We should be able to find out in a few hours if Michael Johnson's theory why the African-Americans and Caribbean countries dominate the sprint races has any truth to it. The theory being that slave descendants have superior athletic genes which makes them faster and fitter as only the fittest slaves survived the trek across the Atlantic. Around the same time Britain was ferrying Africans to the New World, we were also shipping our criminals to the other side of the World and like the slaves, many died on the voyage but unlike the slaves, their descendants did not become sports supermen. What they did do was invent a bent stick, a didgeridoo and a terrible soap about a woman's prison and try to pretend that they got the better end of the deal living in a land full of poisonous snakes, deadly spiders, killer jellyfish and a sea full of sharks. Yes it rains here but our most dangerous animal is a badger, you may have the sun but it's 50/50 that you get back alive from a trip to the dunny.
Us Brits and them Aussies have always had a bit of rivalry about sport and there was a bit of competition about who would finish higher up the medals table this Olympics after the close finish of the 2008 Beijing Olympics which saw Britain 4th and the Australians 6th.
Four years on and Australia, and Russia who regularly finish in the top 3, have both had a terrible Olympics.
One explanation for the downfall of the Australians is that they usually do very well in the swimming events and pick up a large number of their medals there but they had a bit of a stinker in the pool and that hit their gold tally hard.
Of course it would be wrong of me to mock such a collapse of a rival, so i will let the New Zealanders do it as they sit proudly above their neighbours in the Medal Table.
A jubilant Kiwi explained that the medal table isn't even being shown on Australian television as the Official Australian Olympic broadcaster Channel 9 avoided showing New Zealand's ascent up the medal table, showing only the nine top countries, followed by a gap, followed by Australia.
Sydney Morning Herald sports journalist Brad Walter thought that was rather unsporting. "Can't believe Channel 9 only showed top nine in medal tally plus
Australia, then admitted we didn't want to be reminded NZ were 10th," he tweeted. "Ch9 should be showing NZ gold, not pretending it didn't happen."
That's not fair so for Australians being denied a view of the Medal Table here it is as things stand today with Great Britain 3rd, New Zealand 14th and Australia sitting 23rd with their single Gold Medal. Strewth.
13 comments:
The last time the ockers got their backsides handed to them by NZ in the Olympics was in LA in 1984... And, before that, in Montreal in 1976, they failed to win a single gold medal. Their swift reaction to that embarrassment was to create the Australian Institute of Sport, chucking millions & millions of dollars at it, to try to ensure that such embarrassment never happened again.
It worked for a while!
Lucy, I happened to see the soccer game between G.B. and Korea.
It was amazing to see a South-Asian country easily beat professionals from the country where soccer originated!
Of course, for Britain to fail in large soccer competitions is not unknown, is it? And in tennis, swimming...
Cheers.
Didn't I watch us win the tennis gold today?
I swear I watched GB win the tennis gold today david g.
Funny... I could have sworn that a British player won the gold medal at the tennis yesterday... beating the greatest player that the game has ever seen...
I guess I must have been dreaming, cos it's not like David ever talks rubbish is it?
"It was amazing to see a South-Asian country easily beat professionals"
Ooops. A few things to pick you up on here:
They're all professionals, on both sides. The Olympics, as everyone knows, has relaxed its amateur rules for many sports. In football, this translates to squads comprised of U-23 players except for 3 overage players allowed only. i.e. There's no requirement for amateurs. Consequently, along with players from the professional leagues in Korea and Japan, the Korean squad features player who turn out for Arsenal, Sunderland, Cardiff, Celtic and Augsburg in the Bundesliga...
Also, how can 1-1 (5-4 pens) be 'easily' beat? Did you watch it? It was a good close game.
And... 'amazing'? Really? Lucy, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you think every football fan in this country, when asked for a prediction as to how Britain would go, would have answered something like "Quarter finals; we'll draw the game but go out on penalties". I don't think anyone here was amazed, or even mildly surprised.
Also, I'm sure you're aware of this (snigger!) but South Korea reached the semi-finals of the World Cup as recently as 2002... so automatically assuming that they're not too good at football just because they're Asian is fairly ignorant and it also carries that familiar cocktail of racism & condescension that most of your other posts do.
NB: Only countries who suck at this game call it 'soccer'. So carry on then!
Ordinarily, I'd end this post with a snide dig at an Australian sporting failure from this Olympics... but it's like when you're standing in front of a huge buffet with dozens of plates of your favourite food spread out before you... (I'm sure an Australian can understand this analogy)... i.e. You simply don't know where to start!
And, oh yes, South Korea is not a "South-Asian country". It's not even close. It's in East Asia.
Apart from all of the above, top work again!
Cheers.
"a terrible soap about a woman's prison"
Surely you can't be referring to 'Cell Block H', Lucy! It was superb.
"Rack off, vinegar tits!"
TV magic.
I don't know what's up with my phone i leave a comment and it shows up but when i look later it isn't there!
I also watched GB take the tennis gold but i didn't see the football as i was watching us win the 3 golds in Athletics (the Mo race was brilliant) but i saw the result that we lost on penalties. I saw us get hammered by Brazil before the competition started and it was obvious then that getting out of the group would be as far as we would go.
Yes, the Brazilians look great this year. It's obvious from the squad that they picked that they're serious about finally win their first Olympics gold at football.
Oh, and mystery solved! Here is the reason for the abysmal performance by the Australian team.
Fair enough then.
Lucy, the explanation for Team G.B.'s success at this Olympics is that they've employed Australian coaches to lift them out of mediocrity.
Actually, Australian coaches have been active in many countries because the pay is better than in O.Z.
And some of Australia's coaches are very good at getting lazy, obese, apathetic athletes like the British to perform.
It's funny that the Great Britons, who usually put in a mediocre performance at the Olympics, have suddenly done well. Even Murray finally scraped over the line! The question of drugs must be raised.
The proof will come at the next Olympics when the odds are that G.B. will be shown to be a one-hit wonder!
Cheers.
Hahahaha! Bitter much?
"they've employed Australian coaches to lift them out of mediocrity"
You just made that up didn't you? You merely saying that something is true, doesn't make it so. If anything, I've found that it's the opposite.
Your anti-prophetic taunting before Britain had won a single gold medal is my favourite example so far.
"Australia's coaches are very good at getting lazy, obese... bla bla bla"
Hmmm. I've already proved to you that Australia is a more obese country than Britain. You don't really do 'facts', do you son?
"Even Murray finally scraped over the line!"
Yeah, 'scraped' is right, eh Einstein?!... 6-2 6-1 6-4... That was a real thriller. I don't know how I had any fingernails left, it was so 'down to the wire'!
"The question of drugs must be raised."
Not only that, but every medal winner (and we've got a few) must be tested for drugs!
Oh? What's that you say? They already are? Oh, phew! :)
Back in the real world (not the one that David is familiar with), Britain takes a much harder line on drug cheats than most other countries. We tried to impose a lifetime ban on our sprinter Dwayne Chambers before the game, but it was overturned by WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). And every British athlete was told before the games that we would again seek lifetime bans against anyone caught doping during this years Olympics.
"the next Olympics when the odds are that G.B. will be shown to be a one-hit wonder!"
2004 = 9 golds, 30 in total
2008 = 19 golds, 47 in total
2012 = probably slightly more than last time...
Hmmm, looks like consistent improvement to me. But you carry on seeing what you want, young fella, if it makes you feel better about being obliterated. I wouldn't want to twist the knife any further - you're clearly already hurting bad.
From the BBC:
"Talent, punishing training regimes, pride in a home games and fervent support have of course played a key part in so many record-breaking performances.
But, in the end, as cynical and unpalatable as it may sound, the main reason behind the team's overall success is cold, hard cash.
Medal bonanza
In the Atlanta Games in 1996, the British team won a grand total of one gold medal, and 14 silvers and bronzes.
The following year, National Lottery funding was injected directly into elite Olympic sports for the first time.
The return was instant. In the Sydney Games of 2000, the British team won 11 golds - the first time Britain won more than 10 golds since the Antwerp Games in 1920 - and 28 medals in total.
Athens in 2004 saw a similar return, the last games before the Olympic Committee awarded the 2012 games to London.
Investment in Olympic sports in the UK immediately rocketed in preparation for the country's first games since 1948, and again the return was both immediate and spectacular - the British team won 19 golds and 47 medals in total in Beijing in 2008."
Lucy, that explains the sudden success. It was bought!
OK then. Let's do a quick stock-take: In terms of excuses, so far we've had... Aussie coaches... cheating by using drugs... and 'buying success'.
Any more excuses, son?*
While the first two excuses are provable bullshit, the third one at least has some truth to it - which is a rarity for you.
But check this out.
this out.
"On a per capita basis, Australia spends more on Olympic athletes than any other country."
Oooops... Spending all that dosh and yet still failing miserably eh?... Dear oh dear!
* Of course, these are excuses for Britain doing so well. What we haven't heard yet why Australia have done so poorly... but I'm definitely all-ears if you've got some whinging excuses lined up for me.
Post a Comment