tht England have beaten Wallabies on last two occasions, thumping them in November 2010 and as Scotland have beaten them home and away on last two occasions;Ireland-which includes British players-beat Wallabies at last world cup.
August 24th 2012 @ 12:34am
Nickyc said | August 24th 2012 @ 12:34am | Report comment
Tom,
I’m a Brit and I hope I was being even-handed. In shooting Peter Wilson’s double trap gold was GB’s first medal of any colour for twelve years. Australia have shown much greater strength in depth across the shooting disciplines at global level than GB over that period. I hope this is going to change because I think shooting together with canoeing, gymnastics and judo are sports which GB needs to build to continue on an upward medal winning curve at the olympics.
As for rugby union this is one of my main sports and at present I don’t think there’s much of a gap. However, all the advantages lie with GB/the British teams given the respective playing bases and the much greater competition from league and aussie rules down under.
August 25th 2012 @ 1:23am
Tom Callaghan said | August 25th 2012 @ 1:23am | Report comment
Nickyc,
Wouldn’t you say that the London 2012 medals table puts the apparent success of Australia at the 2010 Commonwealth games-and that of India-in true perspective.
Many of Australia’s gold medals were won in the absence of English and other British competitors particularly in gymnastics and cycling.
August 27th 2012 @ 8:34pm
Nickyc said | August 27th 2012 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Tom – That’s true as the British teams were under strength across many sports including cycling, gymnastics and athletics. However, in fairness, this was relative as the Aussies have regularly beaten the individual UK teams at the CG over the past couple of decades, although not by such a large margin as in 2010. It’s difficult to compare the medal tables between the CG and OG due to the differing sports and size of the program. In addition the presence of athletes from more countries affects results, eg. the presence of the USA hurts the Aussies more than GB in swimming, while the presence of the wider world hurts GB more in sports like athletics and boxing.
At the moment GB has the advantage over the Aussies in sport and on the surface this looks set to continue but never ever write the Aussies off! For me the rivalry between probably the two most sports mad countries in the world is the greatest in international sport and long may it continue. I love the Aussies but I also love to beat them at sport.
August 21st 2012 @ 12:43am
Tom Callaghan said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:43am | Report comment
Worlds Best,
I did reply but my reply was not posted.
Most sports are within the Olympics aren’t they?
Outside the Olympics teams from Britain such as England, Scotland, and Ireland (which includes players from Britain) have beaten the Wallabies in most recent rugby union games; in consecutive games in the case of Scotland and England.
England are ranked third in FIFA rankings ,well above Austraila,and Scotland beat Australia 3-1 in recent game in Edinbrugh.
Great Britain has finished above Australia in world swimming,Athletics, boxing, rowing championships since 2007.
August 14th 2012 @ 9:48pm
Emric said | August 14th 2012 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
interesting stats this
August 14th 2012 @ 10:17pm
knackers said | August 14th 2012 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
I have done my bit over the years looking at Olympic medal tables with a pen paper and calculator and decided that ,all things being equal ( lovely cover all expression that ) that you can only draw tentative inferences from about a 5 Games running total of total medals. One games has 900 something medals -slightly less than a third gold and one can only see patterns over , er, the fullness of time time -the gold strike rate regresses to the mean of about a third of total medals over time -as it’s done for GB in these games
The no of events goes up and so does the no of medal winning countries ( we can ignore those teams which mainly consist of officials which only appear at the Opening Ceremony ) but the average no of medals won by medal winning countries doesn’t vary much . So 2012 is the lowest total since 1992 -we will have more idea of a trend really after another games – I suspect we’ve bottomed for this cycle but it’s only a hunch governed by medal predictors like GDP and GDP per capita and getting the kick up the bum we had to have
( (Incidentally for medal chasing countries the combative sports of boxing judo and tae kwon do are the way to go -4 medals per event -one third more medals one might say . But Australia is a bit too white middle class outdoorsy for these events )
August 27th 2012 @ 8:42pm
Tom Callaghan said | August 27th 2012 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Nickyc,
I believe that rowing, in which Great Britain regularly dominates the Australians does not feature in the Commonwealth games.I suppose that if it did New Zealand and possibly South Africa-even Canada?-would offer more competition than Australia.
August 28th 2012 @ 12:58am
Nickyc said | August 28th 2012 @ 12:58am | Report comment
Tom – rowing is an optional sport which can be included in the CG program and has been seven times. Australia are actually a very strong rowing nation. GB and New Zealand are the strongest rowing nations at present but Australia and Germany are their closest rivals.
The CG has three tiers of sports. First the ten core sports which must be included: athletics; badminton; boxing; hockey; lawn bowls; netball; rugby sevens; squash; swimming; and weightlifting. Then there are a group of fifteen sports from which the host nation can select seven or eight if diving is one of them (it falls under the label aquatics with swimming). The optional sports are: archery; basketball; 20/20 cricket; cycling; diving; gymnastics; judo; rowing; shooting; synchronised swimming; table tennis; tennis; triathlon; and wrestling. Some of these have been selected for inclusion at every CG, eg. cycling and diving.
cont
August 28th 2012 @ 1:15am
Nickyc said | August 28th 2012 @ 1:15am | Report comment
cont.
Finally, there are a group of fifteen sports – some like fencing which have been included in past CG – which are recognised but haven’t yet been added to the optional list as they are not considered to be widely enough played across the Commonwealth at this point. These sports are: billiards; canoeing; fencing; golf; handball; life saving; rugby league; sailing; softball; ten-pin bowling; volleyball; and water polo.
Apart from the ten core sports Glasgow have chosen to include cycling, diving, gymnastics, judo, shooting, table tennis, triathlon and wrestling in the program for 2014.
August 28th 2012 @ 3:43am
Tom Callaghan said | August 28th 2012 @ 3:43am | Report comment
NickyC,
I’m impressed by your detailed knowledge of CWG protocol but am not so sure regarding your comments on Australia’srowing prowess. Not a single Olympic champion in 2012 in spite of talk about prowess of oarsome foursome.They have had few world cup or world rowing champions over last few years until very recently and then this was not followed up in London Olympics.
Did you say in a previous post that Australia’s performance was particularly good in Delhi? I thought that Australia won fewer golds in 2010 than in previous games in 2006 even though British nations teams were depleted.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:37am
Nickyc said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Tom – re olympic rowing
1996 Aus – 5 medals, GB – 3
2000 Aus – 6, GB – 2
2004 Aus – 4, GB – 4
2008 Aus – 3, GB – 6
2012 Aus – 5, GB – 9
1996-2012 Aus – 23, GB – 24
In London GB won nine medals, while Australia and New Zealand won five each. Denmark, Germany and the USA were best of the rest with three.
P.S. I inadvertently omitted taekwondo from the list of optional CG sports in my last post.
August 28th 2012 @ 7:10pm
Tom Callaghan said | August 28th 2012 @ 7:10pm | Report comment
NickyC,
Don’t be too hard on yourself over Taekwando omission.
Yes,your figures on Australian rowings decline 2004-2012 do seem to bear out my point. Thanks for these.
You might have considered golds won in world cups/champs in recent years too.
All the best,
Tom
August 29th 2012 @ 12:00am
Nickyc said | August 29th 2012 @ 12:00am | Report comment
Tom – An interesting interpretation given that Australia has only won more than this year’s five medals once in the past thirty years!!! The fact remains Australia won more medals than anyone bar the host nation and continue to be one of the top rowing nations.
You stated GB regularly dominate Australia in rowing which is disproved by the olympic results going back to 1984. Three times GB has won most medals, three times Australia with three ties. Total medals GB – 30, Oz 29.
You ask why I didn’t refer to world cups/championships. In response I would refer you to track cycling where results in these events bore little relationship to olympic results. In particular, the world cup events are unreliable given that non-european countries miss most of them and when they do compete often have problems with jetlag.
You’ve left me in the somewhat invidious position of being a Brit having to defend Australia’s sporting honour!!
August 29th 2012 @ 12:59am
Tom Callaghan said | August 29th 2012 @ 12:59am | Report comment
Good to hear from you again NickyC
My point is that Australia is not now nor has it been on a par with Great Britain in rowing since 2004 and that if rowing had been in CWG 2010 this, along with English, Scots,welsh,etc, gymnasts,athletes, cyclists and others whodid not compete in Delhi this would have produced a significan different result at top of medal table
NickyC,
I always knew it would take a Briton to defend Australia sporting honour as it seems that ‘its all gone quiet over there’ or that the Autralians ‘only sing wheen they’re (rarely) winning’!