17 golds
#1
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 10
17 golds
Now Oz has taken 17 golds, it's hard to believe a nation has only 20 million people can reach this high.
Who can give a reason?
Who can give a reason?
#2
4-1,4-1 i love it,love it
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Ashton Under Lyne,Blue 3/4 of Manchester
Posts: 333
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by ccton
Now Oz has taken 17 golds, it's hard to believe a nation has only 20 million people can reach this high.
Who can give a reason?
Who can give a reason?
#3
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Upmarket
Posts: 17,503
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by ccton
Now Oz has taken 17 golds, it's hard to believe a nation has only 20 million people can reach this high.
Who can give a reason?
Who can give a reason?
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by ccton
Now Oz has taken 17 golds, it's hard to believe a nation has only 20 million people can reach this high.
Who can give a reason?
Who can give a reason?
#6
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by kong
Beacause it is such a dull, boring backwater. There is absolutely nothing to do in Aus except play/watch sport
And whats wrong with that?
#7
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Upmarket
Posts: 17,503
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by Siren
Did we get a GOld medal for sleeping too?
#9
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Upmarket
Posts: 17,503
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by Siren
Damn we are good
Best live there methinks
G
#10
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by Grayling
Per population The Bahamas are top of the medal list.
Best live there methinks
G
Best live there methinks
G
Personally dont think it matters whose on top, but just giving it your all, thats what makes you proud to be an Aussie
#11
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by ccton
Now Oz has taken 17 golds, it's hard to believe a nation has only 20 million people can reach this high.
Who can give a reason?
Who can give a reason?
Reasons
Second largest team in the Olympic games and per head of population one the best best funded teams in the games. No fluke and Oz is not a battler nation when it comes to sport.
Wish I had a dollar for everyone that says to me "considering out population Australia does so well at the Olympics. I'd be well on my way to affording a house.
#12
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by bondipom
It was expected. 5th place would have been considered a poor performance.
Reasons
Second largest team in the Olympic games and per head of population one the best best funded teams in the games. No fluke and Oz is not a battler nation when it comes to sport.
Wish I had a dollar for everyone that says to me "considering out population Australia does so well at the Olympics. I'd be well on my way to affording a house.
Reasons
Second largest team in the Olympic games and per head of population one the best best funded teams in the games. No fluke and Oz is not a battler nation when it comes to sport.
Wish I had a dollar for everyone that says to me "considering out population Australia does so well at the Olympics. I'd be well on my way to affording a house.
woohoooo we r coming 3rd then and beating the Yanks.... but the Bahamas are going to win
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 17 golds
Your talk of size of the team reminded me - the other day I was thinking - people complain about the Aussie biased coverage but arguably its because there are so many Aussies competing in popular sports.
The UK televises Pinsett/Redgrave (in 2000) et cetera at the expense of say the Bahamas winning something, because that will interest the UK public. So maybe likewise, Aussies showing aussies just reflects the size of the [competitive]Aussie team?
Sure, there is bias, but that's the thing. The Yanks have the same problem - a huge team with every chance of success too.
The UK televises Pinsett/Redgrave (in 2000) et cetera at the expense of say the Bahamas winning something, because that will interest the UK public. So maybe likewise, Aussies showing aussies just reflects the size of the [competitive]Aussie team?
Sure, there is bias, but that's the thing. The Yanks have the same problem - a huge team with every chance of success too.
#14
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by Badge
Your talk of size of the team reminded me - the other day I was thinking - people complain about the Aussie biased coverage but arguably its because there are so many Aussies competing in popular sports.
The UK televises Pinsett/Redgrave (in 2000) et cetera at the expense of say the Bahamas winning something, because that will interest the UK public. So maybe likewise, Aussies showing aussies just reflects the size of the [competitive]Aussie team?
Sure, there is bias, but that's the thing. The Yanks have the same problem - a huge team with every chance of success too.
The UK televises Pinsett/Redgrave (in 2000) et cetera at the expense of say the Bahamas winning something, because that will interest the UK public. So maybe likewise, Aussies showing aussies just reflects the size of the [competitive]Aussie team?
Sure, there is bias, but that's the thing. The Yanks have the same problem - a huge team with every chance of success too.
#15
Keeping it fairly real
Joined: Jun 2004
Location: In the sun
Posts: 32,863
Re: 17 golds
Originally Posted by kong
Beacause it is such a dull, boring backwater. There is absolutely nothing to do in Aus except play/watch sport
We have one decent velodrome (thanks to the Commonwealth games) and a couple of olympic size swimming pools, how can our athletes compete at world level without the tools?
Yes Kelly is an exeption but where does she train? Spain and South Africa. And our relay team? Mainly Australia. Both took golds as you know.
This country is a shambles when it come to sport. I'm gonna get off my high horse now coz I could write all day about this subject.
BTW this thread should be in the locker room.
Walla