Why are Australians so good at sport?

[TEKNOPUG]

GilbertGrape said:

rhinochopig said:

Please everyone stop talking pish. They're not any better than us.

We beat them at Rugby regularly - and them us. The same goes for Cricket.

At the Bejing Olympics we were considerably better than them. We finished 4th in the medal table, and they finished 6th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_ta...

Per capita, Australia dominated.

And per GDP they were obliterated by the likes of Cuba and North Korea.

[rhinochopig]

GilbertGrape said:

rhinochopig said:

Please everyone stop talking pish. They're not any better than us.

We beat them at Rugby regularly - and them us. The same goes for Cricket.

At the Bejing Olympics we were considerably better than them. We finished 4th in the medal table, and they finished 6th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_ta...

Per capita, Australia dominated.

What a pointless response.

[dirty boy]

GilbertGrape said:

rhinochopig said:

Please everyone stop talking pish. They're not any better than us.

We beat them at Rugby regularly - and them us. The same goes for Cricket.

At the Bejing Olympics we were considerably better than them. We finished 4th in the medal table, and they finished 6th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_ta...

Per capita, Australia dominated.

Who gives a toss about per capita? You don't hear us going, oh, but per capita USA should have been 5x better than us, but were only 2x better.

They invest in sport, good on them.

We're only now starting to realise that sport in this country has been neglected somehwat. It has certain other benefits with health etc, and I think over the next 10 years, you'll see further improvements, however, other countries will probably develop also, so any medals table at events will not see proportionate growth in achievement, but I think we're on the up again.

The Olympics will certainly be a catalyst, at least I hope it is, and I sincerely hope it's a success.

[Fishtigua]

Just watched a match between Oz and NZ.

Body hits, shirt ripping, elbows in teeth.

Rugby?

Nope, chuffing Netball final.

Any nation that plays sports that does not involve rolling on the ground, clutching their face in agony, deserve better medal places. Same with fake blood too.

[DangerousMike]

rhinochopig said:

GilbertGrape said:

rhinochopig said:

Please everyone stop talking pish. They're not any better than us.

We beat them at Rugby regularly - and them us. The same goes for Cricket.

At the Bejing Olympics we were considerably better than them. We finished 4th in the medal table, and they finished 6th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_ta...

Per capita, Australia dominated.

What a pointless response.

no. its the only way to compare sporting ability by country...

[Bibbs]

When I came from Australia to the UK I found one big difference in sport (and education in general).

In Aus you were pushed and encouraged if you were interested in something or good at it.

In the UK we were all kept at the same level to not upset the lesser students.

"Doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game" - what BS. It's all about winning.

[TEKNOPUG]

DangerousMike said:

rhinochopig said:

GilbertGrape said:

rhinochopig said:

Please everyone stop talking pish. They're not any better than us.

We beat them at Rugby regularly - and them us. The same goes for Cricket.

At the Bejing Olympics we were considerably better than them. We finished 4th in the medal table, and they finished 6th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_ta...

Per capita, Australia dominated.

What a pointless response.

no. its the only way to compare sporting ability by country...

Why?

[DangerousMike]

because if you have a larger population pool you will produce more top athletes...

[TEKNOPUG]

DangerousMike said:

because if you have a larger population pool you will produce more top athletes...

Australia is a modern, rich & prosperous country with a high GDP allowing it's government to invest greatly in it's sporting infrastructure.

Compare that to Cuba, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Armenai, Kenya, Jamaica etc. These countries are a lot poorer, have far smaller GDPs and therefore aren't able to invest in modern sports technologies, swimming pools, running tracks, top coaches etc etc etc. Yet they still produce medal winning atheletes and sportsman.

Therefore if you have a high GDP you will produce more top athelets, so medals per GDP its the only way to compare sporting ability by country...

Medals per GDP for 2008 Olympics would put Australia in 58th place

[rhinochopig]

DangerousMike said:

because if you have a larger population pool you will produce more top athletes...

Well done Sir

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 14th October 16:06

[blindswelledrat]

blindswelledrat said:

SC7 said:

What the fk has that got to do with BNP "polices"?

9 years ago I left a school where I was made to play 8 different sports, including rounders and hockey, despite only being remotely interested in two or three. This included playing basketball in a mixed sex class with at least one tool who purposely "forgot my PE kit, Sir" in each team, who would move out of the way and squeal rather than catch the ball.

This was followed by two years in college where I studied PE at A Level and spent as much of my final year in education doing Orienteering as I did studying Football, despite only one person in the class choosing the former and 10+ choosing the latter.

The schools in this country don't encourage the elite. Instead of trying to push the idiots up a level they just drag everybody else back to suit.

So no, I won't "give it a fking rest", and I don't repeat what I read in the tabloids - I speak only from my own personal experience.

We now live in a country that excels in practically nothing, illustrated this week by the fact we rely on a foreign manager to guide our national team to a 0-0 draw with a country with close to 1/100th of our population.

We celebrate mediocrity in every way imaginable - In Australia it simply wouldn't slide, and the same goes for the U.S.

You can get down off your high horse now you mouthy .

Ill tell you what:
I will apologise if you can back up a single thing that you have said with provable statistics as opposed to anecdotal fond memories from a mate who did PE once.
In return, if unable to do that then you retract what you have said and vow to stop whinging about the state of this country, without knowing why you are doing it?

So to clarify- here are your statements to prove with a link anything which demonstrates it as fact:

1)People in Australia are raised as 'winners; but people in Britain aren't
2)Governments in the UK seek to subdue people who are excellent within a given field
3)The schools in this country don't encourage the Elite
4)We live in a country that excels at practically nothing (for your information- the fact that we have a foreign England manager does not prove this statemnt in any way whatsoever)
5)We celibrate mediocrity in every way imaginable

Still waiting

[Captain Flashman]

We're really not that good you guys are just really st at everything.

The AIS makes a huge difference, all 14 to 15 year old kids go through a national talent identification programme, its where most of our rowers and cyclists come from. Surprisingly the sports recommended for me were wrestling and volleyball and its dead on I’m a natural wrestler.

Our sporting culture also encourages winning, a guy making a quick ton in a winning side will get a lot more press than a bloke that made a double ton over two days, winning is everything. Near enough is never good enough. (although recently the sporting press is taking this attitude toward Ponting and his bunch of losers) For instance if Webber wins the World Championship this year he will be made Australian of the year after he retires, if he finishes second he has no chance.

[chimster]

Captain Flashman said:

We're really not that good you guys are just really st at everything.

The AIS makes a huge difference, all 14 to 15 year old kids go through a national talent identification programme, its where most of our rowers and cyclists come from. Surprisingly the sports recommended for me were wrestling and volleyball and its dead on I’m a natural wrestler.

Our sporting culture also encourages winning, a guy making a quick ton in a winning side will get a lot more press than a bloke that made a double ton over two days, winning is everything. Near enough is never good enough. (although recently the sporting press is taking this attitude toward Ponting and his bunch of losers) For instance if Webber wins the World Championship this year he will be made Australian of the year after he retires, if he finishes second he has no chance.

Not so sure about the we are st bit mate, but the rest I agree

[anonymous-user]

DangerousMike said:

rhinochopig said:

GilbertGrape said:

rhinochopig said:

Please everyone stop talking pish. They're not any better than us.

We beat them at Rugby regularly - and them us. The same goes for Cricket.

At the Bejing Olympics we were considerably better than them. We finished 4th in the medal table, and they finished 6th.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/medals_ta...

Per capita, Australia dominated.

What a pointless response.

no. its the only way to compare sporting ability by country...

Nonsense, if you are considering per capita, why not consider how much each country spends on sport or the quality of the facilities or the weather?

Isn't that more relevant?

Australia used to be crap at sport. They invested millions in sport academies and centers of excellence etc in the 80's and now they see the results. Just like GB has been doing and now have beat Australia in the Beijing medal tally.

The countries that spends the most on sports academies, sports science, facilities, coaches etc are the ones that do the best. It's just about spending.

Edited by el stovey on Friday 15th October 11:06

[ewenm]

I think Aus also has an advantage in that the sporting press (and hence public acolades/earnings potential) isn't quite so skewed in favour of a single sport.

[TEKNOPUG]

ewenm said:

I think Aus also has an advantage in that the sporting press (and hence public acolades/earnings potential) isn't quite so skewed in favour of a single sport.

You mean that they are good at lots of little minority sports that no one really plays or cares much about?

The big sports in Australia are in no particular order; Rugby League (they aren't world champions), Rugby Union (they aren't world champions), Aussie Rules (they are world champions by default, as no one else plays it) and Cricket (which they are world champions of in the one-day game but not world champions of 20-20, not ranked no1 in the world and not the current holders of the Ashes).

Just because they won some athelic and swimming events in a competition against the might of the Commonwealth, does not make them a sporting juggernaut; anymore than it makes Britain sporting incompetants. As if to illustrate further, Australia managed 177 medals at the Commonwealth games, whereas the British teams acheived 200 in total.

[disco1]

I think this Aussies & sport thing is a bit of a myth mostly talked up by themselves. As people have mentioned they came 6th in the last Olympics BEHIND us in 4th. Who gives a **** if their women can hit a ball with a hockey stick or throw a ball through a hoop, not exactly blue ribband stuff is it? With all the sports facilities they have they you'd think they'd have produced someone who can run! If we took them on in a track and field comp we'd be all over them like a cheap suit and I can't think of any major sport where they're world champs. Webber is a total journeyman in an amazing car, equal cars and he'd be mid pack at best. (I'd still like him to win over Teflonso or 'No1' boy though).

One thing I will give the Aussies is their fighting spirit, they hate to lose and don't know when to call it quits. However, this 'spirit' often turns into unsportsmanlike behaviour and a whole lot of excuses.

Rant over, off to pub.....

[ewenm]

TEKNOPUG said:

ewenm said:

I think Aus also has an advantage in that the sporting press (and hence public acolades/earnings potential) isn't quite so skewed in favour of a single sport.

You mean that they are good at lots of little minority sports that no one really plays or cares much about?

The big sports in Australia are in no particular order; Rugby League (they aren't world champions), Rugby Union (they aren't world champions), Aussie Rules (they are world champions by default, as no one else plays it) and Cricket (which they are world champions of in the one-day game but not world champions of 20-20, not ranked no1 in the world and not the current holders of the Ashes).

Just because they won some athelic and swimming events in a competition against the might of the Commonwealth, does not make them a sporting juggernaut; anymore than it makes Britain sporting incompetants. As if to illustrate further, Australia managed 177 medals at the Commonwealth games, whereas the British teams acheived 200 in total.

That's one of the other differences - you're counting 2nd and 3rd places. Aussies in my experience only count winning (74 Oz golds vs 51 UK golds in Delhi). Second is not good enough.

[zac510]

I think it's mostly been summed up with regard to funding by the AIS. British cycling has proven how funding a body to train and support athletes pays off with a cycling team that has many successes in Europe and Olympics (although admittedly the Comm Games was still a bit of an Aus whitewash).

On the other side, England has a big arts, history part of its culture that Australia does not. Those things often absorb a lot of Government funding that might otherwise go into sport, but they're definitely bring diversity to the country and that should not be sacrificed for a mere sporting medal. Australia is built around sport because you can't buy that history and culture.