2012 Olympics

I very much want the USA to do very badly at the Olympics, and it's all NBC's fault.I found myself on their website on Friday, whilst trying to find somewhere I could stream the archery qualifications, and was distracted by the headline 'Have Russia and China closed the gap?'Now, four years ago, that might have been a valid question, but given that China got 15 more gold medals than the USA in Beijing, now it just looks like the most appalling arrogance.That aside - the road races were both good - lot of drama at the end, and I've been enjoying the swimming and archery. I can't get into Judo for the life of me, though. I can't quite figure out what's going on.

I think every country is the same - they suddenly become briefly interested in an event no one cares about when they're likely to win a medal. If I go to the local news here, I see a list of every event today in which a Czech is competing.I think it's one of the things that seems worse in the USA because you're a big and rich country with so many successful athletes, so it's possible to spend the whole games only watching events American competitors are likely to do well in. If you're a small country, you might only have one athlete making it to a final of any event all day, if even that, so you have to fill in the rest watching the rest of the world, making you seem less parochial and small-minded.ABE: I think everyone should choose a small country to cheer for in the Olympics, even if you're from somewhere huge. It's always nice to support a team that's only gonna get a few medals - they all seem that much more special.For the record, my adopted country so far has one silver, the winning of which was full of drama. He only just made it to the final of the Men's Kayak slalom - ranked eighth out of ten. This meant that he went third, and then had to sit and watch seven others almost beat his time one by one (well, six others 'almost' - one did beat it).Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Another thought I had watching the Olympics yesterday. I felt a lot of pity for Li Xiaxiao, the gold medallist in women's singles table tennis. The final ended up being between her and another Chinese contestant, Ding Ning, whose name I confess I can't help but find hilarious.On account of both contestants being Chinese, most of the crowd has no particular sympathies at the start of the match. However, once it became clear that Li was the better player, support went almost unanimously to Ding, whether because of a desire to support the underdog or just to make the match last longer so the crowd can get their money's worth.Imagine that - thousands of people cheering uproariously every time you concede a point, and maybe twenty cheering when you score one. That's got to make you feel victimised.

Allow me to assuage your fears. I watched some of the shooting final, and they all stayed erect whilst waiting their turn to shoot. They actually all stand in a line, with the previous shooter walking to the back. It reminded me of school PE lessons for some reason.On a completely unrelated note - am I misunderstanding the beach volleyball tables, or do you actually get a point for losing? That reminds me of primary school even more - three points for a win, two for a draw, one for 'taking part'.

Intrigued by bluegenes idea of a per capita medal table, and not having anything perticularly important to do in work, I thought I'd try and work out whose leading so far if you count by population. Frako will be pleased to hear that Slovenia are currently top of the per capita table, with one gold for every 2 million people (ie. the entire population) Here's the top ten, listing population per gold medal. Being English, I'm delighted to point out that Australia are only in 17th, Great Britain 11th, and the USA 14th.1. Slovenia - 2.05 million
2. Lithuania - 3.19 million
3. New Zealand - 4.43 million
4. Georgia - 4.47 million
5. Hungary - 5 million
6. Kazakhstan - 5.53 million
7. North Korea - 6.01 million
8. South Korea - 7.14 million
9. Netherlands - 8.42 million
10. France - 10.89 million

You didn't last at the top of the per capita table for long though. New Zealand just got two golds at rowing, which would put them above Slovenia.More importantly, though, the Czech rower took silver in the men's single sculls. That's two! Still nothing in the shooting, though, so I don't think this year will match Beijing.

The Czech Republic got it's first gold, in rowing, and medals in shooting and tennis as well. I've never even heard of the women's doubles team that got the silver, but there you go.

So, when you're the Kazakh guy in the final of the men's canoe sprint, and you cross the line long after everyone else has finished, are you happy because you're one of the best eight canoeists in the world, or miserable because you're last?

You should have seen the Singaporean guy who got silver in the men's singles badminton. He looked like his mum had just died.However, I take exception to this: You seem to be forgetting the days when we ruled the world, and most countries were unable to or uninterested in competing. At the first London Olympics, in 1908, Team GB got 56 golds.

1904 was St. Louis when Americans won almost everything because most events only had American competitors. London 1908 was a bit more diverse than that, and the guy only ran the race on his own because the two other entrants (both Americans) threw a mardy about the rules, but I get your point.

I got confused - it was final B I was watching, so that actually puts him in 16th place. But are you only allowed one entrant per nation in canoeing? That seems odd. Most events where you compete as an individual or a couple allow multiple entrants from the same nation - China seemed to get silver and gold in most of the table tennis, after all.

Many people get to come and compete at the Olympics without being the best, but they won't be in the final. In the 100m sprint, they'd have to makes it through the preliminaries by beating the other slow runners, then qualify from the heats, and then from the semi-final, which nobody there on a wildcard is going to do (unless they've been hiding some considerable talent). Sure, it's unlikely that the eight guys in the final are going to be literally the eight best in the world, but I think at that point it's an acceptable pretence. I am from north of Birmingham.

There aren't 83 counties in England, if Yorkshire is considered a county. This is the count after the subdivision of traditional counties, of which there are only about 30 or 40. You only get 83 is Yorkshire is divided into South, East, North and West Ridings.

Er, yes, but Yorkshire makes up four of the 83 counties, not one of them.

Of course it would have made a difference. The obvious one is that they would have won more bronze and silver. The US got the gold in Women's Eight rowing, for example, an event in which each country is only allowed one entrant. If the second best team of eight in the world is also American (I have no idea if it is), then they might well have won gold and silver had there been no limit on entry.Even in events where the US didn't win gold, suggesting their entrant or entrants weren't the best, they're still likely to win more if they have more competitors, for the simple reason that the best team or individual doesn't always win every event. There are all sorts of lucky (and unlucky) coincidences that can contribute to a win or loss in any sport. If 70% of the competing hockey teams were American, their chance of winning medals would be vastly increased just because of the hugely increased number of chances for an American team to fluke a lucky win.