The Official Rio Olympics 2016 thread
Discussion
Rosscow said:
Finished 13th - their highest ever finish with over double the amount of gold medals won in both 2012 and 2008.
And still behind Hungary who have never hosted the Games. Could you explain to me what you mean by home advantage? I assumed you meant similar to football - home ground, home crowd. As I've said, this can be offset. If you mean they have had 4 years to prepare how does this differ from anyone else other than they have been jolted into putting greater effort in? Didn't the UK actually do better this Games than the last, which were in the UK?popeyewhite said:
Rosscow said:
Rio 2016 has been Brazil's most successful Olympics of all time, for amount of gold medals and overall amount of medals.
Didn't they finish 13 behind Hungary in totals? I suppose relatively speaking this could reflect some home advantage though.Still, got to perform to win.
Rosscow said:
Didn't realise until just now that we achieved a larger medal haul than London 2012 with 175 less athletes than we had at London 2012!
So almost as many golds, and more medals in total but with over 32% less athletes. Remarkable!
Didn't see this when I posted my last comment. But doesn't the above counter your argument about home advantage somewhat?So almost as many golds, and more medals in total but with over 32% less athletes. Remarkable!
popeyewhite said:
Rosscow said:
Finished 13th - their highest ever finish with over double the amount of gold medals won in both 2012 and 2008.
And still behind Hungary who have never hosted the Games. Could you explain to me what you mean by home advantage? I assumed you meant similar to football - home ground, home crowd. As I've said, this can be offset. If you mean they have had 4 years to prepare how does this differ from anyone else other than they have been jolted into putting greater effort in? Didn't the UK actually do better this Games than the last, which were in the UK?Home advantage - home crowds, access to facilities earlier than any other country, home climate, home comforts, support networks, etc.
popeyewhite said:
Rosscow said:
Didn't realise until just now that we achieved a larger medal haul than London 2012 with 175 less athletes than we had at London 2012!
So almost as many golds, and more medals in total but with over 32% less athletes. Remarkable!
Didn't see this when I posted my last comment. But doesn't the above counter your argument about home advantage somewhat?So almost as many golds, and more medals in total but with over 32% less athletes. Remarkable!
Because it was a home Olympics I think we had extra competitors in minor sports we don't normally send them over for due to travel costs and expenses. I don't think any of them contributed or ever thought they would contribute a medal. Just for the experience of Olympic competition at home.
popeyewhite said:
Rosscow said:
Finished 13th - their highest ever finish with over double the amount of gold medals won in both 2012 and 2008.
And still behind Hungary who have never hosted the Games. Could you explain to me what you mean by home advantage? I assumed you meant similar to football - home ground, home crowd. As I've said, this can be offset. If you mean they have had 4 years to prepare how does this differ from anyone else other than they have been jolted into putting greater effort in? Didn't the UK actually do better this Games than the last, which were in the UK?FourWheelDrift said:
Because it was a home Olympics I think we had extra competitors in minor sports we don't normally send them over for due to travel costs and expenses. I don't think any of them contributed or ever thought they would contribute a medal. Just for the experience of Olympic competition at home.
This.Also, host nation are allowed a certain amount of competitions / teams that they wouldn't always achieve. For example, I believe in London we had teams in events such as volleyball and basketball even though they were not ranked high enough to have qualified automatically. In Rio, Brazil had teams in the Rugby 7s ahead of some other nations that were ranked higher.
rover 623gsi said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Because it was a home Olympics I think we had extra competitors in minor sports we don't normally send them over for due to travel costs and expenses. I don't think any of them contributed or ever thought they would contribute a medal. Just for the experience of Olympic competition at home.
This.Also, host nation are allowed a certain amount of competitions / teams that they wouldn't always achieve. For example, I believe in London we had teams in events such as volleyball and basketball even though they were not ranked high enough to have qualified automatically. In Rio, Brazil had teams in the Rugby 7s ahead of some other nations that were ranked higher.
I think the hosts literally get a slot in everything.
Something I'd forgot about was the new TV broadcast deal that runs till 2024?.
Wasn't it won by Discovery Network or something with the BBC sub licensing it. So could that effect what the BBC can show or stream. It was great having the extra 8 channels this year (>8 for 2012) and also being able to stream other channels also.
Wasn't it won by Discovery Network or something with the BBC sub licensing it. So could that effect what the BBC can show or stream. It was great having the extra 8 channels this year (>8 for 2012) and also being able to stream other channels also.
FlyingMeeces said:
Surely the only meaningful thing you can compare against for home advantage is the performance of the host nation at previous Olympic Games?
No, the comparison for home advantage would be to hold exactly the same match/games in another location as close as possible to the original match. I know it is just a footnote to the above but if we are going to use Hungary as some sort of benchmark we might want to consider that Hungary's achievements were largely down to two athletes who between them secured six Golds and a Silver out of their nation's haul of eight and three.
Not that those medals count any less of course.
Anyway...
Not that those medals count any less of course.
Anyway...
popeyewhite said:
FlyingMeeces said:
Surely the only meaningful thing you can compare against for home advantage is the performance of the host nation at previous Olympic Games?
No, the comparison for home advantage would be to hold exactly the same match/games in another location as close as possible to the original match. Why should athletics be any different?
popeyewhite said:
FlyingMeeces said:
Surely the only meaningful thing you can compare against for home advantage is the performance of the host nation at previous Olympic Games?
No, the comparison for home advantage would be to hold exactly the same match/games in another location as close as possible to the original match. Actually re-running matches isn't really plausible tho is it? It'd be hell to try and get funding for that study! We're pretty low on data points, but we did have broadly the same combination of countries, events and individual athletes gatherered together in a similar environment four years ago, and four years before that… presumably, for sports that hold a World Cup or Grand Prix type series, the effect then can be looked at?
popeyewhite said:
We move further and further away from the core sports of the Olympics if we try to make them totally inclusive.
Your view of "core sports" isn't necessarily the same as everybody else. Without there being any real historical precedent, Ancient or Modern, it's down to the organisers to put together a programme of sports that will work best for the Olympic movement.Looking at tennis for example, the reaction of the World No.1 and 2 to their loss and win would suggest that it mattered a lot to them. The final was one of the best tennis matches of the year. I suspect the IOC and host nations will be happy for it to remain.
Rosscow said:
You can probably look at any sport going and see a positive trend between success at 'home' versus success 'away.'
Not so, actually. There's a huge difference between team games and solo sports for instance.Rosscow said:
Why should athletics be any different?
The home advantage effect has been proved in football, not sure about other team sports. The effect of home advantage can be, and has been, negated by following a number of protocols, ie. for the visiting team: designing a practice pitch to be the same size as the match version, recording the noise of the home crowd and replaying through speakers at practice, mimicking various other sights/banners/posters at the match in question. I'm not going to bore you (any more than already!) but in non-team sports quite often having matches away can improve performance, and often in non-team sport the pressure of a home performance can upset the athlete and performance can deteriorate. Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff