Geography of Junior Eurovision 2016 points: Where did Ireland’s Zena Donnelly get her votes from?

November 20, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 20th November 2016

After one of the most competitive Eurovision Finals ever, Ireland’s Zena Donnelly has finished in 10th place with 122 points!

zena_jescfinala

This marks a number of milestones in Irish Eurovision history:

  • Ireland’s first Top 10 finish at a Eurovision Final since Jedward in 2011
  • Ireland’s first 12 points/douze points (thank you Italy and Malta) at Eurovision since Jedward in 2011
  • The first 12 points/douze points (from Italy and Malta) awarded to a song in the Irish language in the history of Eurovision
  • The first ever Top 10 finish for a Eurovision song performed in the Irish language
  • Ireland’s best performance to date at the Junior Eurovision Song contest

Ultimately, Junior Eurovision 2016 ranked as one of the most successful Eurovision contests for an Irish act during the 2000s. Only three other acts have finished in the Top 10 in a Eurovision Final during the 2000s – Jedward (8th in 2011), Brian Kennedy (10th in 2006) and Eamon Toal (6th in 2000).  But no other Eurovision act has won more points in a contest than the number won by Zena Donnelly in Valletta (122 points) – the closest being Jedward’s 119-points haul at the 2011 Final, followed by Brian Kennedy’s 93 points at the 2006 Final, Jedward’s 92 points at the 2012 Semi Final and Brian Kennedy’s 79 points at the 2006 Semi Final. But where/what countries did Zena win these 122 points/votes from? Read the rest of this entry »

Analysing The Running Order for 2016 Junior Eurovision Song Contest

November 15, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 15th November 2016

The running order for Sunday afternoon’s Junior Eurovision Song Contest was made yesterday evening in Valetta, with a draw made to determine what half of the running order the different countries/acts would perform in being followed by a running order allocation by the show producers. Hosts, Malta, drew their own position in the running order (5th position). Ireland’s Zena Donnelly drew to perform in first position in the Final.

Ireland's Zena Donnelly will open the 2016 Junior Eurovision Song Contest Final

Ireland’s Zena Donnelly will open the 2016 Junior Eurovision Song Contest Final (Photo @ TG4)

Georgia drew to perform last on the night. The running order for each of the 17 countries/acts performing on Saturday night is outlined here, with a brief discussion of how acts previously performing in that position have fare in previous contests.

It is worth noting that this will be the first ever Junior Eurovision Song Contest to be solely decided on the basis of a jury vote, so the impact of the running order may be less significant than would be the case if this contest was partly/totally based on the public vote/televote.  

Read the rest of this entry »

Junior Eurovision 2016: The Geography of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

November 12, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 12th November 2016

Looking ahead to Ireland’s second appearance at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest in Valetta (Malta) on Sunday 20th November 2016, this post offers a brief review of the contest’s history, while specifically drawing out the geographical dimensions of this. This finds that the membership of the contest has been much more fluid than that of the (senior) Eurovision Song Contest, with the contest becoming increasingly dominated by Former Soviet states over the 2005-2013 period, having been mainly dominated by Western European states in the first two years of its existence (2003 and 2004). Wins for Malta (2013 and 2015) and Italy (2014), as well as debuts at the contest by a number of more western states (such as Slovenia, San Marino, Ireland, Australia* and Italy) over the last three years, have seen a growing Western reorientation in recent years. Despite this more recent trend, the Former Soviet states of Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Russia, as well as Ukraine, have largely dominated the Junior Eurovision Song Contest – especially over the past decade.

The post also looks at voting patterns at the contest and finds that the geographical (“friends and neighbours” and “diaspora”) voting trends associated with (senior) Eurovision are also evident at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Finally, the geography of support for Irish acts at the (senior) Eurovision Song Contest is discussed, as a means of teasing out potential support patterns for the Irish act, Zena Donnelly, at November’s Junior Eurovision Song Contest.  Read the rest of this entry »

A Geographical Perspective on Medal Wins at the 2016 Olympic Games

August 22, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 22nd August 2016

The 2016 (Summer) Olympic Games concluded last night in Rio de Janeiro. Trends observed at previous Summer Games in terms of medal wins/success levels were also observed at the Rio Games, although there were some notable deviations from these trends, most notably in relation to the performance of Great Britain in outperforming their strong success levels at the 2012 Games, which were hosted by London.

The USA continued to be the most successful state at the Summer Games in terms of medal wins. Indeed, the USA won their 1,000th Summer Olympics gold medal ever during the Rio Games. At the 2016 Games, the USA won 121 medals; amounting to 12.4% of all the medals being contested at these Games. This amounted to the USA’s highest percentage of medal wins at a Summer Games in 24 years – effectively being their best performance in terms of medal wins at a Summer Games since the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona (when the USA accounted for 13.3% of all medal wins). The next most successful state in these Games in terms of the medal table was Great Britain, with 67 medals and 27 gold medals, edging that state narrowly ahead of China, which accounted for 70 medal wins but just 26 gold medal wins. Russia and Germany completed the Top 5 in terms of the Rio Games medal table, although France were to win as many medals at these games as Germany did. In all, 86 states won medals at the 2016 (Summer) Olympic Games, with medals also being won (one gold and old bronze medal) by the Independent Olympic Athletes grouping.

Figure 1: Number of (Summer) Olympic Games medal wins between 1984-2016 by states that have hosted the Games across that period

Figure 1: Number of (Summer) Olympic Games medal wins between 1984-2016 by states that have hosted the Games across that period

The 2016 Games marked yet another instance in which the Hosts achieved one of their strongest ever performances at a (Summer) Olympic Games. As Figure 1 shows, Brazil achieved their best ever medal-winning performance over the past nine Olympic Games in Rio; indeed the Rio Games amounted to Brazil’s greatest ever performance in terms of medal-wins at the Olympic Games. The general trend in terms of medal wins over the past few decades, reflecting trends at earlier Olympic Games as discussed in the previous post,  has been for Host states to generally perform very well at the Games that they are hosting. Indeed Host states generally tend to win their biggest number of Olympic medal wins at the Games that they are hosting, as is also evident in the figures above for the USA (1984), South Korea (1988), Spain (1992), Australia (2000), Greece (2004) and China (2008) (Figure 1). There are some exceptions to this rule. The USA’s number of medal wins at the 1996 Games in Atlanta actually paled in comparison with that state’s number of medal wins at other Games across the 1984-2016 period. The other notable exception here relates to Great Britain. That country achieved a notable increase in their number of medal wins when hosting the Games in London, but also increased that number of medal wins further at the following Games in Rio. Indeed, Great Britain became the first state ever in the history of the modern Olympic Games to win more medals at the Games held immediately after a state has hosted the Games.

Overall, however, the general trend is for states to peak their medal win numbers at the Games that they host. Looking at trends for states which hosted the Games between 1992 and 2008 (Spain, the USA, Australia, Greece and China), the average number of medal wins for these states at the Games held eight years before they hosted the Games was 38.4 medals, with this average number of medal wins increasing to 45.8 medal wins for the Games held just before they hosted the Games. These states’ medal win levels peaked, on average, at the Games which they hosted, with an average number of 59.4 medal wins at these Games. Medal win numbers tended to decline, on average, in the Games held after a state hosted the Games, albeit with levels remains somewhat higher than in the Games preceding the hosted Games. At the Games held immediately after they hosted the Games, the average number of medal wins for these states (Spain, the USA, Australia, Greece and China) fell to 50.4 medals, with that average number of medal wins falling further to 46.2 medal wins at the next Games after these. As will be noted below, the next country to host the Games (Japan) has experienced a notable increase in medal win levels at the Games immediately preceding the Games (Tokyo 2020) that they will be hosting.

What global trends can be observed in terms of Olympic medal wins, with specific reference to these Games? Well, a review of the countries that won the largest number of medals at the Rio Games will suggest that countries with larger population tends to fare better at the Games that those with smaller populations. This is not a hard and fast rule, however. While the country with the largest population in the globe, China, ranks highly on the Rio 2016 Olympics medal table, the next largest state, India, was only ranked in joint 67th place on this table with two medal wins (and no gold medal win). While two other states among the globe’s ten largest states (in population terms) figured strongly in the Rio 2016 medals table (the USA and Russia), other members of this group of larger states (Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria) won relatively few medals at the Rio Games, while two of these states (Pakistan and Bangladesh) failed to win any medals. Other large countries (in population terms) that failed to win medals at the Rio Games included the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Myanmar and Sudan. (Against this trend, some of the smallest states on the globe (in population terms) – Grenada, the Bahamas, Fiji, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago and Bahrain – succeeded in winning medals at these games.)

Drilling further into these numbers, it can be seen that larger countries (in terms of population levels) in the developed world generally tended to fare well in terms of Olympic medal wins in Rio, but the same rule did not apply to large states in the developing world, as evidenced in the previous point. The differences in medal win levels between developed states/the “Global North” and developing states/the “Global South” is well evident in the fact that developed states/the “Global North” accounted for 74.3% of all medal wins at the Rio Games; almost three-quarters of all the medals won at these Games. This level actually marks a rather lower level of medal win success for developed states/the “Global North” as contrasted with the overall trend observed across the history of the (modern) Summer Olympic Games. Since 1896, developed states/the “Global North” have accounted for over five in six (86.4%) of all the medals won at these all of these Games. The number of medal wins by developing states/the “Global South” amounted to a level of around ten percent for most of the history of the modern Games, but the number of medals wins by these states increased from the 1980s onwards in lines with improving success levels for African states, such as Kenya and Ethiopia, in the athletics and the emergence of China as an Olympic superpower.

So levels of economic development do appear to have a significant bearing on the ability of states to win significant numbers of Olympic medals. For instance, the improvement in Great Britain’s medal win levels in the run up to the 2012 London Games, with this continuing into the 2016 Games in Rio, is largely down to an increased level of investment into Olympic sportswomen/sportsmen, linked to an injection of cash from the National Lottery funds. This level of investment would be beyond the means of the world’s poorest states, although some developing states can translate a natural ability in certain sports (as for instance in the cases of Kenya/Ethiopia and long distance running) into significant medal wins. However, GDP per capita is not necessarily a good predictor of Olympic success levels.  A number of the states with the highest GDP per capita levels on the globe – namely Luxembourg, Brunei, Kuwait, San Marino, Iceland and Oman – failed to wins medals at the 2016 Rio Games, while a number of other states that fell into this group of high GDP per capita states – such as Qatar – only won one medal at the Games. As all of these are very small states, this could suggest that the size of a state’s economy could amount to a better predictor of Olympic Games success levels. This is borne out by the fact that nearly all of the states with the largest economies on the globe (in terms of Total GDP levels) figured on the Rio 2016 medals table – the only exception really being Saudi Arabia (with 20th largest economy on the globe). Indeed, nearly all of the states accounting for the fifteen largest economies on the globe – with the exceptions of India and Mexico – figure prominently on the Rio 2016 medals table, with the ten top ten countries on the Rio medals table being drawn exclusively from this list of states. (By contrast, the states with the smallest economies to win Olympic medals at the Rio Games included Grenada, Burundi, Fiji, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Tajikistan.)

1896_1936 1952_1992 1996_2016 2008 2012 2016
 USA/Canada 29.8% 18.4% 13.7% 13.3% 12.7% 14.7%
 Mexico/Central America 0.6% 2.3% 4.5% 4.7% 4.6% 3.4%
 South America 1.0% 1.1% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1% 3.5%
 Europe 64.4% 64.9% 52.0% 50.4% 50.3% 50.7%
 Africa 1.2% 1.8% 3.9% 4.2% 3.4% 4.6%
 Oceania 1.4% 3.8% 5.5% 5.7% 5.0% 4.8%
 Asia 1.7% 7.7% 18.0% 19.1% 20.9% 18.1%
 Global “North” 97.0% 90.4% 74.2% 72.0% 71.9% 74.3%

Table 1: Percentage of (Summer) Olympic Games medal wins by continent/region, 1986-2016

Table 1 highlights the impact of economic development levels on Olympic medal win levels, showing the dominance here of Europe, but also North America – or rather the USA and Canada – Oceania (in particular Australia and New Zealand) and Japan. The level of dominance by the countries of the developed world, or the Global “North”, has declined somewhat during the 1990s and 2000s, especially given the rise of China as an Olympic Superpower and the growing dominance of long-distance running athletics events by east African countries, such as Kenya and Ethiopia. But, despite these recent trends, Table 1 shows that the states of the Global “North” came close to accounting for three-quarters of the medals won at the Rio 2016 Games, even though the vast majority of the world’s population is resident in the developing world, or the Global “South”.

A number of states notably increased their number of medal wins at the Rio Games relative to the number of medals that they won at any of the four previous Games (Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008 and London 2012). The most notable improvement here related to the USA, with that state winning 11 more medals that the number that they won at their best performance (110 medals at Beijing 2008) across the four previous Games. Other states that fell into this group (in order of improvement levels) were to include Azerbaijan (8 more medals than in their best performance at the four previous Games), Uzbekistan (7), Denmark (6), New Zealand (5), Croatia (4), Serbia (4), South Africa (4), Kazakhstan (4), Canada (4), Japan (3), Brazil (2), Cote d’Ivoire (2), Great Britain (2) and Malaysia (2). There is no particularly striking geography emerging here, although the list does include a number of Former Soviet states, as well as the most recent Hosts of the Games and the next state (Japan) to host the Games.

By contrast, some states experienced a notable decline in their medal winning performances at the Rio Games relative to their performances across the four previous Games. Russia, for instance, won 17 fewer medals than the lowest number of medals that they had won (73 in Beijing 2008) across the four previous Games. Other states that fell into this group (in order of improvement levels) were to include Ukraine (9 fewer medals than in their worst performance at the four previous Games), South Korea (7), Australia (6), Cuba (3), Belarus (3), Romania (3) and Latvia (2). As well as including a number of countries that hosted the Games in the not-too-distant past (Australia and South Korea possibly still on a “come down” after the highs experienced in terms of medal wins at the Games that these states hosted), this list also includes quite a number of Former Communist states.

A Geographical Overview of Olympic Success Levels from 1896 to 2012

August 5, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 5th August 2016

The (modern) Olympic Games have been in existence since 1896, with the Summer Games having been held every four years since then with the notable exceptions of 1916, 1940 and 1944, when the Games had to be cancelled due to World Wars I and II. The Games obviously share a similar global remit to the (Soccer) World Cup. However, while the World Cup has now been held in every continent across the globe (and have taken place on a number of occasions in South America), the Olympic Games have yet to be hosted by an African state while 2016 will mark the first occasion that the Games have been hosted by a South American state. Success levels in the Games also vary notably across the globe, with the more developed continents of North America and Europe having dominated the medals table for much of the history of the modern Olympics. However – especially given the growing strength of China in recent years – Asia has developed into a notably stronger region in terms of Olympic success levels during the 2000s, while a number of African states have developed niches in a number of Olympic events; most notably the long distance running events. By contrast, South America – which is one of the two continents to dominate the (soccer) World Cup – has fared relatively poorly in terms of success levels/the numbers of medals attained throughout the history of the Games and ranks even lower than Oceania in this regard. Read the rest of this entry »

An analysis of the countries with the best/worst records in the European (Soccer) Championships

June 9, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 9th June 2016

Ah the summer of a year ending in an even number can mean only one thing – a major international soccer tournament and this year (being divisible by four) it is the turn of the Europeans! While a number of countries competing in this year’s tournament have excellent records over the previous fourteen tournaments, some other countries such as the Ukraine, Republic of Ireland and Poland do not have great records in the European Championships. But how do teams rank in terms of their performance in past European championships? I’ve done a number crunch here to try and answer that question.

Basically, the system I have developed awards:

  • 23 points for winning a tournament (8 teams)/25 points for winning a tournament (16/24 teams)
  • 13 points for getting to the final of a tournament (8 teams)/15 points for getting to the final of a tournament (16/24 teams)
  • 10 points for getting to the semi final of a tournament (16/24 teams)
  • 8 points for getting to the semi final of a tournament (8 teams)
  • 6 points for getting to the quarter finals of a tournament/European Finals in years when 16/24 countries took part
  • 4 points for getting to the quarter finals (Finals) of a tournament/European Finals in years when only 8 countries took part/getting to the second round of European Finals in years when 16 countries took part
  • 3 points for getting to the second round of European Finals in years when 24 countries took part
  • 2 points for making it to the European Finals in years when 16 or 24 countries took part (i.e. 1996 and subsequent years)
  • 1 point for making it to the Last 16 of the tournament in European Championships contests before the 1996 Finals – includes countries making it to Last 16 when qualifiers or finishing second in the qualifying groups in year when European Finals only involved eight countries.

Adding up these points across the thirteen previous tournaments, commencing with the first such tournament (1958-60) and continuing up to the present tournament in France (i.e. awarding two points to all teams competing in the 2016 Finals), the following pattern emerges:

Rank Country Points
1 West Germany/Germany 142
2 Spain 123
3 USSR/Russia 101
4 France 95
5 Italy 87
6 Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic 80
6 Netherlands 80
8 Portugal 60
9 Denmark 56
10 Yugoslavia/Serbia (and Montenegro) 51
11 England 48
12 Greece 41
13 Belgium 34
14 Sweden 28
15 Romania 27
16 Hungary 25
17 Turkey 22
18 Croatia 18
19 Rep. Ireland 14
20 Bulgaria 12
21 Austria 11
21 Switzerland 11
23 Poland 10
24 Wales 8
25 Scotland 7
26 Northern Ireland 6
27 East Germany 5
28 Luxembourg 4
28 Ukraine 4
30 Albania 3
31 Iceland 2
31 Latvia 2
31 Norway 2
31 Slovakia 2
31 Slovenia 2

Not surprisingly, the Germans emerge as having the best record across past European competitions, although it is more surprising to note that country’s poor record in the first few contests right up to their first win in the competition in 1972. (Then again Germany did not compete in the first tournament in 1960.) Despite failing to make it to the Last 8 of any of the contests held during the 1960s, Germany holds the record for the most Finals (6) and Semi Finals (8) of any of the participating countries, although Spain (11) has qualified for more Quarter Finals than Germany (9) has. With a number of victories in the competition and a consistent record of making it to the final stages of these tournaments, Spain are ranked second.

Maybe somewhat surprisingly, especially given their rather poor record in World Cup tournaments, Russia/The USSR emerge as having the third best record in European tournaments, but it becomes rather less surprising when one considers that Russia/The USSR have won this tournament on one occasion (albeit in the very first tournament), made the final on three other occasions and made the semi finals on six occasions in all. With one win and one other final appearance, the Czechs (ranked 6th) are another nation whose performance (and ranking on this list) far out-shadows their success levels in World Cups – a trend that also applies in the cases of Denmark (ranked 9th), Yugoslavia/Serbia (ranked 10th) and Greece (ranked 12th).  By contrast, four-times World Cup winners, Italy, only make it to 5th in the rankings (although their 2012 results push them up from 7th in the previous set of rankings), while 1966 World Cup winners, England, only make it to 11th (and only rank ahead of countries such as Greece and Belgium because of their more consistent record in qualifying for European Finals).

A number of countries that competed unsuccessfully (twenty in all) in the 2016 European Championships qualifiers have yet to make it onto this list, including countries such as

  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Finland
  • Gibraltar
  • Cyprus
  • Liechenstein
  • Montenegro
  • Lithuania
  • Armenia
  • Moldova
  • San Marino
  • Georgia
  • Belarus
  • FYR Macedonia
  • Andorra
  • Azerbaijan
  • Malta
  • Estonia
  • Kazakhstan
  • Israel
  • Faroe Islands

Bosnia and Herzegovina actually qualified for the 2014 World Cup Finals but the Bosnians have yet to qualify for the European Championships, mainly thanks to some ill-timed fog and one John Walters (although it probably should be argued that the Bosnians made it to a number of tournaments while part of Yugoslavia).

 

How Ireland fared in Eurovision Semi Final 2. How Ireland voted in Semi Final 2/the Final: Televote and Jury Vote breakdowns

May 15, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 15th May 2016

Ireland finished in 15th place in the second Eurovision Semi Final with 46 points – the last country to qualify, Serbia, finished with 105 points. Australia won this semi-final with 330 points, followed by Ukraine on 287 points in second place and Belgium on 274 points in third place.

How did Ireland fare with the (other) countries who were voting in this semi-final? Based on the details provided from the official Eurovision website, we can see that Ireland were ranked accordingly by the other 20 countries who were voting in our semi-final: Read the rest of this entry »

Previewing the Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final 2016

May 13, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 13th May 2016

Following on the previous posts reviewing Semi Final 1 and Semi Final 2, this post will offer a brief review of the 26 acts competing Grand Final of the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest. As in the case of the semi-finals, this contest will take place over two nights, with the professional juries voting on the contest taking place on the night of Friday 13th May, while the public will vote on the televised show, which takes place on the night of Saturday 14th May. Read the rest of this entry »

2016 Eurovision Final results estimate (or televote estimate!): To Russia with Love or Going to a Land Down Under?

May 13, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 13th May 2016

In these past, I used this model to successfully predict the Azerbaijan win at the 2011 contest,  the Denmark win in 2013 and the Sweden win at the 2015 contest, while this same model correctly identified 17 of the 20 qualifiers from the 2015 semi finals (although it proved decidedly less effective in predicting the 2016 qualifiers). Now that we know the running order for the 2016 Eurovision Final I am going to use this to try and tease out who the likely winners will be of the 2015 contest will be. There are, however, a variety of factors (including the problems in terms of predicting the 2016 semi final qualifiers) that suggest that the 2016 Final model may not be as accurate as in previous years, but particularly the changes being made to the voting process that effectively mean that each country’s jury vote score and public vote/televote score will be treated as separate entities for this year’s contest – i.e. each country will award two separate scores – a jury vote score and a televote/public vote score. It is the latter of these two different scores/rankings (i.e. the televote score) that this model should be most effective in predicting.

With the numbers crunched, Russia, Australia, Ukraine and Sweden – both with relatively good positions in the contest running order, a tendency to do well in terms of “friends and neighbours” and “diaspora” voting and very high rankings in the bookies odds – stand on top of the pile. Other countries/finalists, such as Armenia, France and Italy, also figure strongly in relation to these factors, or some of these factors. But be wary!

  • This model cannot take account of the impact of the actual performances on both Final nights (including the Jury Final on the Friday night and Public/Televised Final on the Saturday night).
  • As the voting history statistics are based mainly on past televoting trends, the model cannot take account for the voting decisions of the highly influential professional juries, who have as much bearing on the Final result as the televotes have.
  • The voting history statistics for Australia are quite limited and based on just one contest (2015 Final) – a contest that Australia finished 5th in, meaning that the Australia vote estimates could be somewhat over-estimated as regards this particular factor. However, this is offset by the fact that four of this year’s entrants (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia and Ukraine) did not participate in last year’s contest.

Read the rest of this entry »

Eurovision Song Contest: The Luck of the Draw…or the Running Order?

May 13, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh, 13th May 2016

Song, performance and staging matter in terms of ultimate Eurovision success. “Diaspora” and “friends and neighbours” voting can also help a country’s prospects of doing well in the contest, though of course not in themselves proving sufficient to win the contest for those countries that can especially benefit from these voting trends. But another key factor that can shape a country’s hopes of winning the contest is the position in the contest running order that they get to perform in, with the usual rule of thumb suggesting that a later draw position will significantly help a country’s hopes of doing well in the contest. Positions in the running order had traditionally been decided by a draw up to the 2012 contest. But since the 2012 contest in Malmo, participating countries have just drawn to decide whether they will perform in the first half or second half of a contest, with the host TV producers then deciding the running order based on what combination of entries works the best in terms of producing a better TV show. (The host country is the only one that draws to decide their position in the Final running order).  Read the rest of this entry »