PyeongChang 2018

[curiousorange]

We're watching that BBC review right now where they're showing how we won our medals, and my other half pointed out that if it were a Norwegian or German version, it would be on for about seventeen hours.

[TopDeck113]

When all is said and done, as a nation that can't function when there is anything more than a few millimetres of snow or the temperature hovers around freezing for more that a couple of nights, to win five medals at the Winter Olympics is nothing short of miraculous.

[curiousorange]

There's a debate being had regarding Britain's attitude towards sporting success - do we overfund sports that we have a chance at winning a medal in, or should we spend it more equitably? I recall the hand-wringing when GB only won one gold in Atlanta '96, so it's difficult to work out what the nation wants. My attitude is that we could do both - more facilities and coaches and an elite sports programme - but that won't happen.

[TopDeck113]

I have no problem with funding based on the chances of medal success, after all the individuals/teams have to have the raw material in terms of physical attributes and talent in the first instance and the money just gives them the best possible chance of achieving their potential.  Also pound-for-pound Olympic success produces a national feel-good factor that very little else is capable of.   However, funding of grass-roots facilities and coaching is vital in so many ways other than just keeping the conveyor belt of elite talent churning.  A culture of an active lifestyle has so many benefits for all generations, regardless of ability.  Opportunities also need to be offered to as many young people as possible.  We quite rightly have a very high international reputation in many sports, but in reality the net cast for participation in most of these is very narrow.  How many children in your typical state high school get the opportunity to demonstrate that they might have a talent for, say, rowing?   

[SteveN]

Saw very little of the games apart from the ice hockey.  The final between Germany and Russia, sorry OAR, was tremendous.

[Risso]

I have no problem with funding based on the chances of medal success, after all the individuals/teams have to have the raw material in terms of physical attributes and talent in the first instance and the money just gives them the best possible chance of achieving their potential.  Also pound-for-pound Olympic success produces a national feel-good factor that very little else is capable of.   However, funding of grass-roots facilities and coaching is vital in so many ways other than just keeping the conveyor belt of elite talent churning.  A culture of an active lifestyle has so many benefits for all generations, regardless of ability.  Opportunities also need to be offered to as many young people as possible.  We quite rightly have a very high international reputation in many sports, but in reality the net cast for participation in most of these is very narrow.  How many children in your typical state high school get the opportunity to demonstrate that they might have a talent for, say, rowing?

What seems to happen in a lot of cases is that kids who show a talent in a given sport get “tapped up” by certain private schools. Millfield being a case in point for rugby, for example.

[UK Redsox]

When all is said and done, as a nation that can't function when there is anything more than a few millimetres of snow or the temperature hovers around freezing for more that a couple of nights, to win five medals at the Winter Olympics is nothing short of miraculous.

Aren't there any Austrians, Norwegians, Germans etc with a GB parent/grandparent who are not quite good enough for those teams?