KIRIBATI, the tiny Pacific island nation of 100,000 people, became the kings of the Commonwealth in a "real" medal table that measures success in terms of the country's population.
Kiribati, situated halfway between Hawaii and Australia, found itself top of the population-based medal analysis at the close of the Games with just one medal, a gold delivered by native David Katoatau in weightlifting's 105kg Group A. He had previously finished 17th out of 21 in the same category in the 2012 Olympics.
His gold was the 310sq mile state's first medal at a major event. The island has only been an Olympic nation for 10 years after an International Olympic Committee meeting in Prague in 2003 accepted them into the organisation.
The final unofficial table, which works out the number of golds per million of population put Kiribati top with 9.9 golds and Grenada, with 105,000 people second with 9.52 golds.
The best performing country with a population of more than one million came was Jamaica (3.61) just pipped Scotland (3.58) to third place in the gold strike-rate table. Wales (1.63) finished eighth and Northern Ireland (1.09) finished tenth.
The worst performing country was Pakistan, which with a 180 million population, failed to strike gold, and went home with just four medals, three silvers and a bronze.
Kiribati was discovered by Britain in 1788 and were originally named the Gilbert Islands after the captain who first set foot there. It was given self rule in 1971 and complete independence in 1979 under the new name.
In the overall medal-strike rate Nauru, the smallest state in the South Pacific, and the second-smallest by population in the world, behind only Vatican City, topped the table with a solitary silver medal. And it was another weightlifter Itte Detenamo that delivered the goods, getting the second place in the 105kg event.
Nauru, which with 10,000 inhabitants has a similar population to Stenhousemuir, topped the list as their silver equates to 100 medals.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article