While the UK will probably be boosted by modifying scores to adjust for different systems - as they were more successful in the earlier years - I do think it's a little silly to see all the Brits absolutely denying that they'll be overtaken on the unadjusted score board this year. Over the last five years - as in, the important ones to look at if we're trying to find a trend and predict future results - the UK has averaged 37 points in the final, while Sweden has averaged 167 (counting 2010's entry as 0 points due to its non-qualification). That means that, over the last five years, Sweden has beaten the UK by an average of 130 points. Is it really so absurd to suggest that they'll be ahead by 81 points this year?
Now, I'm not trying to say that Sweden is some kind of ESC god, or deny that the UK has been a very successful country, but I think it's important to remember that there have been very significant changes in countries' performance with time. Does the UK have a great Eurovision history? Yes. Does it still deserve its title of 'best Eurovision country'? No, I don't think it does; at least not without some kind of modifier. Imagine if someone who doesn't know much about the contest were to ask which country is the strongest, and were told 'it's the UK'; wouldn't that completely misrepresent the situation without some kind of clarifying information?
I think it's important to see an all-time scoreboard as what it is: one metric of representing numbers that can't be easily summed up. Certain countries are strong in certain lights, and certain time periods, and that's about all there is to it.
Of course, with most of my descendants coming from the UK - and with my feeling that their last year's entry was completely robbed in the voting - I'd like nothing more than for the UK to return to its former Eurovision glory. For now, though, any attempt to simply call them (or Sweden, or Azerbaijan, or anyone else for that matter) the strongest Eurovision country is misguided.
)
