Olympics

First topic message reminder :

6-14 August
Perhaps in need of own thread.
Discuss build up and matches here.

Top of the billing with be Djokovic and Murray, and then Rafa who is currently scheduled to play, and planning to travel to Rio, but still not completely clear that he will play singles.

TRuffin copied this list from aother site and put it on the Toronto thread, I've added Federer, the rest is per July 23 post of Truffin. Edited August 2nd to add Wawrinka.

Out from top 10
#3 - Federer
#4 - Wawrinka
#7 - Raonic
#8 - Berdych
#9 - Thiem

Out from 11 - 20
#14 - Gasquet (also out of RC with injury)
#16 - Isner
#18 - Kyrgios
#19 - Tomic

Out from 21 - 30
#21 - F Lopez
#22 - Pouille
#29 - Querrey

Out from 31 - 40
#33 - Anderson
#35 - Karlovic
#37 - Dolgopolov
#38 - Chardy

I haven't heard about withdrawals on the women's side of the singles, but a lot of big names seem to be in.

Henman Bill wrote:so which of you Europeans stayed up for the 100 metres final, and thought might as well watch the tennis

or is it vice versa - you've stayed up late for the tennis, and now you might as well watch the 100 metres final

I couldn't care less about the 100m. Never really understood why it's the headline track and field event. I find the longer distances much more compelling. I also like the field events, as the gold medal position can change multiple times (e.g. Saturday's long jump final).

Q

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Let's hope they introduce a 2 slam entry requirement for the next Olympics, so that we can avoid that kind of rubbish.

Of course, I'm joking. Thought that was a very entertaining match. Sure there were dips from both, but flawless tennis would probably be dull.

Let's not be too hard on BS. When you dislike a certain player's style, it's all too easy to downgrade their abilities and achievements. We all have our preferences and pet hates and the forum would be very insipid without them. Anyway, I know BS likes a good argument, so he probably doesn't give a toss what we think.

I thought it was a good quality final. I dislike DPs style because he's limited - I don't find him limited because I dislike him. I actually think he seems a great guy and am pleased for him that he's back. I just never want him (or anyone like him) to be the best player in the world.

Murray lucks out twice in two events...cupcake draws at Wimbledon and Rio...two devalued titles will help him pretend that there's a big 4, which there never has been. Murray is a mental midget and I hope he gets ripped a new one by Djokovic in New York.

Henman Bill wrote:This being said, Murray has not actually played well enough in this tournament to beat Djokovic, and I think Djokovic is still the slight favourite - assuming fully fit by the tournament starts that is, which may not be the case.

He's been barely 6 out of 10. But this type of Indy slow high bouncing hard court, is never his favourite type

Jermaine2015 wrote:Murray lucks out twice in two events...cupcake draws at Wimbledon and Rio...two devalued titles will help him pretend that there's a big 4, which there never has been. Murray is a mental midget and I hope he gets ripped a new one by Djokovic in New York.

We all agree that the three time major and twice Olympic Gold medal, Davis Cup winner is indeed a mental midget

Anything else?

Born Slippy wrote:Q

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Let's hope they introduce a 2 slam entry requirement for the next Olympics, so that we can avoid that kind of rubbish.

Of course, I'm joking. Thought that was a very entertaining match. Sure there were dips from both, but flawless tennis would probably be dull.

Let's not be too hard on BS. When you dislike a certain player's style, it's all too easy to downgrade their abilities and achievements. We all have our preferences and pet hates and the forum would be very insipid without them. Anyway, I know BS likes a good argument, so he probably doesn't give a toss what we think.

I thought it was a good quality final. I dislike DPs style because he's limited - I don't find him limited because I dislike him. I actually think he seems a great guy and am pleased for him that he's back. I just never want him (or anyone like him) to be the best player in the world.

I agree with that

Above China in the medal table thanks to Murray! That is unbelievable. Of course, the way the events pan out, China will be far ahead by the end but that is still an amazing result at the half way mark.

Jermaine2015 - I think you might have been able to enjoy yourself on the old 606, several years ago.

But it's a very different forum these days and the playground talk finished long ago.

BS - I wasn't suggesting you dislike the man, just his game. You talk as if DP's limited game is objective fact, but that's really not the case. You clearly really dislike the way he plays and I think that's clouding your judgement. You're going to be in a massive minority if you think DP is more limited than every other current top 20 player. I wasn't even sure it was a serious question.

Of course, the whole concept of what constitutes a limited player is ill defined and impossible to measure, so we're not going to resolve any time soon. I probably have similarly strong views about Berdych. If Berdych had ended up number 1, I'd have probably renounced the sport. Knowing you a bit as a poster, I am still surprised that you think DP is more limited and more objectionable to watch than Berdych. High level tennis is a multi-faceted sport and I think that there are so many facets where DP scores more highly (particularly pre the left wrist injury).

Djoko and Murray get similar treatment from those that don't like defensive prowess and, therefore, assume that more defensive orientated, counter punching players are always bereft of talent and merely do lots of running, which is so far from the truth, I'm sure you'll agree.

I think the question mark with Del Potro is does he really construct a point, or does he just play each shot individually? And, does that matter in assessing the attractiveness of someone's game. Does he play with a kind of raw, blunt power that's in some ways .lesser that the sleekness of the Federer power? Or is it just as good.

Is sheer power less attractive than sheer skill? I remember one shot against Rafa at Wimbledon years ago, he hit a clean winner from baseline to baseline. It was nowhere near the corner and it was really 1 step to Rafa's side, but he couldn't get there.

Jermaine2015 wrote:Murray lucks out twice in two events...cupcake draws at Wimbledon and Rio...two devalued titles will help him pretend that there's a big 4, which there never has been. Murray is a mental midget and I hope he gets ripped a new one by Djokovic in New York.

Reminds me of that old golfing quote 'the more I practice, the luckier I get'. Presumably, given Murray's list of achievements, if you think he's such a mental midget, you must also think he is incredibly talented to have achieved so much without any mental reserves to draw on. Am I right?

"That felt better than anything I've ever won. It was the best tournament I've ever done," said Rose.

That's quite a quote coming from someone who has won a major, and also knows the feeling of holing a >100 yarder on the 18th on the final day or a major as an amateur.

Still, I accept the point that some of these quotes come in the spur of the moment, and are from the happy winners not the bitter losers, but even so.

banbrotam wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Murray lucks out twice in two events...cupcake draws at Wimbledon and Rio...two devalued titles will help him pretend that there's a big 4, which there never has been. Murray is a mental midget and I hope he gets ripped a new one by Djokovic in New York.

We all agree that the three time major and twice Olympic Gold medal, Davis Cup winner is indeed a mental midget

Anything else?

Come back when the mental midget beats 2 of the 3 on route to winning a major title. Del Potro done it. Djokovic done it. Wawrinka done it.

3/11 in major finals. You guessed it Murray is that bottle job.

Amazing improvement in recent years by GB in the medal table, can anyone remember 1996, we won one gold in the whole Olympics. Just looking it up, from 1924 to 1996, never in double figures, ending with 1 gold at Atalanta in 1996. Then 11 at Sydney, 9 at Athens, 19 at Beijing, 29 at London, 15 so far at Rio. Let's hope there's no drugs behind too many of them.

Henman Bill wrote:"That felt better than anything I've ever won. It was the best tournament I've ever done," said Rose.

That's quite a quote coming from someone who has won a major, and also knows the feeling of holing a >100 yarder on the 18th on the final day or a major as an amateur.

Still, I accept the point that some of these quotes come in the spur of the moment, and are from the happy winners not the bitter losers, but even so.

2012 US Open Murray only won due Djokovic's physically and mentally being spent after heartbreaking loses at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

2013 Wimbledon Djokovic was against mentally shot after his defeat at Roland Garros

2016 Wimbledon cupcake draw....

PS If you want to wind up Murray fans, you're probably better off sticking to gloating when he loses. We're all basking in the warm glow of tennis history being made and your predictably bitter comments just make it all the sweeter. Either way, I don't think anyone pays you much attention. Perhaps you would have more effect if you could build up your credibility as a knowledgeable poster. Why not give it a try?

Jermaine2015 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Murray lucks out twice in two events...cupcake draws at Wimbledon and Rio...two devalued titles will help him pretend that there's a big 4, which there never has been. Murray is a mental midget and I hope he gets ripped a new one by Djokovic in New York.

We all agree that the three time major and twice Olympic Gold medal, Davis Cup winner is indeed a mental midget

Anything else?

Come back when the mental midget beats 2 of the 3 on route to winning a major title. Del Potro done it. Djokovic done it. Wawrinka done it.

3/11 in major finals. You guessed it Murray is that bottle job.

So are you suggesting that Murray has the same tennis ability as all time greats Roger and Novak? You're very flattering, but I think the more likely explanation is he simply isn't as good as them.

Based on the semi finals, Bolt looks huge favourite to me in this final coming up shortly. All he really needs to do is not false start, or get out of the blocks really horribly. If he is roughly near the front after 10 metres, then for the remaining 90 he can probably run along with his shoe laces tied advertising Virgin while doing that signature celebration, throw in a couple of Mobots, wave and blow kisses to the crowd, receive and drink a glass of champagne, and still win.

Jermaine2015 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:"That felt better than anything I've ever won. It was the best tournament I've ever done," said Rose.

That's quite a quote coming from someone who has won a major, and also knows the feeling of holing a >100 yarder on the 18th on the final day or a major as an amateur.

Still, I accept the point that some of these quotes come in the spur of the moment, and are from the happy winners not the bitter losers, but even so.

2012 US Open Murray only won due Djokovic's physically and mentally being spent after heartbreaking loses at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

2013 Wimbledon Djokovic was against mentally shot after his defeat at Roland Garros

2016 Wimbledon cupcake draw....

You do know that Novak's 3 Wimbledon wins all came after heart-breaking losses at RG. In contrast, this year he won RG and crashed out of Wimbledon in the third round.

Jermaine2015 wrote:

2012 US Open Murray only won due Djokovic's physically and mentally being spent after heartbreaking loses at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

2013 Wimbledon Djokovic was against mentally shot after his defeat at Roland Garros

2016 Wimbledon cupcake draw....

Djokovic "mentally spent" ........  ??

Djokovic "mentally shot" ........... ??

You're talking about Djoko as though he's some sort of mental midget.

I'm not sure how many would agree with you on that. Probably nobody.

Was not as easy as I thought for Bolt, somewhat sluggish start, and only 0.05s faster than his casual stroll in the semi, I think he was a bit nervous. I wonder if that is the last time we will see him run 100 metres at the Olympics (apart from the relay).

lags72 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

2012 US Open Murray only won due Djokovic's physically and mentally being spent after heartbreaking loses at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

2013 Wimbledon Djokovic was against mentally shot after his defeat at Roland Garros

2016 Wimbledon cupcake draw....

Djokovic "mentally spent" ........  ??

Djokovic "mentally shot" ........... ??

You're talking about Djoko as though he's some sort of mental midget.

I'm not sure how many would agree with you on that. Probably nobody.

Nice attempt to try and put words in my mouth...

Difference between Federer/Nadal/Djokovic and a loser like Murray. The big 3 expect to win the big events. Murray relies on others failing to be gifted the big events

Jermaine the Gerry

Well done Andy and great to see Delpo back to his best remembered form

Needing several strong cups of coffee to get moving today after sitting up to watch Murray and Mr Bolt - totally worth it!

Think that may have been one of Murray's best finals just in terms of sheer tenacity and grit - it was certainly nerve wracking to watch.  You have to feel for Del Potro and what an amazing effort from him after a long match with Rafa.  

What a day for the Brits with Murray, Max Whitlock, Louis Smith, Jason Kenney (and Callum Whatisface), Justin Rose and the windsurfer whose name I forget.  

On Juan Martin del Potro and his merits as a player - it is great to have him back competing at the highest level and winning accolades after the nightmares he has been through. He brings his own unique style onto court - a mix of powerful groundstrokes and big serve but with good volleying ability and surprisingly good feel for touch volleys. I'd certainly his game provides more threat and challenges when on form than Raonic.

Great to have you back Juan and loved the warm embrace at the end - mutual respect.

Another night on the Andy Murray rollercoaster but he came through in the end despite his serve not really functioning. Well done Andy. As CC and others have said it is great to see Delpo back and challenging again. Hope that he gets a long injury free spell now.

Looking forward already to Murray/DelPo rematch in the Davis Cup semi.

Do you know that watching Delpo last night was the closest I think I will ever get to see a phoenix rising from the ashes on the sporting field and it was a wonderful sight.

Nice analogy CC!

What a gruelling Gold Medal match. Tremendous fighting spirit from both finalists. Andy wins Wimbledon and an Olympic Gold in 2016, yet may not even win the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year as the extraordinary is now becoming common place for the Scot!
It's been suggested that both players were clinging on together in the embrace after the final point as they were worried that if they let go they would just fall over.
Echo earlier comments that it's good to see del Po back, although I hope he's not taken too much out of himself. Incredible he was able to play so hard for four hours after his three-hour semi.

Congrats to Murray!

Welcome back DelPo. Hoping it sticks this time.

Good summary from the BBC here (copy and paste job from BBC article)

In Murray, Del Potro came up against a player on a career-defining run in the final.

After inspiring Britain to a first Davis Cup win in 79 years in November, Murray was voted the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year, before reaching the Australian and French Open finals and winning Wimbledon for the second time.

He also became a father earlier this year and led GB out at the opening ceremony of Rio 2016 as his country's flag bearer.

On the court, he has lost just one of his past 30 matches, a run stretching back six months, and has been world number two since November, barring a one-week drop to third in May.

The BBC then adds that this may be Murray's greatest achievement (Russell Fuller). What absolute nonsense. I've been banging the drum for Murray, but this has to be about the 6th most important title of his career behind his three slams, first Olympics, and first Davis Cup. Even his first masters and first ATP title probably made him happier at the time.

Found this on the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/15/no-respite-for-drained-andy-murray-after-claiming-historic-olympic-tennis-gold

He was unable to say if this was his finest achievement.

“I’m really happy to have won tonight, but it’s not really for me to say that."

Translation: "No, it isn't."

Reading through that piece on the Guardian, it looks like he was subjected to a rather silly interview on the court.

Henman Bill wrote:Good summary from the BBC here (copy and paste job from BBC article)

In Murray, Del Potro came up against a player on a career-defining run in the final.

After inspiring Britain to a first Davis Cup win in 79 years in November, Murray was voted the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year, before reaching the Australian and French Open finals and winning Wimbledon for the second time.

He also became a father earlier this year and led GB out at the opening ceremony of Rio 2016 as his country's flag bearer.

On the court, he has lost just one of his past 30 matches, a run stretching back six months, and has been world number two since November, barring a one-week drop to third in May.

The BBC then adds that this may be Murray's greatest achievement (Russell Fuller). What absolute nonsense. I've been banging the drum for Murray, but this has to be about the 6th most important title of his career behind his three slams, first Olympics, and first Davis Cup. Even his first masters and first ATP title probably made him happier at the time.

I wouldn't worry abut it too much Henman Bill as this is merely a journalist's opinion.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:BS - I wasn't suggesting you dislike the man, just his game. You talk as if DP's limited game is objective fact, but that's really not the case. You clearly really dislike the way he plays and I think that's clouding your judgement. You're going to be in a massive minority if you think DP is more limited than every other current top 20 player. I wasn't even sure it was a serious question.

Of course, the whole concept of what constitutes a limited player is ill defined and impossible to measure, so we're not going to resolve any time soon. I probably have similarly strong views about Berdych. If Berdych had ended up number 1, I'd have probably renounced the sport. Knowing you a bit as a poster, I am still surprised that you think DP is more limited and more objectionable to watch than Berdych. High level tennis is a multi-faceted sport and I think that there are so many facets where DP scores more highly (particularly pre the left wrist injury).

Djoko and Murray get similar treatment from those that don't like defensive prowess and, therefore, assume that more defensive orientated, counter punching players are always bereft of talent and merely do lots of running, which is so far from the truth, I'm sure you'll agree.

But the reason I dislike his game is because it is limited, so I don't really understand why you think my judgement is being clouded. In fact, I really don't think describing DP's game as limited is in any way controversial. I suspect he would agree he doesn't have the range of skills of the big 4 or the majority of the top 20. What he has is immense power in his forehand and an effective, relatively one-dimensional, strategy to enable him to employ it. I'd forgotten Berdych when I mentally listed the top 20 - I'd agree he is equally limited. What I don't get is what you see in DP which is somehow more varied than Tomas' game. 

As for some peoples' views of Murray and Novak, the impression I have is that they are almost exclusively fans of Federer. They look for a reason why he could possibly lose matches to the other big 4 and the only palatable argument they can reach is that he's way more talented but the others just run around a lot - usually accompanied by insinuations about how that fitness is achieved. If DP was Federer's closest rival, then they would be describing him as a one D ballbasher with similar insinuations in relation to how he could hit the ball so hard. 

Of course, it's possible to have a serve/forehand based game and still have variety - see Kyrgios and Tsonga as good examples.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion BS but I must disagree.

Raonic is more one dimensional than Del Potro for starters. De Potro is more than just a booming forehand. He has a great serve, volleys well, has a great slice, has lovely touch around net and has the heart of a lion. Memtally, far stronger than Berdych and Tsonga hence he is a slam winner against Federer in his prime.

I still think your natural dislike of the typical power player (i.e. with dominant serve/forehand and perhaps a lack of finesse) is causing you to under rate DP's overall skill set (which I think is a lot broader than you suggest) and his ability bring those skills to bear and pose major problems to even the very best. I also don't think DP fits the typical power player mould all that well.

I'm happy to concede that DP is more limited than the average multi-slammer (hardly earth shattering news that), but if you're still maintaining that he's more limited than the average top 20 player, then I totally disagree.

Is it possible that your definition of limited in this context is a bit narrow? Yes, I agree that over reliance on a single shot or pattern of play can be construed as limited, but what about players who don't have any major weapons at all? Sure, their patterns of play may be more varied (although not necessarily), but I would argue that they are still limited, just in a different way.

Personally, in the case a tennis player, I would define limitation as a paucity or inflexibility of talent, resulting in a vulnerability to certain styles of play. Assuming that the quality of the opponent is above a certain threshold, the limited player will simply have no viable strategies to bring to bear. The lower the threshold of opponent quality, the more limited the player.

In my opinion, the more limited players can be invariably identified by particularly abject H2Hs against the very best. While DP is perhaps some way short of tennis greatness, I would hazard that, before his career was marred by injury, he had more answers than most when facing the likes of Djoko and Fed.

Normally agree with vast majority of Born Slippy says in analysis, but disagree with him here.

When I hear 'limited player'- 2 types come to mind:
1/ Players with big serves but who don't have much accuracy on their groundstrokes, sometimes they just 'go for it' but you feel in an average performance their ratio of groundstrokes to unforced errors is poor.

2/ Players who don't have the ability to really consistently damage the opponent, i.e. gain an upper hand in the rally. These players can be consistent in getting their groundstrokes in, but not really the type to ever put pressure on top players.

Del Potro on his forehand can hit not just one huge shot in a rally before failing, but many in a row; this shows it must have some degree of accuracy and reliable technique. So I don't see his ground game as limited. (and btw his backhand was better before... but surely u can forgive him for being a bit weak on that wing now?)

Also these anti-Murray posts are reaching peak levels of delusion.
He will surely go down as one of the best talents Britain has had in the past few decades, incredible player. Don't want to talk about golden/weak eras too much, but let me put it this way- if Djokovic does go out early in future Slams like at Wimby and Rio- Murray will have an amazing chance of adding to his already glittering tennis CV.

As a Nadal fan, I am slightly shocked at how Nadal played this week- far above my expectations.
Won an Olympic Doubles Gold, and ran out of steam at the end in singles (think he played like 23 hours of tennis in 6 days or something)- but hope it's not just Spaniards who watched him and learnt from his incredible attitude and spirit- a real global role model.

Murray looks to me in a good position to win sports personality of the year again. If he does, he would be the first person to win it three times.

Wimbledon, plus Olympics, and a good season in general. Could be still more to come.

The Olympics puts up tough competition, but there isn't one emerging star. Jason Kenny could yet win three medals, but he is not really high profile, and with Chris Hoy, Bradley Wiggins, and Cavendish all having won SPOTY in the past, there isn't really any sense of wow any more when a Brit wins multiple medals in cycling. At the moment, we would be surprised if someone did. Laura Trott, similar story.

Max Whitlock two golds in gymnastics, impressive, but I don't think he is well enough known and mainstream to win it.

Mo Farah, that is certainly a possibility, but Murray beat him to 3rd place (14%-8%) in 2012, and has probably had an even better year this time. So, I don't quite see it. And Mo obviously has to win his second gold to have a chance.

Outside of Olympians, I cannot see anyone else, Jamie Vardy as a real long shot maybe, but Leicester are just going to get a team award instead you would think. More of a team performance. Vardy also wasn't as hot right at the end.

Murray does look favourite with the US Open still to come, and perhaps even a role in the Davis Cup final just ahead of the vote.

Henman Bill

I think the one person from the Olympics who could have caught the imagination of the public and may well be an "emerging star" to a lot of them is a guy you didn't mention and that's Adam Peaty. Even though it's only one individual race (50m breatstroke not in the Olympics) but the manner of victory was extraordinary. That, along with his ridiculous swim in the medley relay to get us a silver and I think he could very well be up there.

Outside of that, if Hamilton wins the F1 championship again then he will be up there as well I would have thought.

Personally, I'd put Mo's achievements right up there worthy of winning it especially if he gets the double gold. Adam Peaty is a good shout as is Max Whitlock as he has done something no Brit has done before in his sport.

Yeh, the fact that Peaty was the first man to win a gold in the pool since 88 will also help but it's more the dominance of his victory that will have caught the eye. Twice setting the world record, nearly 1.5 seconds quicker than anyone else has ever swam it, 7 fastest times ever, plus the fastest split ever recorded in a medley relay for that stroke.

Mo I think may well get it though, based on achievements past and present, plus he is 33 now so this will most probably be his last Olympics so last chance to win it.

killer938 wrote:Yeh, the fact that Peaty was the first man to win a gold in the pool since 88 will also help but it's more the dominance of his victory that will have caught the eye. Twice setting the world record, nearly 1.5 seconds quicker than anyone else has ever swam it, 7 fastest times ever, plus the fastest split ever recorded in a medley relay for that stroke.

Mo I think may well get it though, based on achievements past and present, plus he is 33 now so this will most probably be his last Olympics so last chance to win it.

Peaty's achievement is immense don't get me wrong but voters/fans tend to go more for the established figures with career achievements. Should Peaty return in 4 years and repeat his feat then that may be his time. Mo though is a career thing - World and Olympics double golds over a number of years. That impresses people more plus I'd say Mo is more in the public eye than Peaty so gets more press and more plugs if you see what I mean.

In terms of whose achieved the most so far it's Max Whitlock. Two golds,really impressive.

Murray's been great but I thought he'd win both Wimbledon and the Olympics with Lendl back in his corner. He's just a lot mentally tougher with him there.

If Murray wins the US Open too though then he'll win.


Maro Itoje is a long shot but as European rugby player of the season, part of the victorious Saracens and England sides he might be nominated. 80/1 currently... Won't win but on the short list would be nice.

https://www.skybet.com/tv-and-film-specials/bbc-sports-personality

As for team awards, I think that Saracens and the England rugby union side did better than Leicester football team.

First GS for 13 years and 3-0 vs the Aussies in Australia is historic. Unbeaten this year.

Saracens did the domestic and European double as well as defend their domestic title.

Of course Leicester will win because of the popularity of football though....

Don't think Murray will win it this year. He has done really well but I hope that it goes to one of the other Olympians who only really get the chance to shine every four years. Therefore Whitlock, Peaty, Kenny, Farah, and Trott should be in contention. At present I would probably go for Mo Farah.

CC

Agreed, as I said I think Mo will win it and deservedly so. What he has achieved over his career is phenomenal, just hope he can finish it off in the 5k.

Beshocked

In any other year I agree that Saracens or England should definitely be in contention for the team of the year, along with the Olympic team if they carry on this form. However, it is not any other year and what Leicester did is way beyond anything that Saracens or England are realistically capable of doing. Their resources mean that, even though their achievements were highly impressive, they just don't have the opportunity to achieve what Leicester did. That is not their fault but it is reality. No team or person has ever won anything with starting odds of 5000/1. In a world where money dominates football like no other sport, to have a team who were bottom of the league in April the season before to go on and win the league the following season, with a squad that cost about a hundreth of the top squads in the league, is unbelievable and they will deservedly win the team of the season. Football is definitely the most popular sport but that is not why they will win it, they will win it because they achieved something that not only seemed impossible but has also shown every team out there in any sport what is possible because if there is one place that no-one ever thought that a shock victory could come it is the premier league. Over a season of 38 games, no-one thought anyone other than the big spenders could come through. It is a story that not only grabbed the attention of football fans here, but of everyone around the world, even those not interested in football and it is a result that nearly everyone wanted to see. They embodied everything that Sports Personality should be about, achieving something magnificient in a style that everyone wanted to see and with an attitude that every young person watching sport should look up.

For coach of the year - Ranieri (see above)

Time for a new SPOTY face.

Whitlock fits the bill as won an all round medal for GB for first time in over 100 years. If Murray can get it for winning Wimb after 75 years why not Whitlock for achieving a similar seeming impossibility?

Plus he won 3 medals at this Olympics...when it came to multidisciplines Murray was knocked out of both doubles events. In terms of popularity, Whitlock's final gold medal routine was watched by over 10 million UK people. So he's hardly obscure.

All that said, lord knows who Joe Public will pick...probably some fettered footballer who's won a UK competition (Premiership) but didn't do anything when it came to international level (World Cup) no doubt...

Hear hear IMBL re Nadal, totally performed well beyond expectations...and if not for the crazy tennis scheduling then who knows how the final Gold may have gone. They seem to forget playing 2-3 hour matches on consecutive days is not like doing 4 x 2 minute swims (notwithstanding Phelps godlike swim status). And why make the final 5 sets when the rest of the event isn't....either make it all Bo5 or Bo3.

killer938 what Leicester did was impressive but Leicester had an advantage that cannot be overlooked - they focussed solely on the league and had a lot less games than their main rivals. Every knows it's easier to fight on one front rather than two or three.

In a long season, having a lighter workload helps. Even with a smaller cheaper squad being able to utilise that one squad in one competition is very helpful indeed.

England won the tour in Australia after a long domestic season and are undefeated in the international season, Saracens fought on three fronts (having internationals away) and won the double.

Both those things IMO are more impressive than winning just a domestic league if you look at the achievement and not the team that did it.

Leicester is a great underdog story but after the very poor Euros, football should not be the focus of SPOTY, especially with so many successes in other sports.

The Premier League is a domestic competition, not a competition against other countries.

Leicester City will win, I know that. I hate the focus on football when we (England) are so rubbish.

It's about sustainability too.

Lydian I agree - new SPOTY face would be great. Agree about Max Whitlock.