Why does tiny Australia kick ass at the Olympics, while giant India flounders?

[Sebastian Ashputtle]

Just a thought: why does Australia, a tiny country of 18 million (or so) kick ass every summer games, while India, with over one BILLION people, scrape by with 1 or 2 medals?

I haven't checked the standings today, but ever since the games at Athens have started, Australia has been in the top five, easily competing with the USA and China, both Olympic powerhouses.

India has ONE medal thus far. I remember last Olympics they finished the entire games with a bronze medal in men's tennis.

Don't even mention MY country, Canada. We've got a population of 30 million (bigger than Australia, dammit!) and we do *nothing* at the summer games. We suck.

Now I know it isn't a simple population = medals correlation (obviously). But is it as simple as "Governments that spend more money on athletes do better at the games"???

Perhaps a better question is, why do I care?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Size Matters Not.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

How much government money is spent by the US on its atheletes? I'm pretty sure its close to $0. It's almost all spent by the atheletes themselves and sponsors. The USOC, I'm pretty sure, gets no funds from the federal government. They sell rights to sponsors to put little "US Olympic Sponsor" logos on their products, and get big money for it too. Still, many local governments have gone out and built facilities to lure olympic athletes to come and train in their towns, but those towns get dual use of those facilities.

But the far more interesting difference between population and medal counts is tiny Norway's medals in winter olympics. Norway has, what, 5 or 6 million people?

Still, I'm not minimizing Australia's accomplishments. They deserve all the recognition they earn. Speaking from an American's point of view, I was cheering for the Aussies to beat our basketball team. Our team is made up of a bunch of prima donna street thug wannabees. Seeing our team humbled twice, by Puerto Rico and Lithuania was AWESOME! Frankly, I hope that the US's other basketball team (Puerto Rico!) goes all the way.

*ahem* sorry for that detour...


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[drothgery]

Figure that a country's success at the Olympics generally (excluding the occasional uniquely talented individual) is going to be a function of interest in the sports contested, population, and resources available. So if you want to own the medal count you better have a lot of people who are nutty about a lot of different sports and have the resources to train and compete internationally. At least, that's why the US always wins the most medals in the summer games now.

You can also get some success by taking athletically talented kids and throwing government resources at them, especially in developing sports (the Chinese women in many team sports are almost certainly examples of this -- there just aren't thousands of softball diamonds and hockey rinks in the suburbs of Beijing -- and that's probably the most benevelonet form of this kind of activity; the malevolent varieties involve Uday Hussein or the East German chemists), but that's not really sustainable. Witness the Chinese women's soccer team falling apart over the last couple of years (played for the gold in 1996, didn't medal in 2000, didn't make it out of the prelims in 2004).

So the Indians don't win many medals, despite a huge population. There's not much interest in the sports being contested (and high standings in the summer games medal count are about success in track and swimming/diving; that's where the bulk of the medals come from), and they don't have resources (the government is unwilling and private industry unable) to develop the athletes they've got. So except for a rare, uniquely talented individual or team (like the Indian doubles tennis team), India doesn't win many medals.

Canada does far better than it's population would indicate at the winter games (so do the Scandanavian countries, and the Netherlands), for the same reason that Australia does in the summer games. The sports that are really popular in Canada are contested at the winter games; the sports that are really popular in Australia are contested in the summer.

 

[1upus]

Speaking as an Aussie on the board, its great to see our country do so well in the Olympics. As to why, probably a number of factors tie into this. Firstly, our country is sports crazy. In fact, it would be safe to say the average Aussie reveres sportsman above all other professions. With a large interest in many forms of sport, it is no surpise that there would be a good representation at the games.

Unfortunately, this sports madness extends to government policy, where it almost seems that the government spends more on sportsmen than they do on science and research. Great, we have a great medal tally in sports events like the olympics. But wait, we get left behind in R&D and progression through world developments and business opportunities. Go figure!

Lupus

 

[talinthas]

it's hard to be a good athlete when you're starving.

 

[Sebastian Ashputtle]

it's hard to be a good athlete when you're starving.

What a ridiculous stereotype.

We're talking about India here, not Haiti or Afghanistan. India isn't a third world country, not even close. India has a vibrant economy, with world-class engineering and computer science industries, the world's largest film industy, and a developing aerospace industry. India's people enjoy a wide range of consumer products, including cellular phones and internet access, and India is one of the world's military powers, with a huge, modern army and navy, a sophisticated air force, as well as an arsenal of nuclear weapons. There *is* poverty, but if you actually look at the figures, you will find that no more than 30% of India's 1.013 billion population live in serious poverty. Obviously that is a lot of people--far, far too many--but to suggest that India lacks Olympic success because of starvation is just stupidity.

Sheeesh, you Americans. Learn something about what lies outside your borders for a change.

 

[Akrasia]

Figure that a country's success at the Olympics generally (excluding the occasional uniquely talented individual) is going to be a function of interest in the sports contested, population, and resources available.

...

Canada does far better than it's population would indicate at the winter games (so do the Scandanavian countries, and the Netherlands), for the same reason that Australia does in the summer games. The sports that are really popular in Canada are contested at the winter games; the sports that are really popular in Australia are contested in the summer.

This is, for the most part, true. (Especially the part about Canada punching above its weight in the Winter Olympics. These games don't count for us Canuks, eh! )

But it is worth noting that in 1976 -- the Montreal Olympics -- Australia's performance was DREADFUL. I think they won something like 3 or 4 medals. It was their worst performance ever. In the aftermath of those Olympics, there was a conscious government decision to strategically invest in certain sports and facilities, and improve its success in future games. And this strategy has paid off in spades.

In contrast to the U.S., then, the success of Australia's Olympic Team is a triumph of deliberate government planning.

 

[drothgery]

it's hard to be a good athlete when you're starving.

Some appallingly poor countries have strong athletic traditions in a few sports, like east African distance runners (Ethiopia and Kenya), Iranian wrestling, or Indonesia in badmitton.

 

[trancejeremy]

A lot has to do with high school athletics, I think. In the US, most schools have track teams and the like. And then they have county, regional and state competitions. Beyond wanting to compete in this for fun, they can also win scholarships and such to college, not to mention, impress members of the opposite sex.

So basically, this helps find the best athletes in the country at a variety of sports. I don't think most teams have high schools like that. Canada and Australia probably do, but have vastly different climates.

Canada tends to focus on different sports, winter sports, since the climate tends to be colder. Canada usually does very well in the winter Olympics.

Australia has a warm climate. So they concentrate on warm weather sports. When was the last time they won a medal in Curling?