Way back in April, one of our articles predicted the number of medals that Team GB would win at London 2012. It’s always tempting to quietly ignore the predictions one has made, and hope that others have forgotten but perhaps the brave thing to do would be to do a public review. So, gulp, here goes.
Some of my colleagues (Simon Shibli and Chris Gratton) made predictions on the number of medals and focussed in particular on the ‘host nation effect’ where medal chances are enhanced for the nation that hosts the Olympics. They made rather wild prediction that GB would get 27 Gold medals and 56 in total (with the caveat that the latter appeared low). Others such as Infostrada used current performances to make predictions and reckoned that GB would get 16 Gold and 57 medals in total. In June 2012, SportsMyriad predicted 20 Gold and 67 medals in total.
And my prediction? Well, I went for 21 Gold and 60 medals in total based on a pure statistics approach that tried to ignore gut instinct (although eventually I couldn’t resists and increased my Gold prediction to 23 for no other reason than I wanted to).
Our performance: over the moon, amazing, ‘still not sunk in’ and other common phrases
Now we know that Team GB did unbelievably well, way above our expectations and it still hasn’t sunk in (and other cliches): 65 medals with 29 Gold, 17 Silver and 19 Bronze. It appears that Shibli and Gratton’s approach was closest on Gold medal tally – only 2 below – but 9 shy of the total medal count. On the other hand, SportsMyriad were only 2 off the total medal count but did badly on the Gold Medal prediction. Infostrada distinctly underestimated the outstanding TeamGB performance.
My predictions appear to be somewhere in the middle: not particularly close but not too far away either (8 away from the Gold medals and 5 away from the total). One thing that is really interesting about all of this is that a holistic approach works at all. It seems that using the minutiae of performance in terms of world records, current standings and recent results is worse than looking at 26 sports (with 39 disciplines) as a whole system. What the work of Shibli and Gratton showed was that host nations broaden the range of sports in which they win medals: their prediction of 15 was just 1 short of the actual number of 16 successful sports at London 2012.
A better performance than expected
My prediction was based solely on what Australia had done in Sydney 2000, i.e. 6.3% of medal share, equivalent to 60 medals at London 2012. I suggested that the gold medal share was increasing faster and my linear regression going back 4 Olympic Games predicted a 7.6% share for Team GB. Not only did Team GB exceed the total medals by 5 to 65, but the market share of Gold medals was way over the prediction at 9.6%. It seems that the ‘quality’ of the medals is getting better. Why? I’d like to think that perhaps the organisation and technical support from UK Sport (of which we were part) might have something to do with it.
What goes up must come down
Of course, some commentators are already turning to Rio and wondering if we can do even better. However, the evidence points towards a drop in the total number of medals for the Olympic host in the next event by around 1.2% 0f medal share (see below, left). This equates to around 11 medals and has happened to every Olympic host since 1988. The silver lining, however, is that the number of gold medals might still increase, despite the lower medal tally (see Australia below right).
Congratulations to all the Team GB athletes, to UK Sport, the coaches, the sports scientists and all the volunteers who made it such a fantastic experience. And to Danny Boyle? You had me at ‘hello’.