BBC Sports Personality of the Year

First topic message reminder :

The BBC have announced this year’s nominations for the Sports Personality of the Year and they are as follows:


Alistair Cook
Amir Khan
Andrew Strauss
Andy Murray
Dai Greene
Darren Clarke
Luke Donald
Mark Cavendish
Mo Farah
Rory McIlroy

I’d like to ask people who are knowledgeable on any of the above nominations to submit to me a brief paragraph or two with the nominees achievements over the past 12 months and the reasons for why they should be included. If you are interested in this please PM me.

Do you agree with the nominees? Are there any glaring omissions? And most importantly who do you think will win?

McLaren.

Sure, but for me a race win is kind of the same as winning a minor tournament in tennis (ATP 500 or 250 say) or a smaller golf tournament. As for the other 9 points positions, they're great for guys like Sutil, Di Resta and Alguesuari, but for Button or Hamilton it's really only top spot that should count towards something like SPOTY, unless say it's a run of 12 consecutive podiums or so...

Button had a good year, did much better than expected, but I just can't see what he did that deserves getting him on that list ahead of any of the candidates.

Scottrf wrote:

super_realist wrote:Mac, I didn't say I didn't know anything about them, I said I wasn't a fan.
F1 is by and large an engineering competition, I don't doubt the fitness of the driver, but ultimately it comes down more to which team you drive for whether you will win the championship or not.
It isn't a level playing field and so loses the sporting element for me.

And cycling doesn't come down to your team?

Course it does, just like every individual sportsman has a team, but when so much is to do with the engineering then it denudes the achievements of the driver.
Motorsports are not very even playing fields.

Scottrf wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to be quite frank though McLaren, in F1 the drivers title is pretty much all there is to win. Sure there's the constructor's championship but that's even more down to the car, and Button didn't win that either. Then there's individual races, which are great, but not enough for me to displace any of those on the list.

The cricketers are worthy nominations though, reaching n°1 in the world is a hell of an achievement. However, it was such a team effort I don't think giving it to one of the individuals would be quite right.

If Button won the most races but didn't win the title, he wouldn't get much credit would he? There's no green jersey in F1.

Button winning the most races but not the title would be for me comparable to Cavendish winning the most (sprint) stages but not the Green Jersey, ie what happened the last two years. Enough to make the shortlist, but not enough to win the vote. Does that make sense?

super_realist wrote:

rowley wrote:

super_realist wrote:Cricket, are you serious? The Ashes is a 50/50 coin toss.
Winning that is hardly an international achievement while World Cricket is in a bit of a crisis.

Absolutely, you only have to look over the last fifty years how many countries have absolutely dominated Australia in a test series in Australia, happens every other week.

Australia are probably at their lowest ebb in all sports for decades. If england hadn't won the ashes convincingly there would have been an inquest. All they've achieved is exactly what was expected of them, namely beat a poor quality team.

and whitewashed India,
and became n°1 in the world.

Yep, just what was expected

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Button winning the most races but not the title would be for me comparable to Cavendish winning the most (sprint) stages but not the Green Jersey, ie what happened the last two years. Enough to make the shortlist, but not enough to win the vote. Does that make sense?

It does, but should one get more credit because there are extra categories for him to win in?

Just playing devils advocate.

Cav did a lot more than win the green jersey too. World Championships also.

super_realist wrote:

rowley wrote:

super_realist wrote:Cricket, are you serious? The Ashes is a 50/50 coin toss.
Winning that is hardly an international achievement while World Cricket is in a bit of a crisis.

Absolutely, you only have to look over the last fifty years how many countries have absolutely dominated Australia in a test series in Australia, happens every other week.

Australia are probably at their lowest ebb in all sports for decades. If england hadn't won the ashes convincingly there would have been an inquest. All they've achieved is exactly what was expected of them, namely beat a poor quality team.

And then followed it up by absolutely dominating the number one team in the world in India, you think Cavendish is more deserving, fine I personally don't know enough about cycling to comment but does not mean you have to denigrate Cook or any of the other cricketers achievements to make the point because by any standards the test team have been truly remarkable this year and Cook has a the kind of year with the bat that few could ever dream of.

Are you really going to count a past time in which you stop for Cucumber sandwiches a credible sport?

Oh dear me, I suggest you actually have a clue about the sport before making such comments. Farcical.

Super

“Mac, I didn't say I didn't know anything about them, I said I wasn't a fan.
F1 is by and large an engineering competition, I don't doubt the fitness of the driver, but ultimately it comes down more to which team you drive for whether you will win the championship or not.
It isn't a level playing field and so loses the sporting element for me.”


So you admit it comes down to the fact button did not have a fast enough car to win the championship? Then you must surely agree how you perform relative to the car is very important?

If so, to maintain even a modicum of logical thinking you must also agree that the driver who performs the best relative to their car could be considered the best driver in pure sporting terms. This driver happens to be button for 2011 and so I would imagine the best driver in F1 is enough of a performance to be included in a shortlist for sports personality of the year.

super_realist wrote:Are you really going to count a past time in which you stop for Cucumber sandwiches a credible sport?

As opposed to the one where Happy Gilmore is the thing that makes the "sport" most famous?

Take a hike.

Fists of Fury wrote:

super_realist wrote:Are you really going to count a past time in which you stop for Cucumber sandwiches a credible sport?

As opposed to the one where Happy Gilmore is the thing that makes the "sport" most famous?

Take a hike.

Shhhh!

*Hopes no one mentions Rocky*

Fists of Fury wrote:

super_realist wrote:Are you really going to count a past time in which you stop for Cucumber sandwiches a credible sport?

As opposed to the one where Happy Gilmore is the thing that makes the "sport" most famous?

Take a hike.

If you'd bothered to read a few posts earlier you'd note I don't consider golf a sport either.

Cavendish has had a great year but there is no way that he has won more of note than Cook and Strauss. the Ashes is far bigger than anything in cycling except for a the tdf (overall) and maybe an olympic gold.

Given that the Ashes were in Oz, it makes even more of an achievement, and yes I am considering the team v individual factor.

As for Murray, why is he even on the shortlist? Presumably something to do with the bbc keeping Sue Barker happy. Henman was always a nominee and he was even worse than AM.
My top 3; Cook, Mo, Cavendish

I meant; Cook, Mo, Rory M
Cheers

I'm fighting out of the cricket corner on this one scotty, otherwise I'd be in trouble with regard to Rocky haha.

Although, Muhammad Ali had a bigger impact on the sport than Rocky, thankfully, as did Iron Mike.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that Mac, I thought Alonso outperformed the car more than Button did, and to an extent it's a bit harsh to leave Vettel out of the discussion just because he had a superior car: he was superb all year. That's the problem with F1, because it's such an uneven playing field it's incredibly hard to judge exactly who the best driver is over a season. For instance I thought Alguesuari did a fantastic job this year...

super_realist wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

super_realist wrote:Are you really going to count a past time in which you stop for Cucumber sandwiches a credible sport?

As opposed to the one where Happy Gilmore is the thing that makes the "sport" most famous?

Take a hike.

If you'd bothered to read a few posts earlier you'd note I don't consider golf a sport either.

Such a pity the BBC don't consult you before putting the short list together.

super_realist wrote:If you'd bothered to read a few posts earlier you'd note I don't consider golf a sport either.

Which sports do you consider to be sports then? What are your criteria?

damngoodOvalball wrote:Cavendish has had a great year but there is no way that he has won more of note than Cook and Strauss. the Ashes is far bigger than anything in cycling except for a the tdf (overall) and maybe an olympic gold.

I have to disagree on the latter sentence. In cycling terms, winning the Worlds means a lot more than Olympic gold. Heck, winning the green jersey is probably bigger. The Olympics road race isn't that big a deal in cycling (same as tennis)

damngoodOvalball wrote:Cavendish has had a great year but there is no way that he has won more of note than Cook and Strauss. the Ashes is far bigger than anything in cycling except for a the tdf (overall) and maybe an olympic gold.

Given that the Ashes were in Oz, it makes even more of an achievement, and yes I am considering the team v individual factor.

As for Murray, why is he even on the shortlist? Presumably something to do with the bbc keeping Sue Barker happy. Henman was always a nominee and he was even worse than AM.
My top 3; Cook, Mo, Cavendish

A very British way of looking at things. On the continent winning the World Cycling Championships is far bigger than a colonial cricket competition.
Most people in the world have never even heard of cricket. Everyone knows what cycling is.
(I'm not even a cycling fan BTW)

OK - you are now proving yourself to be beyond stupid.

"most people in the world don't know what cricket is" - well, considering India, with over a billion people and nigh on 20% of the worlds population is cricket mad, and all of them know what it is, you might just be wrong again. Give it up. It is embarrassing. Where's a ref to stop this punishment?

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:If you'd bothered to read a few posts earlier you'd note I don't consider golf a sport either.

Which sports do you consider to be sports then? What are your criteria?

1. You don't wear trousers.
2. You don't stop for lunch
3. You expend energy, require athleticism and your success is determined by at least matching the fitness of your peers.
4. You are not supported by a motor engine.
5. You are on a level playing field.
6. Winning is determined by talent, training , practice and tactics.

super_realist wrote:A very British way of looking at things.

It's a British award

DP. (don't get excited Alex.)

super_realist wrote:

A very British way of looking at things. On the continent winning the World Cycling Championships is far bigger than a colonial cricket competition.

Such a pity people on the continent will not be voting for this. As I said earlier I don't know anywhere near enough about cycling to comment on Cav's acheivements but the reality is for most casual sports fans cycling means the Tour De France and as cav did not win this I suspect he will struggle to attract the votes, is the same in amateur boxing most agree the world championships are tougher than the Olympics but you can absolutely guarantee an Olympic medal will garner you a damned sight more press than the equivalent medal will in the worlds.

Fists of Fury wrote:OK - you are now proving yourself to be beyond stupid.

"most people in the world don't know what cricket is" - well, considering India, with over a billion people and nigh on 20% of the worlds population is cricket mad, and all of them know what it is, you might just be wrong again. Give it up. It is embarrassing. Where's a ref to stop this punishment?

20% is still a minority. The population of the world is now 7bn. So if you add on 1bn for ex colonial countries that still leaves a majority of 4 billion who have no interest in cricket. So England being number one in a sport played by a few countries is not that big a deal.

Scottrf wrote:

super_realist wrote:A very British way of looking at things.

It's a British award

You can say that again.

Union Cane wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

super_realist wrote:A very British way of looking at things.

It's a British award

You can say that again.

Why?

super_realist wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:If you'd bothered to read a few posts earlier you'd note I don't consider golf a sport either.

Which sports do you consider to be sports then? What are your criteria?

1. You don't wear trousers.
2. You don't stop for lunch
3. You expend energy, require athleticism and your success is determined by at least matching the fitness of your peers.
4. You are not supported by a motor engine.
5. You are on a level playing field.
6. Winning is determined by talent, training , practice and tactics.

sounds a lot like wrestling to me

Super realist - how does cricket not involve the expenditure of energy? You do realise just how much athleticism is required to be a fast bowler, right?

Likewise, the endurance needed to bat out an entire day, or spend an entire day in the field, is not to be scoffed at. Slightly more difficult than 4 hours of golf, that's for sure!

Wear trousers in judo and karate, they mustn't be sports.

Fists of Fury wrote:Super realist - how does cricket not involve the expenditure of energy? You do realise just how much athleticism is required to be a fast bowler, right?

Likewise, the endurance needed to bat out an entire day, or spend an entire day in the field, is not to be scoffed at. Slightly more difficult than 4 hours of golf, that's for sure!

It doesn't fulfill criteria 1 so that's irrelevant.

Fists, you can still be a fat b*****d and be a successful cricketer.

You shouldn't be able to get away with that in any sport.
All you have to do is swing a bat and run between wickets, you might have to run for a ball every 10 minutes in the field. It's not athletic enough (my opinion)

actually test cricket is one of the most physically demanding sports. Still think Cavendish deserves the award though, but I agree with rowley he probably won't get it because of lack of exposure, which is a real shame.

super_realist wrote:Fists, you can still be a fat b*****d and be a successful cricketer.

not anymore you can't. Maybe ten years ago, but it's moved on since...

rowley wrote:Wear trousers in judo and karate, they mustn't be sports.

Tennis wasn't a sport but now it is.

super_realist wrote:Fists, you can still be a fat b*****d and be a successful cricketer.

Fat Ronaldo was one of the best footballers ever. Fat George Foreman won the Heavyweight title. A lot of props are fat.

Shane Warne, Robert Key, Darren Gough, Sehwag were all fat.

Skating is only a sport in the summer.

super_realist wrote:Shane Warne, Robert Key, Darren Gough, Sehwag were all fat.

Warne a little, Key maybe, but hardly a hugely successful cricketer. I've seen fatter professional boxers certainly. Gough and Sehwag, no way, sorry.

Sehwag, is/was certainly fat

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=sehwag&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb&biw=958&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbnid=K6cIEM1EN6DYUM:&imgrefurl=http://www.rediff.com/cricket/report/world-cup-2011-india-not-taking-bangladesh-lightly-virender-sehwag/20110204.htm&docid=Dx6mTitNATyCIM&imgurl=http://im.rediff.com/cricket/2011/feb/04sehwag.jpg&w=300&h=336&ei=U_jUTtqkGYm3hAfC6_hp&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=198&vpy=131&dur=171&hovh=238&hovw=212&tx=149&ty=177&sig=100195772177539789495&page=1&tbnh=123&tbnw=130&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0

super_realist wrote:1. You don't wear trousers.
2. You don't stop for lunch
3. You expend energy, require athleticism and your success is determined by at least matching the fitness of your peers.
4. You are not supported by a motor engine.
5. You are on a level playing field.
6. Winning is determined by talent, training , practice and tactics.

A man an a woman are partaking in the "sport" of figure skating, however according to your rules it's a sport for the woman but not the man.

Your system is flawed, sir.

if that's your definition of fat, then they're a hell of a lot of fat people in the world. now darts players on the other hand...

Another vote for Mark Cavendish from me, although it was close between him and Alistair Cook. Mo Farah would have been my third pick.

Where's the voting option on Macclads / Hero's name change? I know where my vote would be cast.

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:1. You don't wear trousers.
2. You don't stop for lunch
3. You expend energy, require athleticism and your success is determined by at least matching the fitness of your peers.
4. You are not supported by a motor engine.
5. You are on a level playing field.
6. Winning is determined by talent, training , practice and tactics.

A man an a woman are partaking in the "sport" of figure skating, however according to your rules it's a sport for the woman but not the man.

Your system is flawed, sir.

Should have added any sport in which you are judged on points.

You need to either win by coming first, or have the best score, being judged by a panel isn't a sport to me.

super_realist wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:1. You don't wear trousers.
2. You don't stop for lunch
3. You expend energy, require athleticism and your success is determined by at least matching the fitness of your peers.
4. You are not supported by a motor engine.
5. You are on a level playing field.
6. Winning is determined by talent, training , practice and tactics.

A man an a woman are partaking in the "sport" of figure skating, however according to your rules it's a sport for the woman but not the man.

Your system is flawed, sir.

Should have added any sport in which you are judged on points.

You need to either win by coming first, or have the best score, being judged by a panel isn't a sport to me.

So boxing is not a sport, you sir are talking absolute rot.

so that's any combat sport ruled out then too. Very exclusive this SR sportsclub

Boxing, Golf, Formula 1, Cricket, American Football, Snooker, Horse Racing and possibly Rugby and Football need to be removed from the BBC Sports pages.

Scottrf wrote:Boxing, Golf, Formula 1, Cricket, American Football, Snooker, Horse Racing and possibly Rugby and Football need to be removed from the BBC Sports pages.

Baseball as well Scott, trouser wearing frauds.