If we are talking about football it is Germany vs England:

80 million vs 50 million

And then that isn't taking into account the number of English players who choose to play for Scotland, Wales or Ireland by virtue of the nationality of a grandmother.

Erm...Maybe check out the Beijing 2008 Medal table?

Yea lottery money doing its bit. "English" players choose to play for Ireland et al because they haven't got a hope of getting on the English team.

What I meant in the second sentence is that in England the interest for Rugby and Cricket is nearly on par with football (=3 national team sports).

Sh1...you're right. Forgot that one!

from Wikipedia:

"Great Britain's medal performance at the 2008 Summer Olympics was its best in a century; only its performance at the 1908 Summer Olympics, which Britain also hosted in London, resulted in more gold medals being awarded.[5]

Great Britain finished 4th overall in the medal tables, a target previously set by UK Sport, the public body responsible for distributing funding to elite sport, for the 2012 games. UK Sport is currently considering whether to target 3rd place in the 2012 games, which will be hosted by the United Kingdom in London"

2004 - Germany 6th, UK 10th.
2000 - Germany 5th, UK 10th.
1996 - Germany 3rd, UK not on the table
1992 - Germany 3rd, UK not on the table
etc ....

An example of professional mamagement so desperately required - ever seen "Chariots of Fire"? look past the nostalgia to understand the class war going on in the background.

__________________
Pot Kettle Black

Yea but rugby and cricket are marginal world sports, and cricket is a summer game, and it isn't that popular. Even rugby has limited league size in England, there can't be more than 6 usable teams in the Guinness league and one of them is Irish. Think about handball, ice hockey, rowing, basketball, hockey, tennis etc, they are WW sports.

Wrong. Its one of the most popular sports in the world. Not the most widely popular though

How are you judging e.g. handball vs cricket?

- number of participants?
- audience numbers?
- revenue?

- Is as lovely as before
- Beauty of the games are sacrifised by tactics
- Is too much result oriented
- Teams are too cautious and players are nervous
- Don't like analysis just love to watch it

Vote in the poll.

Sure, if you actually create it

Russell Peters on the World Cup

where the UK could reasonably be expected to do better but manages to count as an also-ran, just like much of cricket really.

It doesnt matter look at any sport from nose picking to soccer. Germany, despite losing two world wars and not being able to pronounce "W" properly simply performs better on average. End of story. Are they the master race. No they just apply themselves professionally to things they do.

There are no positive options in your poll, all options are in the negative, therefore I cannot vote.

- It is different from before
- The beauty of football can strike at any time
- Is too much result oriented - no, there have been some great games where both teams have played their hearts out
- Teams are too cautious and players are nervous - Some teams have jut been shit, like England, France and Italy - and good riddance. Long live the underdogs and bravo to those teams who play their hearts out.
- Don't like analysis just love to watch it - analysis rocks, I love it. TV football has learned a lot from FIFA for games consoles and Pro Evolution Soccer.

__________________
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

The German coach even manages to combine both.

Err, no - take a closer look at who actually brought home the bacon for for the UK.
2 (two!) disciplines delivered two-thirds of the 19 golds, and four disciplines delivered two-thirds of the total of medals won.
(And the results from the athletics contingent were shameful, and no mistake)

Maybe that's the secret of the german team, food supplements?

This is an interesting discussion.

- Success in sports is not connected to the overall population. It is a question how well the situation of professional sport is. From funding to the social acceptance of it. Eastern Germany for example - like most communist Eastern countries - valued success at the Olympics very high and put a lot of effort into their Olympic teams. Eastern Germany had only 20 Million people... and in 88 they did: 1988_Winter_Olympics#Medal_count

- Those efforts are very long term, so part of the current medal tables is actually due to that, especially at the Winter Olympics:
2006_Winter_Olympics_medal_table

- If it would be only about the size of the country and the funding of a team, how could Greece become European champions in 2004?

Honestly: The British team has great players, but they did not play as a team. Through the entire tournament they seemed to be a group of egocentric superstars instead of a team - including the coach. I think that Capello is not the right coach for them, he will not be able to give them any more teamspirit or effective strategies. But who in the FA would dare to hire Kliensmann?

I find it difficult to use the former DDR as a reference of success here. We know how all the system was designed to create supermen and superwomen for the pride of the communist regime. The questions is if it's fair to compare countries without considering the excessive usage of doping?

Why don't we use for instance the example of Kenya, Ethiopia or Morocco for long distance track in the olympic games. They have a whole system to identify potential athlets and they have the advantage of a large natural pool given the altitude in those countries. Plus sport is a way to get out of poverty (stimulation factor).

__________________
Resist, support, donate: ACLU
They tried to bury us, they did not know that we are seeds (Mexican proverb)

And you do believe that todays cyclists are clean? That is the sport that brought the most medals for the UK.

I personally stopped watching road biking after the tour of 1998 (the one with the Festina team scandal...) and do not believe that anyone there is not using it - some are just better at hiding it.

P.S: Same is probably true for the runners as well and since even a shooter was found guilty of doping in 2008, I think there is simply no such thing as "clean professional sport".

Success in amateur sports is connected to population/interest density. You need the critical mass to create the internal competition to make half way decent players that can be furthered by professional or semi-professional training. The East Germans did it on a ruthless professional basis.

You are not subjected to this but soccer aside, we get the same old shit from rugby, cricket and any other sport you care to mention where people feel England should be performing better. And we hear it from the Welsh, Scots and Irish as well.

The Greeks were trained by a German ... and you know it you sly old bugger ..

__________________
Pot Kettle Black