website statistics
Jump to content

Team GB Daily: Day 12


 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Olympicsnell said:

Because I think that's roughly where a country with our population size/ money invested/ and talent capable should be finishing. 20 golds is about where GB should be at, we wont this time and thats fine, next is to avoid the "worst gold medal return since athens" kind of talk. Therefore aim for beijing total. Not everyone in the country supports the amount of money we spend on sports and will be happy for a reason to have a pop.



Would you genuinely not be disappointed in the squad a whole if, lets say, we end up with 14 golds and finish 6/7th in the medal table?  

Certainly going to putting UK sport under a lot of pressure if they don’t get top 5 even if we reach 60 medals which is still quite possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gutted for Matt. Love watching him. Same with Josh and Molly. But there's no divine right and I'm sure the two men would take their performance over Molly's. I'm equally sure both would have good words for her - they've lived through their own athletic disappointments.

 

The silvers are frustrating when so close, no question. But there is a reason that the target is about medals not golds and it's because GB success has been built on controlling the controllables. Sometimes, like tonight and yesterday, no matter what you do to prepare, no matter how extraordinarily fast you run, no matter how much you want it, somebody else is just better.  Medals not golds allows for that uncontrollable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rich said:

Gutted for Matt. Love watching him. Same with Josh and Molly. But there's no divine right and I'm sure the two men would take their performance over Molly's. I'm equally sure both would have good words for her - they've lived through their own athletic disappointments.

 

The silvers are frustrating when so close, no question. But there is a reason that the target is about medals not golds and it's because GB success has been built on controlling the controllables. Sometimes, like tonight and yesterday, no matter what you do to prepare, no matter how extraordinarily fast you run, no matter how much you want it, somebody else is just better.  Medals not golds allows for that uncontrollable.

Half the target is medals but the other half is top 5 so some golds are expected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Olympicsnell said:

Because I think that's roughly where a country with our population size/ money invested/ and talent capable should be finishing. 20 golds is about where GB should be at, we wont this time and thats fine, next is to avoid the "worst gold medal return since athens" kind of talk. Therefore aim for beijing total. Not everyone in the country supports the amount of money we spend on sports and will be happy for a reason to have a pop.



Would you genuinely not be disappointed in the squad a whole if, lets say, we end up with 14 golds and finish 6/7th in the medal table?  

Why should we be at 20 golds? How can we control what people from outside our country do?

 

Some of the events that existed in Beijing don't even exist now  - we won 4 medals in the individual pursuit, including both golds! We couldn't match those even if we wanted to, or had the athletes to do so.

 

We're going to pass the number of top 8 finishes from Beijing quite comfortably - we're only 8 behind right now. We're only 2 total medals behind that as well.

 

Again, I'd be disappointed for the squad, not really in them. Because the focus on gold takes away from how they have generally performed. There are relatively few of the 300 plus that I think have under-performed. That's what we can control. Not what others do.

 

If anything, a cycle where we get a large number of medals but not the crazy number of golds might actually do some people some good. It feels like people have taken for granted gold medals and don't realise how difficult they are to achieve.

 

The people that want to have a pop will do. They'll always find a reason. That's what they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orangehair43 said:

Half the target is medals but the other half is top 5 so some golds are expected. 

Sure, but it's also a target that you can't really hold anybody accountable for. If each governing body has met their target then what you going to do.

 

The rest of the world had raised its game. And just like we learnt from the Aussies post 96 so, in turn, others have learnt from us - the Aussies themselves to some extent but also the Dutch and others I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Olympicsnell said:

Because I think that's roughly where a country with our population size/ money invested/ and talent capable should be finishing. 20 golds is about where GB should be at, we wont this time and thats fine, next is to avoid the "worst gold medal return since athens" kind of talk. Therefore aim for beijing total. Not everyone in the country supports the amount of money we spend on sports and will be happy for a reason to have a pop.



Would you genuinely not be disappointed in the squad a whole if, lets say, we end up with 14 golds and finish 6/7th in the medal table?  

That's extremely unlikely to happen though? We're 5th as things stand (and 4th for total medals), with lots of good opportunities still to come. If 20 golds is 'about' where we should be at, and we finish on 17 or 18, plus make it to the upper half of the target total medal band, plus finish 5th in the medal table, shouldn't that actually be considered a success, by UK Sport's own criteria? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cjsavory said:

That's extremely unlikely to happen though? We're 5th as things stand (and 4th for total medals), with lots of good opportunities still to come. If 20 golds is 'about' where we should be at, and we finish on 17 or 18, plus make it to the upper half of the target total medal band, plus finish 5th in the medal table, shouldn't that actually be considered a success, by UK Sport's own criteria? 

Yes. i would happily take 18 and consider the Olympics a success for Team GB. I think if we get that we are more likely to be 4th, but sure 5th would be ok.

What wouldn't be ok, in my own personal opinion, is slipping behind korea and japan....netherlands dare i say as well with 13/14.

Either of the two above scenarios could happen at this stage i think

Edited by Olympicsnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Orangehair43 said:

The press are having a go - all the back page headlines are about GB missing out again on gold. 

That's not really the press having a go. Nobody has been called a flop of a turnip. I've seen four back pages and it's words like 'pipped'. They reflect frustration not anger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomorrow is a big day:

- jade jones

- Bradley sinden

- Emma in the kite finals

- Emma finucane in keirin

- Ethan Hayter in Omnium

- kjt in heptathlon

- pentathlon - very important fencing round

- 2 boys in the 3m springboard final

- bainbridge in men’s kite semis

 

im still confident tomorrow sees at least 2 golds. With a small chance of a bumper day. Hopefully the mood on the forum will be far more positive in any case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Latest Posts around Totallympics

    • Gold & Silver for  in the Mixed 10m Air Rifle!
    • Italy will raise it to Jury.   Perini's cellphone was in the bag which was kept in the boat. It was not intentional as per him.
    • Giacomo Perini, who originally won bronze in men’s PR1 single sculls, were found to be using communication equipment during the final and has been excluded from the event (ranked dead last) 
    • And last but not least, American gold for the women.  
    • Incredible drama though, with a huge last 200m charge from ! 
    • Oksana Zubkovska just won her 5th consecutive gold in women's long jump at the age of 41. She's just fenomenal woman, who tried to convince doctors that she is healthy at her junior age. 
    • It might have some advantages, I get that, but it doesn't take away the fact that you simply can't make a remotely fair league standing when teams don't all play each other. There's no way you can compare team A and B on number of points gained when they didn't play the same teams (and/or each other)...
    • I'm as traditional and anti-Super League as anyone you can get, but i'm optimistic about the new format.   For one it's still totally opposite of what the Super League wants to be. We don't have a closed league with 30+ matches in a season and you also depend on the domestic leagues to qualify.    Also, as good as the old group stage format was, the last few years it became very double sided in my view. In the 2000s and early 2010s it was much more interesting, when the teams were more equal in strength and surprises happened. But in the past few years, with all the money involved the gap is widening between the elite 10 teams and the rest.    And we usually got 2-3 really strong groups, where some teams got screwed and then we had 5 rather easy groups, with the big teams there had a cruise to the knockout stage, where after 3 matches it was virtually known what the final standing will be.   Now in the new format, where the knockout bracket is fixed by the positions in the league, there will be intrigue till the end i reckon. Plus with only 1 match between teams, there is a higher chance for a smaller team to upset a bigger one. If you have Man City - Sparta in 2 matches, you definitely know City are winning at minimum 1 of them. But in only 1 round, if they miss to beat Sparta, then lose to team 2 and have another draw with a smaller team, then their position in the table is affected much more serious.   I also really like, that after the league phase, we don't get teams dropping to the lower competitions. I have enough of teams like Barcelona or Man Utd phoning and moaning, when they drop to the Europa League. If you don't make the knockouts you are out, done..   The one thing i definitely don't like about the switch is that they gave 2 of the extra spots again to the top Nations with this bogus "best country coef. in a year" spot. They should have given them to the Q nations. The top 5 leagues have enough teams already. 
    • Lill was well on her way to silver, had a small but 'annoying' fall and just seemed to be kind of broken from then on, with first Terpstra catching her and at the end Berta doing the same  
×
×
  • Create New...