London 2012: Enjoy Team GB's success while it lasts, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't

A young fan waves a Union Flag at the Olympic Women's 10k Swim in Hyde Park

The reaction to Great Britain's success in the London 2012 medal table has been euphoric. After the disappointment of Atlanta 1996 (one gold medal, 36^thoverall), top ten finishes in Sydney (11 golds, 10^th) and Athens (nine golds, 10^th), were seen as great successes, but the performances in Beijing (19 golds, fourth) and London (29 golds, third), have taken Team GB to new heights. The achievements of Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and their team mates have been a joy to behold, but should not be allowed to spoil future Olympic accomplishments for the public either.

Host nation success is a well-documented phenomenon, and usually begins four years prior, as funding has already been improved in anticipation of the home games. This goes some way to explaining British success in Beijing, but the roots of that performance go back to the steady improvement after Atlanta, when the introduction of lottery funding coincided with national humiliation, and a recognition that the sporting landscape had changed since the end of the amateur era, requiring a more professional outlook from administrators. Factor in the increased funding that then arrived after London's successful bid in 2005, and the advantage of home crowds and conditions, and Team GB's performance is less surprising.

Britain has not seen this level of success since the days when far fewer nations took part. However, every team in every sport has its ceiling, Team GB cannot compete with China or the United States due to population size and funding, so third is the highest realistic place available. Without home conditions and support, it will be harder to find a competitive advantage. Meanwhile the chasing pack includes more populous nations, many of them emerging into the economic maturity necessary for Olympic success. As a fascinating article by Grantland's Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier explains:

“If a country is made up of subsistence farmers, it is not going to have much athletic infrastructure, government or private support, or even enough well-nourished citizens to excel in sports on the global stage... So, being rich in raw materials (people) and having the wealth to develop them are the main economic determinants of Olympic success ”

The chasing pack can, for these purposes, be divided into groups.

1. The sleeping giants: Brazil, host of the 2016 games, has one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world, and the number of Brazilians who will have access to sports infrastructure is only going to grow. Several nations, including India, are at different stages of this process.
2. The former powerhouses: those such as Russia who once dominated, covet that status again, and have the national will to ensure the prerequisite levels of funding are in place.
3. The specialists: nations that are unlikely to challenge across multiple sports, but which focus their attention on specific areas, allowing them to punch above their weight, for example Kenya in long distance running, or Bulgaria (highlighted by Cowen and Grier) in weight-lifting, wrestling and shooting, which have provided 32 of their 51 gold medals to date.

The first two groups will all have their eyes on Britain's third place, and the third group will be aiming for top ten finishes. Economic and population growth in the UK and other developed nations is slowing in relation to these challengers. Combined with the increased number of Olympic nations since the splintering of Eastern Europe, the end of the era of boycotts, and the rise in interest in countries with no real Olympic tradition, and the spread of medals is only going to become more diverse.

What does this mean for public perception of Team GB? Setting aside the argument that the medal table is somewhat artificial, as is the idea of an Olympic team, since what Chris Hoy does in the velodrome has no bearing on what Anthony Joshua does in the ring, London 2012 was probably the high water mark for the British team. The government has promised to maintain current levels of funding through 2016, but there are no long term guarantees.

The public reaction to Team GB is reminiscent of that towards the England rugby and cricket teams in 2003 and 2005. In the short term, both benefited from the increased attention, but when results declined, it meant greater scrutiny of their failings than before. Will there be a backlash when Britain inevitably drops down the medal table? Athletes performing to the best of their abilities may no longer be feted, but unfavourably compared to their 2012 predecessors. Falling out of nightclubs a sign of malaise, rather than well-deserved letting off of steam. The intense public disappointment at Australia's tenth place finish in London illustrates the dangers of raised expectations.

What is the solution? The British Olympic Association and other organising bodies must continue to seek new competitive advantages, but those are hard to find and harder to maintain, so perhaps the onus is instead on the media and the public to enjoy this success while it lasts, be nostalgic about it when it passes, but not to greet that passing with anger and disappointment.

So long as the Olympians of 2016, 2020 and beyond perform to a level commensurate with Britain's position in the world, 2012 need not become a millstone around their necks. Cherish this moment, and if Team GB returns to its positions from Athens and Sydney, those performances were once cause for celebration, and in an increasingly competitive Olympic world, would deserve to be celebrated again. London 2012 was a once in a lifetime moment for the British, not just as hosts, but also because of the performance of their team. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't let it become cause for future disappointment.