No one wins the Olympics, why don't people get this?
Having a bigger population does not make you better at sports. This is a ridiculous excuse. Look an India over a billion people and they aren't very good at sports. They only won 6 medals despite having the 2nd highest population in the world. They didn't bring home a single gold. That kind of kills the whole population argument.
It's about culture and funding. You could add 250 million more people to the UK. It doesn't mean they'd be better at other sports. Doesn't mean you'd suddenly be good at basketball, athletics, and swimming. In fact the UK would probably just have more good cyclists, rowers, and footballers. A big population doesn't mean you'd suddenly adapt every sport and suddenly be good at them. See how stupid the population argument is? You can't just create interest for sports out of thin air.
Antony, why would you even say that if GB could include common wealth countries they would be the medal count winners. THEY ARE THEIR OWN COUNTRY! whose athletes win medals for thier OWN country! That's like the US saying they'll include Samoa, Cuba, or other previously charted territories who share a common wealth to raise medal count. Just ignorant.
Anyway back to original question.
Yeah GB did well, but like a few comments above me states: It's not a population or land mass contest. It's a series of contest celebrating the athleticism each country brings to the table.
In my eyes we all won, were all winners, some just won better then others.
In the eyes of facts and stats USA and CHINA won because they obtained the most medals.
Ummm I think you may mean Great Britain. People from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland also competed in the Olympics and won medals and some of the football matches took part in the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff. And no if GREAT BRITAIN didn't have the most medals they didn't win, people go through all the population stuff but at the end of the day we didn't win and I doubt we ever will win because of our size.
Well if you include our commonwealth countries, Australia, New Zealand Jamaica and the countries the queen is head of state (16) we had a higher medal count than the USA, but been british we wouldnt do that (48 golds). but we did put on a good olympics that we can be proud of.
Nope, the Netherlands won xD.
Seriously though, don't you think every country that has something to be proud of in these Olympics wins?
Its the medals that count. And England didnt participate in the olympics, Great Britain did.
you mean great britain. yes GB has the best way of going about things, if we were as big as just russia then GB would be above usa i have no doubt about that.
But don't tell that to the yanks. In their world they won most medals cause they are just superior human beings lol
Land mass and population doesn't mean anything. A country with a high population won't necessarily cultivate excellence.
England ?......It was team GB
and nobody 'wins' the Olympics
its those taking part that win medals, not countries
its the gold medal count that makes you the winner, and if your gona base it on land size, surely Kazakstan would be up there?
I mean based on land mass and population etc - i think our small Island actually excelled and showed the most determination and strength . Anyway, i'm very proud to be English. :)
Nope it's all about the medal count
And the Bronze goes to........... GreatBritain not England.
Base on the drugs that they took, well yes.....
Based on population, it was Australia was it not? wooooo hoooooo we won!!!!!!!!
USA got the most medals! In your face! jk
