Wycombe Fox Posted 14 October 2010 Posted 14 October 2010 ... it's like saying coming second and getting a silver is worth nothing. Winning is everything. First is first and second is nowhere.
Guest DavidJCW Posted 14 October 2010 Posted 14 October 2010 Well medals tables have always been done on Golds, so just for someone to want England to be higher up in the table doesn't mean it should be the case. Maybe England should have got more golds, then you wouldn't be moaning Well yes, England winning more golds would have been good... but that's not my point at all. All in all, India ended up with something like 50 less medals than we did, 'beating' us by only 1 gold on the current system... I want to know why they have this strange system that makes silvers and bronzes utterly worthless!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.