Putting Glasgow into perspective

These Commonwealth games are set to be our best since 1990 (Auckland)  In the years since we have:

1994 at Victoria Canada won 42 medals and placed 8th on the table.
1998 at Kuala Lumpur won 34 medals and placed 6th.
2002 at Manchester won 45 medals and placed 5th.
2006 at Melbourne won 31 and placed 9th.
2010 at Dehli won 36 and placed 11th.

With one day to go in Glasgow we have won 43 medals and are currently placed at 6th and no likelihood of catching those ahead.

If anything these games have stopped a slide evident in recent games (Dave Currie factor??) and shows a healthy trend.  Still for a country that prides itself on sporting achievement is this games really a success?  Money is being put into high performance sport at a larger scale than pre Auckland games yet we find ourselves averaging 7.5th place with 38.5 medals per games.  Is that an  ideal return?

Personally I feel we do well, but unlike in other sporting codes we don't punch above our weight.  In some sports during these games I got this feeling some athletes were either awed at being a competitor or were heavily talked up based on previous performances and seemed bored with their lot (Willis/Farquhar).  But who am I to complain?  They're there and I'm in my chair.  Go hard all you wonderful Kiwis, but Sport New Zealand, get them all going harder next time around and into the future.  Make sure that money is well spent.