I'm a little disheartened we've only gotten 2 medals so far, but I'm wondering how many medals are we expected to get now? Is it going to pick up? Because for example we got 14 medals in track cycling in Beijing alone and Imo we have a stronger team now.
Also Germany won 41 medals in Beijing but are yet to win anything, you just have to wait for the sports you're best at. China and USA are exceptions to that as they're pretty good across the board thanks to massive investment in sports.
We punched well above our weight in Beijing and have come here with very high expectations because it's a home Games. We have won 2 medals today, both in difficult events. There's nothing to be disappointed about!
It's worth mentioning, though, that we might get fewer track cycling medals this time as they've changed which events are included.
UK sport target is 49 I think. So far the only major upset was picking up nothing in the road cycling.
According to their predictions our strong areas should be Athletics, Boxing, Canoeing, Cycling, Equestrian, Rowing, Sailing and Swimming, so we'll have a better idea how we're doing when we hit the finals of those events.
(Original post by Miracle Day)
China have 12 medals, USA have 11, Italy have 7 and we have 2.(
Italy have 7 medals because a lot of the fencing took place already and they're ridiculously strong in that sport. Pretty sure they took all of the medals in the women's foil. When it hits athletics they're going to sink down the table. Russia, China and the US you just need to forget about, they're in a different league.
Edit: having said that I see that Russia are also languishing near the wrong end of the medals table - which just goes to show you how unrepresentative it is after only 2/3 days.
Last edited by MancStudent098; 30-07-2012 at 08:57.
I have a feeling that we will end up getting fewer medals than people were anticipating and fewer medals than we got in Beijing. So there will be some negativity from the media wanting to create a big debate about "where did it go wrong" etc.
However in terms of the whole "feelgood factor" for the public it's not the medal tally that counts but having individuals win in the blue chip events.
A run of bronze and silver medals in not very high profile sports will go largely unnoticed by the public, what really excites people is British athletes winning gold in sports people understand and set aside time to watch. A handful of those will make it a very successful games from the public's perspective.
We have had games in the past where we haven't had huge medal hauls but have had individuals like Daley Thomson, Seb Coe, Tessa Sanderson, Linford Christie, Sally Gunnell, Jonathan Edwards, Denise Lewis, Audley Harrison, Kelly Holmes winning. And in Seoul 88 when the men's hockey team won gold and beat West Germany in the final that was at that point probably the biggest sporting moment in a major final we'd had since World Cup 1966.
In Bejing 2008, we won a lot more medals but they were largely in the less 'obvious' sports. Now people do like seeing us win gold in cycling etc BUT in my opinion they get more excited about a win in a blue chip sport.
If GB won only 2 golds this year - Andy Murray and GB mens football, that would go down as a massively successful games from the public perspective even if we won nothing else.