Why have Great Britain done so well at Rio 2016?

“Thanks to all the National Lottery players.”

It’s the omnipresent remark in the interviews of chuffed GB Olympians. And they have reason to be grateful. Without people pursuing their dream of becoming a millionaire – and failing on a bi-weekly basis – GB would not have had the same success in Rio.

Roughly 20 per cent of lottery funds are plundered into sport, a figure that equates to approximately three quarters of UK Sport’s money pool. We don’t want to get overtly political, but former UK Prime Minister John Major is the man behind the vision. He encouraged the system after GB returned from the Atlanta Games in 1996 with just a solitary gold medal.

However, that funding has created competition.

To justify the stream of cash into high-profile sport, results have to be immediate. Those that failed to meet targets at London 2012 saw their funding cut or chopped entirely, à la basketball, synchronised swimming and water polo, and are struggling to survive. A four-year cycle of children were under-exposed to those sports – a potentially serious side-effect of an unerring desire to win.

However, the beneficiaries of such a programme, notably cycling and gymnastics, have seen a dramatic rise in medals. Success breeds success; or, in this case, success breeds more money to create success – whether that’s research, equipment or training innovations.

With a share of £350 million on offer across an Olympic cycle, a fierce ‘win at all costs’ mentality has spread across British sport. Damaging for the grassroots, yes, but helpful – at least in the short-term – for dominating on the greatest stage.

Like every host nation, Great Britain were determined to dominate at their home Olympics. That meant unleashing a solid dress rehearsal in the precursor at Beijing 2008.

Prior to those Games, GB rarely triumphed in cycling and it was completely unfathomable they could wrestle away a gymnastics medal. Then Chris Hoy led an assault on the velodrome where GB claimed an astonishing eight golds, while Louis Smith collected their first gymnastics medal in 80 years in the pommel horse.

UK Sport have identified certain disciplines and thrown their financial weight behind them. And it's worked.

The British must also doff their hats to China, who slumped spectacularly to finish third in the overall medal table. Whether it was the climate, or the classic ‘second Games’ syndrome – the second Olympics after the one you hosted – will be debated across Olympics headquarters over the coming weeks.

Russia still finished fourth, despite having a spree of athletes banned following the sweeping state-sponsored doping allegations. All athletics and weightlifting competitors were banned. Had the entire truck load of athletes been in Rio – an already exhausted debate – it’s likely GB would have fewer gold medals and Russia would have far more than their 19.

Kudos to Andy Murray, Nicola Adams, Alistair Brownlee, Helen Glover and Heather Stanning, Mo Farah, Laura Trott, Jason Kenny… the list goes on. A hefty chunk of returning stars from London 2012 produced in Rio.

However, it can – and will – be twisted into a scare tale ahead of Tokyo 2020. Farah will likely call it a day on the track in 2017; Adams will be 37 in four years’ time; Murray is unlikely to win a third tennis title; Brownlee has already hinted at retirement. To conclude: GB needs to uncover the next batch of future Olympians, otherwise we could follow China’s dip into the unknown (or third, as it's also known).