Wouldn't a more accurate "per population" for "winning" be medals per participant?
Higher population means a larger chance of finding great athletes in there. The 100 best athletes of a country of 300 million are likely to be better on average than the 100 best athletes of a country of 10 million people, even if they both send an equal amount of players, you can bet that the large country is going to take home more wins.
So basically, neither way of measuring is really accurate. At the end of the day you can only really look at what medal a country won that were unexpected and where there weren't any medals won even though there was a realistic chance to do so and then figure out if you're satisfied as a country or not.
That all said, I immensely enjoyed the cycling road races and the hockey tournaments, didn't watch much else.
It was really sad that the Dutch men only took home hockey silver though, after the absolutely phenomenal play they showed in the semi finals, pushing aside Britain with 9-2 they couldn't quite get up to speed vs the Germans. The women took home gold as expected of them, although it was a struggle in the semi finals against New Zealand, having probably the best keeper in women's hockey today helped them win that though.