So.... in Rio Brazil and Germany finally learned how to play football and took home their first ever Olympic gold medals in the sport. Though considering all the flak I've taken from Europeans on other quizzes about including women's stats in football quizzes, I wonder if the German women's team victory will even be appreciated.
With those two additions to the gold medal club, this quiz is much less interesting than it used to be. Only really curious omission left I think is Portugal.
You're right. There aren't any truly great teams (consistently great, over the course of many years) that have not won gold now. Germany and Brazil were the last two and they finally managed it in the same year. Though I guess if you take away women's medals then we're still waiting for a German men's gold.
Still, it's funny that Cameroon, Mexico and Nigeria have more gold medals in football than Portugal or some other countries.
Oh it's you, the guy who endlessly complains on every quiz about Germany and West Germany being the same country. So... is East Germany also the same country, now?
Olympic medals are not resources that can be acquired or bought. They're tokens representing achievements made by national entities that existed at the time those achievements were made. What you're proposing doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're just trying to bolster Germany's overall Olympic medal count. And it's not really fair to allow one "country" to field two separate teams in the same year.
The Netherlands are the best footballing nation to never win the world cup or the Olympic gold. They have been runners up 3 times in the world cup, but I am not sure what their Olympic record is. Their women's team is not so strong. Brazil, Japan and China are all very good in the women's, but none of them have won Olympic Gold. Hungary in the men's too, in the 1950's. They never won the world cup. They went 8 years when they lost only one game; the so-called Miracle of Bern, when they lost the world cup final 3-2 to West Germany in 1954. One of the biggest underdog upsets of all time.
Well, as a German citizen, I fell proud of every gold medal, that FRG/BRD/West Germany has won until 1990. On the other hand, every gold medal, that GDR/DDR/East Germany has won then, was not a (West) German medal. From today's view, both countries are one culture, one people, one nation, but stats are stats and I guess they should remain the way they were (BRD/DDR/Germany).
Next point is, that East Germany would probably never had been able to win any medal, if there had been an organization like WADA in the 50's already
^ yeah, absolutely. I'm sure gandalf takes no issue with stripping Lance Armstrong of his titles. He's said as much elsewhere on the site. Also it's doubtful that most of the countries in Eastern Europe would have performed so well without the influence of the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, etc.. including East Germany. Maybe we should give these medals to Russia. (kidding, stats are stats, agree with what you said)
I think the WADA comment above is stupid. Everybody knows that there was extensive doping in both sides of the iron curtain. Difference was, that on one side it was government-organized and on the other side mostly privately- / club-organized. Pretty similar to how different economies were run in communist / capitalist countries. What a lot of people don't see or don't want to understand (this is part of a bigot-series, isnt it?) is the all-embracing nature of the East German sports system. A lot of money and effort was put into it, having a huge number of permanently employed coaching staff in every single county. There was a close connection to sport-medical departments of universities. And the most important: The nearly-to-perfection-recruiting system starting in Kindergarten, continuing in early school years, analyzing kid's athletic abilities or body physique to find out which type of sports they would perfectly fit in. Without this comprehensive approach the GDR would have....
...never been able to reach the huge number of medals, doping or not. Today it's all about the kid's own motivation (and not to mention parent's financial abilities), a lot of the former sports boarding schools (where the whole school process matched the sporting demands with immense daily training units) disappeared, and you can see the outcome of world class athletes dropped continiously in recent years. Not that I lament, it's just part of exchanging a repressing system with a free one where personal liberty is religion, and I am glad about the change in this part of Germany. Just tired of this all-about-doping-cliché.
From my experience Olympic soccer achievements aren't as celebrated as World Cup or Euro Cup wins or even seconds all together. No big public viewings, celebrations or flags everywhere. The soccer played at World Cups / Euro Cups is on a whole different level though. I've only seen a few minutes of the men's Olympic final match and it looked less professional to me. Anyway, the German female team won Cups and it was never as big as a deal as the male Teams wins.
Your understanding of football is rather poor. You see Poland was in last 25 years or so one of the better teams in all junior categories but they couldn't convert that to success in senior careers. It was all down to wrong way of bringing those young players up. Instead of teaching them discipline in tactics they were pushing them for results. In Germany nobody cares if players can win U16 championship if they cant then win anything in adult football, the young guys in Bayern learn to play what coach told them to play regardless of the score. They drill them tactics to the point where they get it perfect and because it happens to be same tactics as first team is using it makes it easier for young players to transmission into adult football. And then they are going on World Cup and even if their team isn't as impressive on paper as some other team they are still bringing medals.
Also your argument that East Germany was a different country is rather poor. During the civil war there were plenty of inventions made and you consider them to be American inventions not Union inventions for example. At the end of the day those medals belong to Germans.
For instance you get 0 player from the French team who won the last world cup... and even from the U21 team which was not that bad and which qualified because the clubs didn't want to let them go.
So you got the second or third choice of the U21 team aka not the best players.
If one knows football well, one can't expect to have the teams which perform in the World Cup to be the same during the OG ;)
Canada's gold medal comes from 1900, the first year they ever played football at the Olympics. There were only 3 teams competing that year and the other 2 teams were American club teams. Not a very impressive feat, but, I guess it still counts. :)
Their women's team is quite good. But have never won gold.
Umm actually, it was in 1904 not 1900. But still, canadian pride is strong considering it's still one more soccer gold medal than portugal. Take that, Ronaldo.
Oops, my mistake. Yes, 1900 was in Paris and 1904 was St Louis (crazy event, fun to read about) where they played soccer for the first time and the Canadian team won.
@WhatIsLove Ronaldo played in the Olympics some 17 years ago as a 19 year old. I doubt he will be too bothered at not having an Olympic medal amongst his collection as it really isn't considered a prestige competition if you look at the players that do and don't compete in it
The Netherlands are often considered the best football team who hasn't won a world cup; guess they're also the biggest who haven't won a gold medal either
Most impressive standings for countries that have not won gold include Denmark (3 silvers, 1 bronze), Bulgaria (1 silver, 1 bronze), and Japan (1 silver, 1 bronze). The Netherlands has often had a good team but they've never even managed to take home silver. They do have three 3rd-place finishes, though.
Yes, they suck at olympics, but no one will argue that any of those 3 teams are historically better than the Netherlands with three runner up places at WC-finals (which is considered a lot more prestigious and is way more heavily contested than winning the summer olympics)
3:00 is fair, any more time and you can simply start guessing random countries. I missed Nigeria, and I don't even really like soccer, but with another minute I may have come up with it. 3:00 is the perfect amount of time.
If we're being technical - the event is labelled as 'Football' in all official Olympic contexts. Though obviously no one is left confused when it's called soccer, whereas the same is not true of 'football', so there are arguments to be made either way. It seems to be a strangely emotive issue for some.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s in Dublin, devouring British football magazines, comics and books. Soccer and football were used interchangeably on this side of the Atlantic in those days. Then came the NASL, and everyone on this side of the pond suddenly hated the word soccer and pretended that it is a US invention. Which it isn't. Great quiz by the way!
Only missed East Germany. Probably would have missed Cameroon, except that I was there in the stadium watching when they did it, which was kinda hard to forget.
Japan and China both have excellent women's teams. I think that's Asia's best hope. Korea (both north and south, surprisingly), Thailand, and Vietnam all have good women's teams, as well. Asia apparently much better about supporting female athletes than Europe is. On the men's side... I don't think there's much hope of an Asian gold any time soon. Turkey's men's team is okay, if you want to put them in Asia. Iran and Japan are both okay. That's about it.
I normally would as the USSR and Russia were basically synonymous when I was growing up. However, when it comes to Olympic medals, they are definitely two distinct things (much like East Germany and Germany) with separate medal counts. Russia has never won a gold medal for soccer.
I don't really understand how the medal counts can be two distinct things, when what the teams (winning the medals) are representing are "basically synonymous". They're synonymous enough for Wiki and worldfootball.net.
The things that surprised me most was that the US has the most gold medals in Olympic soccer considering the US's abysmal performances at the FIFA World Cup.
If you consider the results of all teams (both genders) the US performance at the World Cup is also impressive.
But I thought that, for the average person, the fact that the United States and Hungary were the top two would be surprising, and maybe the fact that East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Cameroon and Mexico had all won more gold medals than Portugal or the Netherlands might also be surprising. Prior to the last Olympics they had also won more than Brazil or Germany. Most people don't think of Cameroon as more accomplished at football than Brazil.
It's a funny quiz and I can see the eye-winking irony in it.
But you should not be too surprised about the results if you are aware about men's football olympic medals being absolutely no indicator of the real football powers. For a long time only "amateur players" were allowed to play at the Olympics and therefore communist countries like East Germany, Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia could send their best players, who were >only officially< amateurs, while the big western football nations had to send their secondaries. Today I there is an age limit, players have to be under 23 years I think, so you won't see Messi, Ronaldo and Co.
The amateur rule in Olympics did for a long time have an effect. For example the fact that the USA was not so dominant in basketball prior to Barcelona, and how the USSR was so dominant in ice hockey because they didn't have a professional league. But.. "absolutely no indicator?" that goes too far.
To add to that, the European Championship and often enough other continental tournaments take place only a few weeks before the Summer Olympics, meaning that except for very few exceptions, players who take part in the former skip the latter. The squads that take part in the Olympics are cobbled together from various youth teams (minus the best players that are already called up by their A national teams) plus some older second or third rate players and occasionally a star who doesn't have other commitments that summer (most of those would rather take a vacation though).
Messi once won gold early on in his career. I'd say that after the UEFA Champions League, the Spanish championship, the Spanish cup, the Copa America, the Euro super cup and the Spanish super cup (the latter two of which only consist of a single match), Olympic Gold is about the seventh most talked about title he managed to win. In other words, no one really cares.
i gather from reading the comments that when in the description you say 'this quiz is gender neutral' that you mean it includes both men's and women's teams, but it feels like an unusual way of phrasing it. could you be more explicit and just say what you mean ie includes men's and women's teams?
With those two additions to the gold medal club, this quiz is much less interesting than it used to be. Only really curious omission left I think is Portugal.
Still, it's funny that Cameroon, Mexico and Nigeria have more gold medals in football than Portugal or some other countries.
Next point is, that East Germany would probably never had been able to win any medal, if there had been an organization like WADA in the 50's already
how come dude... you guys haven't had a female president yet, still a looong way untill sexism is not a thing anymore
The male teams are only the U21 ones.
For instance you get 0 player from the French team who won the last world cup... and even from the U21 team which was not that bad and which qualified because the clubs didn't want to let them go.
So you got the second or third choice of the U21 team aka not the best players.
If one knows football well, one can't expect to have the teams which perform in the World Cup to be the same during the OG ;)
Their women's team is quite good. But have never won gold.
But I thought that, for the average person, the fact that the United States and Hungary were the top two would be surprising, and maybe the fact that East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Cameroon and Mexico had all won more gold medals than Portugal or the Netherlands might also be surprising. Prior to the last Olympics they had also won more than Brazil or Germany. Most people don't think of Cameroon as more accomplished at football than Brazil.
But if they win the world cup that year, they won't win the next Olympics. 😂
But you should not be too surprised about the results if you are aware about men's football olympic medals being absolutely no indicator of the real football powers. For a long time only "amateur players" were allowed to play at the Olympics and therefore communist countries like East Germany, Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia could send their best players, who were >only officially< amateurs, while the big western football nations had to send their secondaries. Today I there is an age limit, players have to be under 23 years I think, so you won't see Messi, Ronaldo and Co.
Messi once won gold early on in his career. I'd say that after the UEFA Champions League, the Spanish championship, the Spanish cup, the Copa America, the Euro super cup and the Spanish super cup (the latter two of which only consist of a single match), Olympic Gold is about the seventh most talked about title he managed to win. In other words, no one really cares.
(Refers to the men's tournament only)