“In the qualification... the higher score is awarded when a shot touches the line between two zones. In the finals, eight shooters compete firing shot by shot on command. The 10 rings on the target are sub-divided into ten “decimal” score zones (10.0 to 10.9), the highest score for a shot 10.9. The finals score is added to the qualification score to determine the winner.”

Here’s how small the margin is for error. In the qualifications, Henri Hakkinen led with 598; that is, he missed that dot of a target just twice in 60 shots. Bindra got 596, and at a point less Gagan Narang did not make the finals. Or remember Katerina Emmons. On Saturday she shot right on target all 40 times in the qualifications.

More in store?

Could there be five more medals for India at these Games? In June, PriceWaterhouseCoopers made a projection of six medals, something that would still make the country an “underachiever”. It predicted 88 medals for China and 87 for the United States. This forecast was based roughly on these factors: population; average income levels (GDP per capita at PPP exchange rates); whether the country was at some point part of the Soviet/communist bloc; whether it is the host nation; medal shares in the previous Olympic games.

On India, a reason for under-achievement was said to be the popularity of sports that are not part of the Olympics, primarily, of course, cricket.

Support cast

Abhinav Bindra’s (and also Saina Nehwal’s pre-quarterfinals win over sixth seed Wang Chen) was especially keenly tracked in Beijing by a team of persons led by former tennis player Manisha Malhotra. She is part of the Mittal Champions Trust, named for the eponymous steel giant. Founded after the Athens Olympics, the MCT has taken on sportspersons, including Bindra, Nehwal and archer Mangal Singh Champia, with the commitment of providing them focused training and assistance. Bindra’s gold will of course have a cluster effect in shooting in India, but it may also draw the private sector in India into funding sports.