Is Britain the Greatest sporting nation on Earth?

[Rosscow]

lionelf said:

So here's the big question to the nay-sayers:

If we are not the best/greatest sporting nation on Earth then who the hell is?

I was about to say that!

[technodup]

DeltonaS said:

Considering track cycling and rowing; is GB really playing to their strengths, or to the weakness of other nations ?

Eh? They're two sides of the same coin ffs.

If a football team has a small keeper who flaps at crosses you pump crosses in. If the opposing left back is on a yellow you send your winger down that line. If their defence plays a high line you fire balls over the top for your Vardy to chase.

That's the most bizarre argument I've ever heard.

[johnxjsc1985]

technodup said:

h? They're two sides of the same coin ffs.

If a football team has a small keeper who flaps at crosses you pump crosses in. If the opposing left back is on a yellow you send your winger down that line. If their defence plays a high line you fire balls over the top for your Vardy to chase.

That's the most bizarre argument I've ever heard.

I find the quote about track cycling so funny. Considering the strength of track cycling as a sport on mainland Europe. I guess our rowing team is so successful because of Drake and the Royal Navy.

[Murph7355]

Rosscow said:

lionelf said:

So here's the big question to the nay-sayers:

If we are not the best/greatest sporting nation on Earth then who the hell is?

I was about to say that!

How are you defining "best"?

Purely on the Olympics or wider?

Purely on golds? On total medals? On a hybrid that scores gold, silver and bronze and totals them?

Per head of population?

As a ratio of events entered?

Widest number of events competed in?

Most sports invented?

There is no "best/greatest sporting nation" IMO as, as soon as you define it properly, holes appear in your particular choice.

Sport is wider than the Olympics. As soon as you go wider and take a look at, for example, football or last year's rugby world cup, I don't think we'd be ranking very highly...

We did brilliantly at the 2016 Olympics. But even there we were beaten on total golds (2nd) and total medals (3rd) . Well beaten per athlete we sent. We were trounced per capita and by GDP.

The one measure where we top the table was the number of sports we won medals in. But 16 from 28 sports isn't overly conclusive in suggesting anything.

Still a brilliant performance though, and the first nation to win more medals than at their prior home Olympics

[BJG1]

We definitely weren't "trounced" per capita when you take out nations to small for the averafe to be of statistical significance (one great athlete for a tiny nation skews the average massively) and nations which are only good at one sport (like Jamaica only win anything in sprinting).

[Ali Chappussy]

We are excellent on anything involving a bike, on water or gymnastics but we are no great shakes at athletics (with one or two minor exceptions).

[Rosscow]

Ali Chappussy said:

We are excellent on anything involving a bike, on water or gymnastics but we are no great shakes at athletics (with one or two minor exceptions).

Really? I wouldn't say that. We've had some wonderful track and field athletes over the last 20 years, plenty of gold medals and world records!

Mo Farah
Kelly Holmes
Greg Rutherford
Jessica Ennis
Denise Lewis
Jonathon Edwards
Linford Christie
Sally Gunnell
Roger Black
Daley Thompson

[lionelf]

Surely out of all of the recognised 'big' countries we are the best based upon the population size/pool of talent available.

Half the medals of the USA with only (approx.) 1/6th the population.

[Blib]

Ali Chappussy said:

We are excellent on anything involving a bike, on water or gymnastics but we are no great shakes at athletics (with one or two minor exceptions).

We won medals in 15 sports. Only the US came close, with medals in ten.

[Esseesse]

DeltonaS said:

Deriding ? or just putting some things in perspective by replying in a cheeky, factual and critical manner (but without the tainted GB glasses!) on some of the claims made.

Considering track cycling and rowing; is GB really playing to their strengths, or to the weakness of other nations ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-britains-c...

Because no other track cycling nation even remotely receives the amount of funding the track cycling team of GB does (also lacking any commercial base).

So don't you think it's a bit silly that a substantial (sport) nation as GB after the Atlanta Olympics was deliberately picking out sports in which a) they could win a substantial amount of medals and b) which could be considered rel. low hanging fruit. It's a great performance, but also a bit artificial.

And given the vast and widespread number of medals Team GB won, it doesn't even need it.

Hitchens said:

Imagine a country that isn’t very successful, but wants to boost its image in the world. Its economy is rocky, its cities grubby and run-down. Its education system isn’t much good. So this country spends huge sums of scarce money and great effort to find young men and women who can win medals in international sporting competitions.

It carefully chooses sports where the competition is weak. It relentlessly drives the chosen athletes. And it works. At home and abroad, its image is transformed. Its national media go into hysterics over each medal. The people at home forget for a moment the dreariness of their lives. The anthem plays and the flag flies high. The country I am thinking of is East Germany, the self-styled ‘German Democratic Republic’.

Gold for Synchronised Sunburn and self-delusion goes to...

[mcelliott]

Rosscow said:

Ali Chappussy said:

We are excellent on anything involving a bike, on water or gymnastics but we are no great shakes at athletics (with one or two minor exceptions).

Really? I wouldn't say that. We've had some wonderful track and field athletes over the last 20 years, plenty of gold medals and world records!

Mo Farah
Kelly Holmes
Greg Rutherford
Jessica Ennis
Denise Lewis
Jonathon Edwards
Linford Christie
Sally Gunnell
Roger Black
Daley Thompson

Linford Christie

[Rosscow]

mcelliott said:

Linford Christie

Well, I guess he did have some issues that put a blot on his copybook

[johnxjsc1985]

seriously I just enjoyed the Sport the greatest nation on earth is just a bit of fun. as far as doping is concerned I have come to the conclusion that its best not to put too much trust in any of them since Armstrong but equally give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Its almost more fun seeing the likes of the Aussie whinging that's quite ironic whinging Aussies

[Murph7355]

BJG1 said:

We definitely weren't "trounced" per capita when you take out nations to small for the averafe to be of statistical significance (one great athlete for a tiny nation skews the average massively) and nations which are only good at one sport (like Jamaica only win anything in sprinting).

Ahhhhh, I see.

Well no real need for any other metrics then. Ruling out nations with a black leader we were no1 anyway

[Toaster]

lionelf said:

So here's the big question to the nay-sayers:

If we are not the best/greatest sporting nation on Earth then who the hell is?

Its transitory a little like an MOT only good at the time of testing, those performances cannot be repeated they may be better or more often worse during a season as 'peak performance' cannot be maintained all the time, the Athletes and Coaches will tell you the same. Oh and we were 2nd in the medal table therefore if your using that as a criteria then it has to be the USA not GB

Edited by Toaster on Monday 22 August 22:15

[MarshPhantom]

Toaster said:

lionelf said:

So here's the big question to the nay-sayers:

If we are not the best/greatest sporting nation on Earth then who the hell is?

Its transitory a little like an MOT only good at the time of testing, those performances cannot be repeated they may be better or more often worse during a season as 'peak performance' cannot be maintained all the time, the Athletes and Coaches will tell you the same. Oh and we were 2nd in the medal table therefore if your using that as a criteria then it has to be the USA not GB

Edited by Toaster on Monday 22 August 22:15

Well, we aren't very good at the biggest sport in the world, football, because everyone plays it. So that has to count for a lot.

You could argue that winning the World Cup is the pinnacle of sporting achievement.

[Blib]

You could argue that. But, you'd be wrong.

A sporting nation has to compete at the highest level in a vast array of sports. Brazil have won the World Cup several times. They don't compete at world level in more than a handful of sports.

[lionelf]

MarshPhantom said:

Toaster said:

lionelf said:

So here's the big question to the nay-sayers:

If we are not the best/greatest sporting nation on Earth then who the hell is?

Its transitory a little like an MOT only good at the time of testing, those performances cannot be repeated they may be better or more often worse during a season as 'peak performance' cannot be maintained all the time, the Athletes and Coaches will tell you the same. Oh and we were 2nd in the medal table therefore if your using that as a criteria then it has to be the USA not GB

Edited by Toaster on Monday 22 August 22:15

Well, we aren't very good at the biggest sport in the world, football, because everyone plays it. So that has to count for a lot.

You could argue that winning the World Cup is the pinnacle of sporting achievement.

I think you'll find that in Professional Boxing we are exceptional with 14 current world champions. In Professional Tennis we are currently second as well although we won the Davis Cup recently.

Edited To Add: We're also not too shabby at Professional Golf as well.

Edited by lionelf on Tuesday 23 August 09:16

[anonymous-user]

lionelf said:

So here's the big question to the nay-sayers:

If we are not the best/greatest sporting nation on Earth then who the hell is?

I've seen this thread previously and dismissed it as jingoistic rubbish, of course GB can't be the greatest sporting nation on Earth.

You are quite right though. I can't think of another country that competes and achieves at the highest level in so many sports.

I think if you're looking at results then GB is indeed top but it certainly isn't top in general sport participation or sportiness of the population.

[Ali Chappussy]

Blib said:

We won medals in 15 sports. Only the US came close, with medals in ten.

I'm talking about 2016 not all our fking yesterdays!

How many gold athletics medals did we win this year?