Canadian Sports

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine

The end can't come quick enough

I think it ends on the 12th

It wasn't realistic to expect Australia to remain that strong forever. You should be thankful for the having a good 16 year run. Besides, Australia will surely finish in the top 10 when its all over.

Countries receive a big bounce leading up to hosting, then tend to fall back down again gradually. Australia is no different and the same will happen to Great Britain.

[isaidso]

Canada beat Great Britain 2 - 0

It's redemption for the Canadian women's soccer team after a disastrous WC. Canada beat Great Britain 2 - 0 in the quarter final to move into the semi-final where they will meet their arch nemesis, the United States.

Last year the team were CONCACAF champions heading into Germany 2011, but finished dead last. They've picked up the pieces and clawed their way back to the Olympic semi. Japan will play France in the other semi.


Courtesy of the CBC

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Swimming Canada has targeted 3 medals and 15 finals, but it doesn't look realistic at this point. The 1500 m freestyle is our last hope at a medal which would bring our total up to 2 and we'll fall far short of 15 finals. Apart from the women's 4 x 200 m free, the Canadian relays have been disappointing thus far.

The swim team is much stronger than they were in Beijing, but it will likely be 2016 before we start seeing good representation in the finals. Like 'koolio' mentioned, many other countries have improved too so our gains haven't been that noticeable. We just need to keep plugging away.

I really think 5-8 medals and 20 finals is a level we should aim for (long term).

Btw, which one is 'your' swimmer?

Only 3 medals and 15 finals appearances for Canada's goals? That is not very lofty, honestly. Then again, on the men's side, when you have Phelps and Lochte getting into finals in everything, and medalling in just about everything, that takes away spot for everyone, not just Canada. You also have a dominant swimmer in Sun Yang (who the media has underrated and largely overlooked, despite being fairly cominant in freestyle events). For the women, you have Missy Franklin starting to dominate the sport, and the Americans in general have been extremely strong. But Australia has been a disappointment, as have the Netherlands to an extent, and there seems to be an opportunity for other countries to work their way into a better position long-term.

My swimmer is Andrew Gemmell. I am not his actual primary coach, but I am a coach for the age group team that he grew up on and still trains with (aside from the University of Georgia), and so I can claim in some way to be his coach. He represented our team at Olympic Trials, and obviously made the team by winnin the 1500. He got 9th this morning, and missed making the finals by 1.44 seconds. It was disheartening to see that, and obviously we would've liked to have seen a Delaware native and our teammate make the finals or even be in medal contention, but it wasn't meant to be. He got third in his heat, with Sun Yang and Oussama Mellouli way out in front. Your Canadian guy, Ryan Cochrane, cruised to an easy 14:49 in the previous heat.

By the way, I wanted to correct some swimming lingo, since you obviously do a good job of following many sports. The media call things "50 meter freestyle", "4 by 100 meter medley relay", "200 meter individual medley", etc. We don't use the distances in swimming. All meets are in meters, unless you're in the US, in which case the short course season (September through April) is yards. Long course season (basically the summer) and international meets, as well as some regular national meets, are in 50 meter pools, like being used in the Olympics. Also, relays are commonly called by their total distance: 400 free relay, 400 medley relay, 800 free relay, etc. Individual medley, as you might know, is simply shortened in name and in spoken word to "IM". I know that many people that watch the Olympics and want to watch Michael Phelps don't understand the jargon and need things spelled out, but it still makes me cringe as a former swimmer and current coach to see and hear things in amateur talk.

[isaidso]

Canada only won a bronze in Beijing and no swimming medals at all in Athens, so we're starting from a very weak position. 3 isn't a lofty goal, but it is considering where we're coming from.

Regarding Australia, they had a strong 16 year run but it isn't realistic for them to stay right up there forever. Host nations get stronger leading up to their games then drop off after. Australia is simply following that pattern. They'll be a strong swimming nation, but those glory days are likely over with.

A similar thing happened for Canada leading up to Montreal 1976. Unfortunately, we boycotted Moscow so we were absent when we were perhaps at our peak. Canada was arguably the 3rd strongest swimming nation back then behind only the United States and East Germany.

Btw, I'm an ex-swimmer so quite familiar with the sport. I've never been all that fast, but did compete for Team Toronto at the Outgames in Montreal. The highlight for me: our medley relay team swam against Team Montreal. They had quite an advantage over us: former world record holder and 1992 Olympic gold medalist Mark Tewksbury swam the backstroke for them.

[xzmattzx]

Interesting that you got to swim against a world record holder. I had a coach that won two gold medals on a relay when I started swimming. I bet he built a lead that never really was cut into.

Are you originalyl from Britain, or Austrailia? I know that you're from somewhere else, but I can't remember where.

[SO143]

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It wasn't realistic to expect Australia to remain that strong forever. You should be thankful for the having a good 16 year run. Besides, Australia will surely finish in the top 10 when its all over.

Countries receive a big bounce leading up to hosting, then tend to fall back down again gradually. Australia is no different and the same will happen to Great Britain.

I'm most definitely thankful for the successful run we've had - born in '92, it's all I've ever really known. Growing up watching the likes of Ian Thorpe, Grant Hackett, Stephanie Rice, Liesel Jones, and Libby Trickett, you become complacent in success and expect it time and time again. Add to that the immense pressure and expectation we put on our athletes (namely the swimmers) and expect no less than gold - and should they fail to perform, the media can be very, very harsh.

History shows, though, we seem to have a 20-30 year cycle in Olympic sports - the last low point being 70 and early 80s, before coming back with a vengeance in the 90s in time for Sydney.

End of the day, it's the shake up we need to realise that Gold medals don't just fall into your lap. They're already looking at ways we can improve - whether we increase the Australian Institute of Sport's budget, or pay our coaches more so they don't run off overseas and coach the Chinese/Americans/Brits, etc.

Looking forward to putting London behind us and focusing of Rio 2016!

[isaidso]

Your experience mirrors mine to some degree. I moved to Canada in 1980, 4 years after Canada hosted the Montreal Olympics. We boycotted Moscow, so 1984 in Los Angeles was really my first time watching Canada. Canada won 44 medals that year and finished 6th in the medal table (4th by total medals) so I just assumed Canada to be a dominant summer Olympics nation.

To my dismay, the medal tally dropped each passing Olympics to the point that the Canadian team started to measure success in moral victories. Australia has historically been stronger than Canada at the summer Olympics, but there are parallels to the drop Canada experienced. It's an adjustment when you're used to winning a certain number of medals.

Australia will likely fall into the 8th to 10th range going forward. Great Britain will end up in that range as well. Canada? In 2007 we started to approach summer sports in a more systematic, serious, and strategic manner. The jury is still out whether it will translate into medals, but the days of Canada finishing 15th or worse are likely over.

Canada will likely turn into a much stronger summer sports rival for both Australia and Great Britain going forward. It would make the Commonwealth Games more interesting, although you guys would likely only care about beating the English.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Interesting that you got to swim against a world record holder. I had a coach that won two gold medals on a relay when I started swimming. I bet he built a lead that never really was cut into.

Are you originalyl from Britain, or Austrailia? I know that you're from somewhere else, but I can't remember where.

It was a thrill when I saw the start list. I knew Tewksbury was entered in some races, but it never occurred to me that he'd be in the same event as me. We were in different heats and I swam breaststroke while Tewksbury swam backstroke, so we weren't in the water at the same time. It was great nonetheless.

Born in London, England but don't consider myself a Brit at all anymore. Btw, do Americans get tired of winning everything? I suppose we'll just have to get better to make things interesting.

[isaidso]

Canada beats Brazil 79 - 73

The Canadian women's basketball team pulled out a win over Brazil to earn a quarter-final berth. We'll play Australia next in group play.


Courtesy of the National Post

[koolio]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but over the years, it has become apparent that a country's level of funding is highly correlated with Olympic success. Look at the Brits right now ... they went from an afterthought and perennial whipping dogs of the Aussies to top 5 in the standings due to their increased funding stimulated by the successful bid of London as a host city. Same can be said of Canada. Due to increased funding caused by Vancouver's successful bid, we leapfrogged the US, Russia, Norway and Germany to first in the medal standings for Winter Olympics. I guess this revelation is encouraging in the sense that it shows any country can achieve success in the games but on the other hand, does it not make the Olympics rather bland and uninspiring? Just throw stacks of money at something and achieve success? Have a team of central planners devise intricate strategies for funding allotment with the goal of maximizing medal output? I think I am finally beginning to understand why there are some old people out there who bemoan the transition of the Olympics games from amateur to essentially professional. If there ever was such a thing as the Olympic spirit, it certainly does not exist now.

[SO143]

[isaidso]

Why are you posting the Beijing medal table?

Originally Posted by koolio

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but over the years, it has become apparent that a country's level of funding is highly correlated with Olympic success.

I think everyone is aware of that. The other factors are population, wealth, culture, and whether you're going to host.

[SO143]

Why are you posting the Beijing medal table?

just wanted to point out the fact that it has nothing to do with being a host nation or the massive amount of money that has been wasted. just look at the beijing 08 medal table and you will see that the great britain or australia got much more gold medals than canada although none of them were the host nations.

[isaidso]

Australia and Great Britain got more gold medals than Djibouti too. What does that have to do with anything. That logic is about as non-sensical as saying wealth has nothing to do with Olympic performance because Kenya beat Switzerland in the medal table.

Originally Posted by SO143

just wanted to point out the fact that it has nothing to do with being a host nation or the massive amount of money that has been wasted. just look at the beijing 08 medal table and you will see that the great britain or australia got much more gold medals than canada although none of them were the host nations.

Your logic is seriously flawed. Nations typically spend over a decade in a build up towards an Olympics. Both Great Britain and Australia spent years building their teams up even before bidding for the Games because its common knowledge that the IOC prefers to award the Olympics to countries that can field competitive teams. Canada did the exact same thing before bidding for the Vancouver Games.

Upon being awarded the Olympics, funding typically skyrockets. That massive Great Britain medal haul you're looking at is the culmination of years of effort and the added knowledge that they will host. Australia's massive medal haul in 2008 is the tail end of Sydney 2000. Do you really think Olympic teams are built over night then disappear magically after the games are done?

The correlation between strong Olympic performance and hosting is not only very strong, but it's very well documented.

[Urbania]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The correlation between strong Olympic performance and hosting is not only very strong, but it's very well documented.

Montreal being the exception..?

[SO143]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Your logic is seriously flawed.

lol the france spent many decades, preparing for the olympics too. but did it rank even in the top 5? nah!

i know it is utterly unfair to compare the usa and canada because of the population. anyway here's a all time olympic medal table.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Urbania

Montreal being the exception..?

Canada didn't win a gold in Montreal (due to admittedly doped East Germans I might add), but Canada followed the same pattern. Canada got stronger leading into hosting in 1976, just from a very weak position. Canada was likely at its peak in 1980, but boycotted. 1984 in Los Angeles was the tail end of that and the beginning of the decline. So hosting benefitted Canada as well.

Gold, Silver, Bronze @ consecutive Olympics
1968: 1 3 1-----5
1972: 0 2 3-----5
1976: 0 5 6-----11 Canada hosts
1980: BOYCOTT
1984: 10 18 16-----44
1988: 3 2 5-----10

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SO143

lol the france spent many decades, preparing for the olympics too. but did it rank even in the top 5? nah!

You keep looking at totals without looking at the change in a nation's performance. It's common knowledge that hosting an Olympics is the single biggest factor that will boost a nation's medal haul.

I don't know why I'm bothering arguing this point with you. The correlation is well known. Science is obviously not your strong suit.

Gold, Silver, Bronze @ consecutive Olympics
1988: 1 0 1-----2
1992: 3 5 1-----9 France hosts
1994: 0 1 4-----5

[isaidso]

Gold, Silver, & Bronze for Canada

Tara Whitten, Gillian Carleton and Jasmin Glaesser

Courtesy of the londoner

Canada picked up a gold in women's trampoline, the anticipated silver by Ryan Cochrane in the men's 1500 m freestyle, and a surprise bronze in women's team pursuit (track cycling) edging out Australia by the slimmest of margins.

Canada sits in 21st spot with 1 gold, 3 silver, and 6 bronze just behind Romania.