The chart plots the top 50 participating countries at the Olympics in respect with their GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The correlation between nominal GDP and participating countries happens to be a steep one.

The numbers look good but can often be misleading and seldom reveal the entire truth. There are enough nations in this world who raise their hand and be counted way more than their treasury allows them to. Countries like Belarus and Tunisia display the tendency to punch above their weight. The entire Eastern European belt with Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Lithuania fall in the top quarter of the list of countries represented at the Olympics but do not feature in the top half of the economies of the world.

Furthermore countries which have the highest representation in ratio of their population at the Olympics this year are feather weights in the economic world.

Participants per 100,000 people:

Physical attributes and social structures are very important in producing a sporting nation. Some countries are blessed with genetically better athletes. Jamaica and Usain Bolt are perfect examples of this. It is no surprise that almost all previous record holders for a sprint have been from the Afro-American race. They have also dominated other track and field events for obvious reasons. They are naturally gifted athletes.

While the ex Soviet block is just born to play hard, countries like New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have a culture in sync with sports. A large proportion of their populous are athletic. In fact, a lot of sports they play do not feature in the Olympics, thus giving a sense of their under representation.

As the Olympics came to a close all that seemed to matter was the medal count while the spirit of participation and combat seemed to be lost in the voracity of victory and sometimes worse in dissoluteness of the Olympians. Ironically though, it is the fulfilment of a win that drives all great sportsmen, deep inside every athlete knows that the end goal is to come first.

In the words of the legendary late Formula One driver Aryton Senna, “Winning is the most important. Everything is consequence of that.”

In London, most medals were bagged by more or less the same group of countries who had the most participants. It is a numbers game, a little skewed by exceptional performances, and the difference between individual and team sports and thus the respective medal counts.

Pakistan, as expected, finished without a medal again this year. It marked the 20^th anniversary of its last medal, won in 1992 at the Games in Barcelona, a modest bronze in hockey. Two years later, Pakistan also became world champions for a record fourth but last time in its glorious history. It was the same period Pakistan won the cricket World cup and ruled the roost in squash for the last time. Pakistan’s socio-economic decline in the last two decades is no secret.

The nation’s most successful Olympics were in Rome in 1960, winning two medals including gold. Incidentally, the 1960s are viewed by many as the golden era in Pakistan’s history when it was looked upon as a fast growing economy with booming industries and PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) firing on all cylinders around the globe.

Great sportsmen are not born over night but are trained over time. Almost all great sportsmen pick up their respective sport and show exceptional talent at a very young age. From early childhood they are nurtured to become the stars of their trade. How well a 10 year old talent is nurtured today is how well he will perform 15 years later at 25.

Last of the great Pakistani sportsmen seen in the 90s were mostly born in the 60s or mid 70s. The two Ws of cricket, the two Khans of squash and the glorious hockey team of the early 90s were all products of the confident Pakistani nation that was giving birth to men who felt it was their right to compete with the world on an even keel.

It was not the hapless performance of the hockey team against Australia that should ring any alarm bells or the fact that Pakistan's contingent returned empty-handed from London.

It was the opening ceremony which gave a feeling of dejection and indisposition.

The 23 Olympians who marched out on the opening day lacked the zest and enthusiasm which on an occasion like this is fuelled by its own frenzy, national pride and most importantly self-belief of achieving glory. Sadly, their smiles had gone missing.