Each week, award-winning journalist Amy Remeikis brings the female perspective on sport, as only she can. Slightly off-beat, sometimes cynical, Amy takes a good look at the world of sport, sports stars and anything to do with bats, balls, tracks, stumps and pools – but with no jock straps in sight! Our pathetic Olympic result?
| Amy Remeikis
So the Empire finally struck back.
And we’re not happy about it.
If there was one thing Aussies could count on at the Olympics, it was that we were better than the Brits.
It made us feel good that Australia, the nation formed by England’s losers and rejects, not only trounced the motherland in cricket, rugby and league, we also smashed them on the world stage once every four years.
And then this year the established plan fell to bits.
God Save the Queen was heard five times more than Advance Australia Fair.
And it was played in events, like the cycling, where we had all but banked our expected gold.
They even claimed one in the pool.
Not only did they come out hard and strong, they also took our place in the top five.
Great Britain finished fourth on the medal tally, two spots above us.
And it turns out that Australia is not so good at losing.
Like spoilt children denied a sweet from an over-bearing aunty who only visits every now and then, we threw a tantrum.
If it was the playground, we would have taken our ball and gone home.
The media began to decry the money GB was spending on their athletes and calls came from the masses to prop up our own spending.
When one of our athletes looked back and saw second or third next to their name instead of first, as we had expected, we moaned in disappointment and vented our rage on online blog sites.
We watched our cyclists struggle for words to explain their loss to those wearing the Union Jack patch.
And now we have turned fearful eyes towards 2012 when we will compete in the motherland’s capital with warnings already ringing in our ears that Beijing was only their practice run.
But anyone who doesn’t think second or third is good enough, should have a chat to Sally McLennan or Anna Meares.
And try telling our K4 women’s crew of Hannah Davis, Chantal Meek, Lyndsie Fogarty and Lisa Oldenhof that bronze means nothing.
Melissa Wu may have succumbed to nerves in the 10m diving final, but the 16-year-old had a much more mature outlook to not medalling than people twice her age.
Melissa bombed a landing and didn’t make it into the top three, but instead of feeling sorry for herself, she said she was happy just to be there, because it was the best she had gone in an international competition.
And really, that is what it should be about.
Sure every athlete at the Games wants to win.
Otherwise, why would they be there?
But not everyone can win. It’s not like primary school where they give out ribbons for every place.
You may be the best in your country, but that doesn’t mean you will be the best in the world.
Australia is a country of 21 million people. We may not have done as well as we had planned, but we are still punching well above our weight in the Olympic stakes.
But it seems that over the last eight years, we have become so used to winning that we have forgotten how to lose.
Maybe we should remember that there were more than 100 countries which didn’t win a single medal.
Another seven came home with just one bronze.
But given what is happening in many of those 120 or so of those nations, just sending a team to the Olympics is cause for celebration.
And we are whinging because we only came home with 46 medals, 14 of them gold.
I enjoy seeing our athletes standing on top of the dais as much as any one else.
But I also get a kick from seeing athletes like Eric the eel just out there having a go.
It’s just sport people. At times it is inspiring as well as heartbreaking and sometimes, yes it is disappointing.
But it’s just sport.
And for there to be winners, others have to lose.
But the thing about losing is that it can make your hunger to win even stronger.
So come 2012, maybe we’ll see the return of the Aussies.




Not Registered? Quick registration and comment.



Recent Comments
Verb
Present participle of medal.
Alternative spelling of medaling.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medalling"
verb (3rd person present singular medals, present participle medalling, past and past participle medalled)
Definition:
1. intransitive verb North America win medal: to win a medal in a competition
She medalled in the javelin throw.
2. transitive verb give medal to somebody: to award somebody a med
Encarta... or how about:
medal[2,intransitive verb]
Main Entry: 2medal
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): med·aled also med·alled; med·al·ing also med·al·ling \ˈmed-liŋ, ˈme-dəl-iŋ\
Date: 1979
: to win a medal <medaled in figure skating>
Merriam-Websters...
Wow - both the same as Wiktionary...
It is an artificial construct that has no place in proper language
Are you the english language gate-keeper?
Ok, so it's not in your 1859 edition of whatever dictionary you own - that does not mean it is not a real word in today's world.
The phrase 'modern world' is a desperatley specious argument.
It is not a word in any world, modern or otherwise
Medalling in the Language
Lexicographers are always looking for new words or older words used in new ways. Was 'to medal' a new use of the noun, I wondered, and where did the word 'medal' come from?
Medal is derived from the Latin word medalia, the name of a half-denarius coin. The word only arrived in English in the mid 16th century, having passed through Italian (medaglia) and French (medaille) on its way. The Italian word gained a new meaning after the conquest of Padua in 1390 by Francesco da Canosa, when the first commemorative medals (as distinct from coins) were made.
By the mid 18th century the word had acquired its modern meanings of an award given for bravery or for success in a competition. By 1822 Lord Byron was writing to Sir Walter Scott to describe a brawl with a man whom he had mistaken for an officer, 'as he was medalled and well mounted, etc.'.
It was the 1970s that brought us the new form, 'to medal'. It originated in American English which has a long record of turning nouns into verbs: for example, cache (a hidden storage place) became to cache (to store in secret) way back in the early 19th century; to lobby (solicit votes) came into the language in 1850; and to chicken out is first recorded in 1943.
New words and meanings enter the English language all the time. It's thanks to people 'meddling' in the language that we now have people 'medalling' in the language!
My point exactly.
The Byron quote has nothing to do with being awarded a medal; it has the same definition as 'bejewelled' as in 'to have medals upon one's person'
The post was about the development of the english language and once again you missed the pertinent point...
"New words and meanings enter the English language all the time. It's thanks to people 'meddling' in the language that we now have people 'medalling' in the language!"
Provide some evidence (other than just plain old disagreement out of principle/spite/whatever) that medalling is not a real word... at the moment you're whole argument is based on an attempt to discredit every dictionary in the world and a pure lack of acceptance that the English language evolves over time...
"New words and meanings enter the English language all the time. It's thanks to people 'meddling' in the language that we now have people 'medalling' in the language!"
By this reductive argument, we should be eating tuna "ghoti" then saying that the meal was GR8
Try following the argument (mine and Oxford's) - 'medal' was derived from the Latin word for a half-denarius coin and only arrived in English in the 16th Century. In the mid-18th century it acquired it's modern meaning of an award given for bravery or success (this is where Oxford insert the Byron quote - not relevant to the argument, but nonetheless very informative). The 1970s brought us a new form being 'to medal' - a new and accepted meaning. See my argument? The word has evolved over time to now have a new meaning in addition to the other meanings.
Your train of thought is what? That we can't change the meanings of words by using them in new ways? Following that, if you use the word medal to describe anything other than a half-denarius coin, you're being a little hypocritical don't you think?
P.S. 2 letters plus 1 number does not make a word.
P.P.S. "ghoti" is also not in the same ball park, nor in the same sport - but hats off to you for the 19th Century reference.
You cannot say the Byron argument is not yours as you used it to shore up your weak argument. If it wasn't your argument, you shouldn't have included it in your comment.
Well done on your use of wikipedia, by the way, but ghoti is in exactly the same ball park; it refers to the unreasonable syntactical changes that have no place in language
It was constructed to highlight the irregularities in spelling in the English language - how is that the same ball park? We're not discussing spelling.
Had enough of discussing this by the way - it's not exactly life and death - but I think I will put my faith in Oxford on this matter rather than you. They say it's a real word (as does everyone else) - I'm happy.
Good night & good luck!
Try reading other people's arguments before striding off on your high horse
They do not mention "tiny amount of people" anywhere.
Now, if you will excuse me and my horse...
I refer you to a Pommie magazine called Private Eye and their Colemanballs section.