Third position where the top two are USA and China is very good indeed. I know it's about a million pounds per medal but nothing inspires our future generations like winning so well done all involved.
Quote from: olaftab on August 22, 2016, 11:21:23 PMThird position where the top two are USA and China is very good indeed. I know it's about a million pounds per medal but nothing inspires our future generations like winning so well done all involved. Eh? I thought we finished second, behind USA and in front of China?
With regard to school sport, schools are still in receipt of what is known as the Sports Premium. It is actually reasonably generous and has the potential to give greater and wider opportunities to all children and also to the more talented. Unfortunately, far too often at primary level it is used to bring in an outside coach to deliver P.E. lessons allowing the class teacher their contracted non-contact time without the need to employ another teacher to cover it (as a result of the squeeze on other areas of the school budget). I'm certainly not decrying children getting an hour a week of coaching from, say, a basketball specialist, but I rather they were paid to deliver that as an extra-curricular hour in addition to the P.E. lesson delivered by the class teacher.
Quote from: fredm on August 23, 2016, 07:40:44 AMQuote from: olaftab on August 22, 2016, 11:21:23 PMThird position where the top two are USA and China is very good indeed. I know it's about a million pounds per medal but nothing inspires our future generations like winning so well done all involved. Eh? I thought we finished second, behind USA and in front of China?China got more total medals but we got more golds and silvers. We're 2nd officially but some sites have just reported the medal count and have us 3rd.
Then they should probably tell themselves as much because if you go to the website for rio 2016 - https://www.rio2016.com/en/schedule-and-results - and click on medals on the left you get a fairly clear medal table in the format that I called official. That's why I said it that way because that's what their own website reports.
I get what you're saying and I agree that fundamentally athletes win medals not countries but I'm afraid i'm calling bullshit. If they put a medal table ranked by country on their own website then they implicitly support it as a concept regardless of what they say. If they don't wan to have a table then just put every country in alphabetical order and list the number of medals they got, gives the same info but removes the implication of 'winning'.
Quote from: paul_e on August 23, 2016, 11:44:05 AMI get what you're saying and I agree that fundamentally athletes win medals not countries but I'm afraid i'm calling bullshit. If they put a medal table ranked by country on their own website then they implicitly support it as a concept regardless of what they say. If they don't wan to have a table then just put every country in alphabetical order and list the number of medals they got, gives the same info but removes the implication of 'winning'.I think there is just an issue of semantics, I perceive a difference between, "here is a list of medals won by country, ranked in order" versus, " here is the official medal table and the winner is..." Especially when the IOC themselves are very explicit in saying they do not recognise the medal table has having anything other than an information basis and it is not official. The Olympic Charter, Chapter 1, section 6 states that:"The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries..."The Charter goes even further in Chapter 5, section 57, expressly prohibiting the IOC from producing an official ranking:"The IOC and the OCOG shall not draw up any global ranking per country"But I accept that in a stats obsessed world we will naturally look to these tables as an indicator of success.
Quote from: paul_e on August 23, 2016, 08:59:08 AMQuote from: fredm on August 23, 2016, 07:40:44 AMQuote from: olaftab on August 22, 2016, 11:21:23 PMThird position where the top two are USA and China is very good indeed. I know it's about a million pounds per medal but nothing inspires our future generations like winning so well done all involved. Eh? I thought we finished second, behind USA and in front of China?China got more total medals but we got more golds and silvers. We're 2nd officially but some sites have just reported the medal count and have us 3rd.We are not anything 'officially' because there is no such thing as the official medal table. In fact, the IOC has said in the past that it doesn't recognise medal tables and doesn't encourage them. It is even documented as such in the IOC charter. Different countries and different media present things for their own audiences. In the US, for instance, the convention is total medals - meaning they see China as 2nd and us as 3rd.
If they had a double dutch America would have won another, Hey Ebo, Ebonettes!!!