Ph.D., Professor N.Yu. Mel’nikova
A.Yu. Nikiforova
Russian State University of Physical Culture, Sport, Youth and Tourism (GTsOLIFK), Moscow

Keywords: Olympic games, Olympic Winter Games, Sochi 2014, unofficial team standings.

Introduction. In connection with the successful performance of the Russian Olympic team at the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi in 2014 the problems of organization, formation of the program of Olympic games and comprehensive analysis of the performance of the teams of the host countries of the Games are of particular relevance. In our research we attempted to identify the relation between the fact of hosting Winter Games by a particular country and the performance of its athletes.

The purpose of the research is to make a comparative analysis of performance of national teams of the host countries of the Olympic Winter Games since 1988 and the impact of this factor on the performance of the teams of the host countries of the Games in "home" and next Winter Games.    

Materials and methods. A comprehensive comparative analysis of the performance of the national teams of the host countries of the Olympic Winter Games in the late XX – early XXI century was carried out: Canada (Calgary, 1988; Vancouver, 2010), France (Albertville, 1992), Norway (Lillehammer, 1994), Japan (Nagano, 1998), the United States of America (Salt Lake City, 2002), Italy (Turin, 2006) and Russia (Sochi, 2014). We analyzed the performance of the teams at the Winter Games and at the Games in three previous and three (or less) next Olympic cycles:

1 the number of medals won by the teams of these countries within the aforementioned period of time;

2) change in the position of the teams in unofficial team standings;

3 the ratio of the change in the number of gold medals to the change in the total number of awards won.

Results and discussion. It has been established that during the period prior to the Olympic Winter Games in the mentioned countries the results of performance of their national teams were not stable. In particular, the teams of Canada and Norway achieved maximum results at the Games that had taken place before the ones held in their countries (Fig. 1, 3). The teams of France and Japan showed results worse than the ones they had achieved before at the Games that had taken place prior to the ones they hosted (Fig. 2, 4). The results of performance of the Russian Olympic team are not stable either. The total number of medals won at the Winter Games in Lillehammer decreased, and a dramatic improvement of this indicator was noted in Turin and then a drop of it in Vancouver (Fig.  7). Italy showed results that exceeded its achievements in Turin twice in the previous period (with the best of them achieved 12 years before the Games hosted by Italy) (Fig.  5). The only stable performance results are those of the US team (Fig. 6).

Russia, Canada, Norway, France, Japan and the USA achieved the best performance results (as compared with the ones that have been achieved before) in the year of their hosting the Winter Games; the last three countries have significantly improved their performance, as compared to the previous one. The teams of Canada, France and the USA (Fig. 1, 2, 6) managed to improve their performance at the next Winter Games, for Canada and Norway the performance result achieved “at home” remained the highest.  

 As seen from the examples of the teams of Canada, France, Norway and the USA (Fig. 1-3, 6), their performance is holding steady, displayed in a higher level of performance results at the next Olympic Winter Games in comparison with the previous ones.  

Canada demonstrates a stable increase of performance results at the next Winter Games; the performance of France at the Games in 1994 significantly declines compared to 1992, but also retains a tendency for improvement. At the Games in 2002 the French team performed better than at the Winter Games in Albertville. At the Winter Games following those in Lillehammer Norway does not show such high performance results, but the level of its athletic achievements during this period is considerably higher than that prior to the Olympic Winter Games held in Norway. The USA exceeded their performance results achieved in Salt Lake City at the Winter Games in Vancouver.   

Fig. 1                                                                      

Fig. 2

Fig. 3                                                                     

Fig. 4

Fig. 5                                                                  

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

The unofficial team standings at the Winter Games held in their countries were not the highest for the majority of them in the analyzed period. For Canada the 13^th place at the Games in Calgary was one of the lowest in 34 years (from 1976 to 2010) (Fig. 8), and the 1^st place in Vancouver was the highest in the history of performance of the Canadian team. France and Norway (Fig. 9, 10) managed to occupy higher lines of the unofficial team standings in 2002 than those they had occupied at the Games they hosted.

Despite a decrease in the number of medals at the Winter Games that followed the Games in Salt Lake City, the USA occupied a higher line in the unofficial team standings (Fig. 11). Only the team of Japan failed to improve its result after the XVIII Olympic Winter Games in Nagano: the 7^th place at the Games in Nagano remained its highest result in the studied period (Fig. 13). Thus, except for the teams of Italy (Fig. 12) and Japan, the teams of these countries managed to get to higher places in the unofficial team standings at the next Olympic Winter Games: Canada from the 13^th place in 1988 to the 1^st in 2010; France – from the 7^th in 1992 to the 6^th in 2002; Norway – from the 2^nd in 1994 to the 1^st in 2002; the USA – from the 3^rd in 2002 to the 2^nd in 2006. Russia won the 1^st place in the unofficial team standings at the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi. In the past Russians achieved such results in Lillehammer, Norway, in 1994. Then there was a decline in performance, and the worst one within the analyzed period was the 11^th place occupied by the Russian team in Vancouver (Fig. 14).

Fig. 8                                                                        

Fig. 9    

Fig. 10                                                                        

Fig. 11 

Fig. 12                                                                      

Fig. 13

Fig. 14                                                                       

In general, the diagrams of changes in the number of won medals of all values and the number of gold medals have an overall tendency on the examples of the teams of France (Fig. 15), Norway (Fig. 16), the USA (Fig. 17) and Italy (Fig. 18). The total number of medals increases in proportion to the number of top value medals. The same situation takes place with regards to the decrease in the number of awards.

Fig. 15                                                                           

Fig. 16                                                                       

Fig. 17                                                                          

Fig. 18                                                                       

There are differences in these indicators of the teams of Canada (Fig. 19), Japan (Fig. 20) and Russia (Fig. 21). Canada increased the number of medals from four in 1984 to five in 1988, but did not get a single gold medal in 1988, while it won two gold medals at the Olympic Winter Games in 1984. The situation is different in the team of Japan: an increase in the number of gold medals at the background of a decrease of the total number of awards in 2004 as compared to 2002 and the preserved number of gold medals in 1992 and 1994, while the total number of medals decreases; Japan increases the number of medals at the Winter Games 2010 compared to 2006, but does not win a single gold medal. Russia exceeds its performance result of the Winter Games in Salt Lake City in Vancouver in terms of the total number of medals, but in terms of the number of gold medals its performance result of 2010 is inferior to that of 2002.  

Fig. 19                                                                    

Fig. 20                                                                       

Fig. 21                                                                       

Conclusions. The analysis of the results of the performance of the national teams of the host countries of the Olympic Winter Games had not revealed any clear trend of steady growth in the period before staging of the Olympic Winter Games. It is noteworthy that most countries achieved maximum results at the Winter Games which they hosted and then preserved the Olympic legacy.

References

1. Bol'shaya olimpiyskaya entsiklopediya. V 2 t. (Big Olympic Encyclopedia. In 2 P.) / V.L. Steinbach. – Moscow: Olimpiya-press, 2006.
2. Mel'nikov, V.V. Genezis Olimpiyskikh zimnikh igr (1927–1936 gg.) (The genesis of Olympic Winter Games (1927-1936) / V.V. Mel'nikov // Teoriya i praktika fiz. kul'tury. – 2013. № 10. – P. 48.
3. Miller, D. Ofitsial'naya istoriya Olimpiyskikh igr (The official history of the Olympic Games). 2003. – 550 P.
4. Olimpiyskie zimnie igry: illyustrirovannaya istoriya. 1924–2014 (Olympic Winter Games: Illustrated History. 1924-2014). – Moscow: Vladimir Lisin's project; Knigi WAM. – 2013. – 104 P.
5. Lennartz, K. The elections of the Host Cities for the Olympic Winter Games. A historical overview. Journal of Olympic History vol. 19 (2011).
6. The complete book of the Winter Olympics / David Wallechinsky and Jaime Loucky Wilmington: Sport Classic Books, 2005.

Corresponding author: history@sportedu.ru