I feel like I'm going crazy when I read these stories. Isn't it obvious and common sense that the point of the winter games is for things on snow and ice, looking at what is already on the programme and has been throughout history? It might be done in winter similarly to how we sometimes here describe rugby as a 'winter sport' but that's a whole different meaning to the phrase winter sport than the one we use for the Winter Olympics. I don't even think it needs explaining it's that obvious.
It's all about a new part of the world to have a shot at something.
I understand you of course want a forum to be a positive place because nobody wants to sit and read people moaning and whining, and objectively the results overall are good in the grand scheme of things, but if you can't get why people are finding the past week frustrating then I don't know what to say. I'm not trying to be rude.
So we turn up and beat the two big boys the Danes and the Italians and yet still not the fastest team because someone else turned up faster too, and it's the Australians of course...
Of course it was, she's just saying what people want to hear, she's not going to say the team is bad on the BBC. Anyone following the sport knows that 8 is fanciful. The women's sprint side look incredible but the endurance are missing their best rider and the men's sprint as improved as they looked yesterday aren't going to be picking up a gold unless something weird happens in the Kierin.
I meant in general, not GB medal wise. It's the end of the group stage in volleyball, basketball, handball, water polo that makes the schedule look small I think
Edit: I'm an idiot, I had medal events only on the schedule.