you might be on to something there. i never noticed India had more medals.
Maybe it should be done by medals won and then if 2 countries have say 30 medals each then rank them according to the Golds won.
If I was Indian I would be put out but i guess this system is the one used for big events like Olympics and Commonwealth Games.
Well done both countries though.
The convention adopted long ago by the IOC, and followed by most games organisers and media, sorts the ranking first by gold, then silver, then bronze, regardless of the total medals won. The US networks and papers typically do the sorting as you suggest - first by total, then by gold, silver, bronze.
Remember there is no overall winning nation of the games. The medal table is published as public information and doesn't count for anything.
The Scottish may have spent more money on training because it was there home games.
Do you think its fair that Scotland are higher up the medals table than India even though india has more medals, just because Scotland has more gold's?
I am Scottish and i think its a bit unfair to the Indians.
