Peering through the golden glow of British athletics only to find dark shadows

loz

An interesting analysis of the Olympic performance of funded athletes

John Bicourt: Peering through the golden glow of British athletics only to find dark shadows | Inside the Blogs | insidethegames.biz

                                                                        Here are some facts and figures about the performances of our Podium-funded athletes during London 2012 for you to digest:

· Of the 47 athletes on funding this year only 28 actually made it to the Games; nine were injured either prior to, or subsequent to, selection for the Games;

· Only nine made the top eight (the minimum expectation for podium funding);

· Only one – heptathlete gold medallist Jessica Ennis – set a personal-best and only three – Mo Farah, Christine Ohuruogu in the 400 metres and 400m hurdler Rhys Williams – set a season's best; Farah's performances, of course, were unique in that he won both 5,000m and 10,000m gold in initially tactically slow-run races...


Britain finished fourth in the athletics medal table, behind the United States, Russia and Jamaica, but this kind of reckoning is somewhat skewed because of the value given to gold medals – ie a solitary gold ranks a country higher than another with no golds even if they have more medals in terms of silvers and bronzes. A more accurate reflection and assessment of a country's athletics team's achievement would be to tally the points for finishing positions one to eight.

On this points table GB was ranked seventh in London – a drop from fourth in Sydney 2000, fifth in Athens 2004 and sixth in Beijing 2008....

So after 12 years of funding and sponsorship to UKA amounting to around £300 million ($470 million/€381 million), there has been no improvement on the six medals claimed at Atlanta 1996 (without funding) and the same number won at Sydney 2000, not to mention a three-place drop from fourth in the points table. All this begs the question: just how effective has UKA's funding and its 140-odd staff been in an attempt to provide the improvement expected?                                Click to expand...       

Though I note some counter arguements amongst the comments.

Greg Hook

I've had this discussion with my Dad. Would we have been happier with 10 bronzes, or 4 gold 1 silver and 1 bronze?
I know what I would prefer.

I do agree slightly that the team as a whole possibly didn't perform to their best, but there is plenty of young talent coming through. That young 100 mtr runner will hopefully blossom to be a medal contender for the next Olympics.

But for a long time the UK has been nowhere in the sprint events. 100,200,110 hurdles. In both sexes, when did we last get a medal in those events?

Badger0-0

Both a bit of a concern to me.

Rubbish, imo.
The absolute truth is Gold is all and no one ever remembers the runner-ups.

As for world records and PBs, who cares?
It's about golds and as someone who isn't a general sports fan, I thought we did pretty well.

We finished behind Jamaica?
If true, that is poor.
But it's not just about athletics is it?

loz

True, but I think it is a useful way to discuss ROI.
For £300m should we expect more medals and top 8 finishers (i.e. finalists)?

Or is it just a reflection on how tough it is to win a medal and had we not made that investment results would have been much worse.

To finish 4th in the athletic medal table actually seems a great achievement to me. Its not like we have some right, or natural ability to be so high compared to many other countries.

But it is right to ask the question that given so much has been invested in the last 12 years than ever was before then why aren't results better than they were 12 years ago.

Mshulla

GB didn't do that badly. There is a global pool of talent in track and field. Money only helps the raw talent, if it's there.
Sailing, rowing, and cycling has equal amounts of money given to it. Money really does help here, as well as having far less competition due to the money factor.

vader100

Not really because Jamaica currently dominate the sprint events with a clean sweep in the men's 100m, top 2 in the 200m and gold in the 4 X 100m realy with a WR to boot. The ladies are no slouch either.

Flimber

Some bloke called Christie ? And another fella called Jackson ?

loz

or

Flimber

I'd forgotten if I'd ever even remembered that.

loz

Perhaps because Team GB is more associated with failing to get the baton round at all than it is winning.