Team GB are rubbish - 0 golds!!!

2456766

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 346
    Forum Member
    How can anyone say we are rubbish? As a nation, ok, part of GB.....we won the World Cup just 46 years ago. Now, since the Earths creation, that is just a mere blink of an eye. Give us time and we will win more.....you just need to be patient!!:rolleyes:
  • Yoshi FanYoshi Fan Posts: 13,913
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cudzndrips wrote: »
    China already has 9 golds and the host country has zero. We can only barely manage a bronze. Team GB should be ashamed of thermselves!:mad:

    Nothing else needs to be said.
  • iris beaconiris beacon Posts: 387
    Forum Member
    Yoshi Fan wrote: »

    Exactly. The delusion around these parts truly astonishes me sometimes.

    And before someone pipes up about child training camps in China and soforth, remember that there are many liberal countries with more medals than us, too.
  • Mark FMark F Posts: 53,847
    Forum Member
    The same people complaing about a lack of success would be the same type of person saying "who cares what medals we get in minor sports" as happened in 2008.

    Lets wait and see what happens for the rest of the Olympics and then dicuss how successful we've been..or not.
  • xfactorisgr8xfactorisgr8 Posts: 20,354
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wrong thread whoops
  • Duncan JDuncan J Posts: 2,775
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tip: Don't read The Sun.
  • snakecharmer37snakecharmer37 Posts: 296
    Forum Member
    cudzndrips wrote: »
    China already has 9 golds and the host country has zero. We can only barely manage a bronze. Team GB should be ashamed of thermselves!:mad:

    There is a loooooong way to go yet. Besides, we were never going to beat the likes of China and USA anyway.
  • LardnessLardness Posts: 709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    2008 GB came 4th in the medals. ATM we're 21st...... any idea how were doing day 4 in Beijing?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Germany has their gold now
  • AnglianBobAnglianBob Posts: 292
    Forum Member
    Lardness wrote: »
    2008 GB came 4th in the medals. ATM we're 21st...... any idea how were doing day 4 in Beijing?


    it doesn't matter, unless they literally moved all the Cycling, Rowing & Sailing medal days to the first 4 days we were never going to win a gold by day 4 unless Cavendish came up trumps on the opening day and the german equestrian team suffered a complete mental breakdown.

    It really is like saying why haven't Chelsea won the league yet after 13 games.

    Where I would say we've missed out is on a few potential bronze medals we probably targetted in the pool and maybe factoring in a surprise medal in Archery/Shooting which we have done in the Olympics before.

    90 medals is simply media nonsense - the offical UK sport target is 48 (and even that is only a target, not 'expected')
  • BelligerenceBelligerence Posts: 40,613
    Forum Member
    Lardness wrote: »
    2008 GB came 4th in the medals. ATM we're 21st...... any idea how were doing day 4 in Beijing?
    7th with two golds and a bronze.
  • BosoxBosox Posts: 14,179
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AnglianBob wrote: »
    it doesn't matter, unless they literally moved all the Cycling, Rowing & Sailing medal days to the first 4 days we were never going to win a gold by day 4 unless Cavendish came up trumps on the opening day and the german equestrian team suffered a complete mental breakdown.

    It really is like saying why haven't Chelsea won the league yet after 13 games.

    Where I would say we've missed out is on a few potential bronze medals we probably targetted in the pool and maybe factoring in a surprise medal in Archery/Shooting which we have done in the Olympics before.

    90 medals is simply media nonsense - the offical UK sport target is 48 (and even that is only a target, not 'expected')

    Doesn't matter how much this is said someone else will just pop up and post the same drivel about how we should have ninety kajillion medals by now without having even read the rest of the thread.

    Actually I think 48 is considered the 'minimum' target so that would be what is expected rather than hoped for. Reflecting your view that we have missed out on a few potential bronze medal chances so far the BOA have said that they have reduced the upper range of their medal target from 70 to 60 medals since the start of the games. The gold medal target remains unchanged, although that won't stop the wailing idiots.
  • walterwhitewalterwhite Posts: 56,825
    Forum Member
    TheBilly wrote: »
    Indians tend not to exert themselves due to the heat.

    That is one of the worst reasons I have ever seen for a nation not being good at something.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This basically tells me that the UK has virtually no home ground advantage at all, which is disturbing.
  • PurpleTurtlePurpleTurtle Posts: 894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    7th with two golds and a bronze.

    Well, technically on the medal count we've got one more at this stage than '08 *clutches straws*
  • PaacePaace Posts: 14,679
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cudzndrips wrote: »
    China already has 9 golds and the host country has zero. We can only barely manage a bronze. Team GB should be ashamed of thermselves!:mad:

    :D China is a wonderful country, that's why so many want to live there and go there for their holidays . I heard they do a wonderful English breakfast.
  • tiger2000tiger2000 Posts: 8,541
    Forum Member
    This basically tells me that the UK has virtually no home ground advantage at all, which is disturbing.
    It is shocking when you consider the bias of the officials towards the hosts at recent games ;)
  • RhumbatuggerRhumbatugger Posts: 85,713
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This basically tells me that the UK has virtually no home ground advantage at all, which is disturbing.

    I think it's par for the course for the Brits, we don't do well with massive expectation.

    And I'm proud of all our athletes, they are doing their damndest, and there are wonderful, high class competitors out there.

    We are a small Island.

    We are fine, and there's time yet for a respectable position.
  • AnglianBobAnglianBob Posts: 292
    Forum Member
    Bosox wrote: »
    Doesn't matter how much this is said someone else will just pop up and post the same drivel about how we should have ninety kajillion medals by now without having even read the rest of the thread.

    Actually I think 48 is considered the 'minimum' target so that would be what is expected rather than hoped for. Reflecting your view that we have missed out on a few potential bronze medal chances so far the BOA have said that they have reduced the upper range of their medal target from 70 to 60 medals since the start of the games. The gold medal target remains unchanged, although that won't stop the wailing idiots.

    I think 60 medals is pushing it, 48 as a max is a lot more realistic imo. I'm not sure we even have a gold target set by uk sport though.
  • nobabydaddynobabydaddy Posts: 2,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Team GB are not rubbish. Just meturgically challenged right not. ;)
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I find these complaint threads on DS 100 times more embarrassing than Team GB not getting gold medals! :mad:

    I bet that even if Team GB had gold medals, people would still be complaining because of a different country having more gold medals than Team GB! :rolleyes:
  • walterwhitewalterwhite Posts: 56,825
    Forum Member
    This basically tells me that the UK has virtually no home ground advantage at all, which is disturbing.

    How do you figure that out?
  • AnglianBobAnglianBob Posts: 292
    Forum Member

    We are a small Island.

    We are fine, and there's time yet for a respectable position.

    Agree with your second statement but the first is silly imo, we might be geographically small but we are one of the bigger countries in terms of financial resources thrown into sport.

    I wish people would leave the self loathing until at least our top medal prospects flop!
  • JenzenJenzen Posts: 7,364
    Forum Member
    Im wondering reading these negative threads, if alot of posters havent really watched that much of the olympics before, perhaps only watching the track and field events in the final few days when GB usually wins a decent amount of medals? ... and are therefore under the impression that GB is seriously underperforming?

    Because I have been watching olympics for a long time and this is really not substantially differant to any others. GB usually starts catching up other teams in the cycling and rowing in the end of the first week then overtakes quite alot in the track events. So have some patience!

    I dont think I have ever seen a GB gymnastics team in the finals before they have done so well just to get there.

    I will say though that swimming is down on Beijings performances, hopefully that will be fixed by Rio eh.
  • PurpleTurtlePurpleTurtle Posts: 894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AnglianBob wrote: »
    I wish people would leave the self loathing until at least our top medal prospects flop!

    Exactly, if we don't do well in the cycling events we're actually expected to get golds in tomorrow, then I'll start to get concerned
Sign In or Register to comment.