Why is india so weak in the olympics?

I assume India has the same problem as Canada and Britain. While underfunding may be important in the first two, there is a greater issue.

Their eggs are all thrown into a single low medal producing basket. People in Canada play hockey, and lots of it, whereas people in Australia may be more prone to swimming or something like that.

In a given winter olympics, there is a maximum of 2 medals available (one for women, one for men) to be won by a single country in hockey, whereas with the Aussies and swimming, they can win like 20 medals, and sometimes multiple medals with a single athlete. In hockey, it can take 22 athletes to get the one gold. In the last winter olympics, Canada dominated hockey, but for the 40 some winning olympic athletes that won from the women's and men's team, only 2 medals are recorded for victory, and ice hockey isn't even in the summer games.

In Britain, people play soccer (and in much of Europe as well), but in soccer a country can only win 2 medals.

In India, from my very stereotypical point of view, people play lots of Cricket. Cricket is a large team sport, where there are an absolute minimum of medals that can be won for the amount of athletes actually competing.

Canada can send 5 or 6 different teams to the winter olympics that could win hockey gold, but only one team can compete. Same for Indian cricket.
 
yeah that is a good point. maybe if india took up interest in more sports... they have many more people than canada and uk

australia has a very good olympics program though. they are over achieving for their pop size
 
GB is currently 13th in the table I think. Watched some races yesterday and I thought they did very well, but all hopes are on the underdog British competitors, not the British favourites... which is really weird.
 
Back
Top Bottom