Plus Blog

August 14, 2012

Never afraid of a challenge, before the start of the London 2012 Games we issued predictions for the total medal count for the top 20 countries. They were based on a mathematical model that took account of a country's GDP and population, its performance in 2008 and the home advantage bestowed on Great Britain and also China, who hosted the Games in 2008 (see Mapping the medals).

So how did we do? The first thing to notice is that, despite team GB's gold rush, it actually performed worse in terms of total medals won that we had predicted, ending up in fourth place rather than in second — despite the home advantage, the likes of Russia and China are hard to beat. Hungary makes a surprising appearance, entering in 14th place while we didn't have it down as making the top twenty at all. New Zealand came in 18th, unpredicted by us, and Iran also just about squeezed in, tying with Jamaica in 20th place. And Kenya, which we had down to come 18th, narrowly missed the top twenty, coming in as 21st. Other than that all but three countries from our original list stayed within three ranks of our predictions. Japan and the Netherlands both performed better than we had predicted, Japan coming in as 6th rather than 11th and the Netherlands at 11th rather than 16th. Belarus gave a disappointing performance compared to our mathematical benchmark, coming in as 16th rather than 11th. Overall, 19 of our top 20 predicted countries finished in the top 20 (top 22 actually as 3 countries were tied on 20th).

2012 Predicted
Position
2012 Predicted
Medals
United States1112
Great Britain279
Russia377
China476
Australia553
France 642
Germany642
South Korea832
Ukraine929
Italy1028
Japan1125
Cuba1225
Belarus1321
Canada1419
Spain1419
Netherlands1617
Brazil1716
Kenya1815
Kazakhstan1815
Jamaica2012
2012 Actual
Position
2012 Actual
Medals
United States1104
China288
Russia382
Great Britain465
Germany544
Japan 638
Australia635
France834
South Korea928
Italy928
Netherlands1120
Ukraine1120
Canada1318
Hungary1417
Brazil1417
Spain1417
Cuba1514
Kazakhstan1813
New Zealand1813
Jamaica2012
Belarus2012
Iran2012

Where could we improve?

We failed to note that country populations and GDP nearly always rise between Olympics, whilst the number of medals available in 2008 and 2012 were roughly the same.

This means that to use the equation relating population and GDP to medal count derived from 2008 we should have scaled the 2012 country data relative to the whole world's population and GDP. Imagine your population rose between 2008 and 2012 — you might think that you would have a greater chance of winning a medal. But if the whole world's population grew, then your chances wouldn't have increased. We need to use population (and GDP) scaled to the whole world.

This makes little difference to our predicted ranking, except for moving Brazil up from 17th to 16th place and Kazakhstan down from 18th to 19th, and acts to slightly dampen our medal counts. These new counts are shown below against the real 2012 results:

Revised Predicted
Position
Revised Predicted
Medals
United States1106
Great Britain275
Russia373
China472
Australia550
France 640
Germany640
South Korea831
Ukraine928
Italy1027
Japan1124
Cuba1223
Belarus1320
Canada1418
Spain1418
Netherlands1616
Brazil1616
Kenya1815
Kazakhstan1914
Jamaica2011
2012 Actual
Position
2012 Actual
Medals
United States1104
China288
Russia382
Great Britain465
Germany544
Japan 638
Australia635
France834
South Korea928
Italy928
Netherlands1120
Ukraine1120
Canada1318
Hungary1417
Brazil1417
Spain1417
Cuba1514
Kazakhstan1813
New Zealand1813
Jamaica2012
Belarus2012
Iran2012

External links

The BBC's More or Less team conducted a similar statistical prediction of what countries might be expected to win in the way of medals with the help of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University; here is their analysis of the results.

The Guardian teamed up with the Royal Statistical Society and four academics at Imperial College London to produce very interesting alternative medal tables for the 2012 Games, taking into account factors including GDP, population and team size. You can see their final alternative medal table winners here.

August 10, 2012

The beautiful game has been saved for last at London 2012, with the men's gold medal match taking place on Saturday, the penultimate day of the Games. There are some important questions to ponder while we sit tight in anticipation for the final match. What's the best strategy for taking a penalty kick? When is it worth committing a professional foul? And when is a goal not a goal? Find out about all this and more with our collection of football articles.

When is a goal not a goal? — Remember Frank Lampard's disallowed goal in the 2010 World Cup match against Germany? The ball hit the crossbar, landed well behind the line but then bounced out again. And it all happened too quickly for the ref to spot it was a goal. But do how these kind of (non)-goals happen and what can we do about it?


A fly walks round a football — What makes a perfect football? Find out why the ball's surface is the most prized research goal in ball design.

Eye on the ball — Why the 2006 World Cup ball caused controversy.


Blast it like Beckham? — What tactics should a soccer player use when taking a penalty kick? And what can the goalkeeper do to foil his plans? This article uses game theory to find the answers.


Formulaic football — When's the best time to make a substitution in a football match?


Understanding uncertainty: How psychic was Paul — How likely is it that Paul the octopus' accurate predictions for the 2010 World Cup were really due to psychic powers?


Mathematicians rival octopus in World Cup final prediction — Is maths better than Paul the psychic octopus?


The luck of the draw — How a mathematical improbability turned one day's football action into a once-in-a-lifetime quirk of fate.


On the ball — If your team scores first in a football match, how likely is it to win? And when is it worth committing a professional foul? This article shows us how to use probability to answer these and other questions, and explains the implications for the rules of the game.


Understanding uncertainty: Football crazy — Taking up a challenge from a BBC radio programme David Spiegelhalter and Yin-Lam Ng used their statistical finesse to predict the outcome of the last matches of the English Premier League — and they were 90% correct. Find out how they did it.


Power trip — How long do football managers' careers last and does talent matter? Surprisingly the answer may lie in mathematical power laws.


Understanding uncertainty: the Premiere League — Does a club's ranking in the Premiere League table reflect how good it really is? This article discusses the concepts of mean, variance, standard deviation and confidence intervals.


August 9, 2012
Trot

A dressage horse and rider performing the extended trot. Image: Chefsna.

It's a great day for individual dressage today with the Grand Prix freestyle test taking place in Greenwich Park. It's amazing how those horses can perform elegant and complicated movements without getting their legs in a muddle. Coming to think of it, it's amazing that they can even go through their innate gaits without getting their legs in a muddle, given that there's four of them and they are very long. And what about animals who've got even more legs? It turns out that it's all down to symmetry in the brain. To find out more, read Ian Stewart's Plus article Walk, trot, gallop.

One area in which humans definitely have the edge over horses is ball games. Volleyball is a particularly exciting one and we're looking forward to the semi-finals today and tomorrow and the final on the weekend. As in tennis, spin's the thing in this game. But why does putting a spin on a ball make such a difference to its path through the air? John D. Barrow, mathematician, cosmologist and prolific popular science writer, explains:

One of the key skills for volleyball players to master is to serve the ball with a top spin so that it will drop down more quickly than the receiver of the serve might expect. This is possible because a spinning ball will follow a curved trajectory when a non-spinning ball will not. The reason for the swerve can be understood by looking at the air flowing past the ball. When the air flow impinges on the ball the flow lines are pushed together, so the pressure drops and the speed of the air passing the surface of the ball increases.

Spinning ball

Air flow around a spinning ball.

If the ball is spinning then the flow lines of the air near the surface of the ball are significantly altered. In the picture on the left you can see what happens if the ball has been given a clock-wise spin in addition to its straight line motion at speed V from left to right. The non spinning motion is just as if the ball were stationary with air going past its surface at speed V. What is the effect of the spin? At the top of the surface of the spinning ball the air speed very close to the surface of the ball is in the opposite direction to the on-coming air whereas at the bottom it is in the same direction. This means that the net speed of the air near the top of the ball is less than that round the bottom. So the pressure on the ball is greater at the top than the bottom and there is a net downward force, F. The orientation of the picture shows how a ball served to the right with top-spin will always swerve downwards. This will reduce the time that it spends in the air and give the receiver less time to respond and return the ball.

You can read more about the effect of spin on the trajectory of a ball in our article Spinning the perfect serve.

August 8, 2012
A table tennis player

What is your chance of winning at table tennis?

Today the men's table tennis teams will be battling for gold. Table tennis first became an Olympic sport in 1988, but changed its scoring system in 2001 to make matches more exciting for spectators. But how do the old and new scoring systems compare in terms of favouring skill versus luck? Find out in our article Ping-Pong is coming home.

And while we're on scoring systems, there's a video of a lecture given by John D. Barrow on our sister site Maths and sport: Countdown to the Games, which looks at them in detail.

August 7, 2012

Sir Chris Hoy leads the GB Cycling Team during the official opening of the Velodrome (Photograph by David Poultney)

It's the very last medal day for track cycling! If you've been watching, you'll have noticed just how steeply the elegant wooden cycling track is banked in the turns. Echoing this shape is the sweeping curved roof of the Velodrome (which hit the headlines in its own right during the torrential rain this weekend) topping the beautiful cedar clad exterior. To find out why and how the track and its buildings came to have the shapes they do, read the Plus articles Leaning into 2012 and How the velodrome found its form.

August 6, 2012
Shuttlecock

Yesterday was a great day for badminton with gold medals being awarded in the men's singles and doubles. This got us thinking about shuttlecocks. They are not like balls at all and this means that they don't behave like balls either. John D. Barrow, mathematician, cosmologist and prolific popular science writer, explains.

Shuttlecocks used for badminton are not like other projectiles found in sports. They are extremely asymmetrical, with a conical skirt about 6cm long and 6cm across that is attached to a cork of higher density at the narrow end of the cone. However, when the shuttlecock is hit it will quickly flip over so that the cork is leading because its pressure centre if different to its centre of mass. This will ensure that it is always approaching your opponent the right way round for her to hit it back.

The effect of hitting the shuttlecock is strange. When you hit a tennis ball or a cricket ball with a racquet or bat it goes further the harder you hit it. But no matter how hard you hit the shuttlecock it won't go much further than about 6 or 7 metres.

Trajectory of a shuttlecock

The trajectory of a shuttlecock, moving from left to right: it falls steeper than it rises.

The motion of the shuttlecock obeys Newton's laws of motion. Its acceleration is governed by the downward force of gravity and a drag force from the air that is proportional to the square of the shuttlecock's speed through the air. When it is first struck the shuttlecock is moving at its fastest and the drag force is therefore much bigger than gravity. So it moves upwards in a straight line, at an angle determined by the direction of impact from the racquet, gradually being decelerated by gravity. Eventually it is going so slowly that the force of gravity is comparable to the air drag force and the trajectory reaches a maximum height and curves downwards towards the ground. Gravity is now speeding it up and it quickly reaches a speed, termed the terminal speed, where the opposing forces of gravity (downwards) and air drag (upwards) become equal. There is now no net force on the shuttlecock and it moves downwards at this constant terminal speed, without experiencing any acceleration or deceleration. The overall trajectory doesn't look like a parabola: the shuttlecock falls steeper than it rises.

The terminal speed does not depend on the initial launch speed of the shuttlecock. It is determined by the strength of gravity, air density, the size and mass of the shuttlecock, and its smoothness. As a result it is these unchanging properties that fix the distance that the shuttlecock will reach when struck hard. Hitting it even harder can't make it go any further than these properties dictate.

Syndicate content