wigangull
New member
Agree with many Murrey for top prize but how about team of the year to Wigan Warriors rugby league.Challenge cup winners plus Superleague winners.Winning team in one of our real full-on contact sports.
Yes I have always been confused by that award - Is it about sporting achievement or personality? In the case of Gazza or even David Steele, you would think it's about personality but then Faldo and Mansell won it. Suspect Andy Murray will end up winning it as he had high-profile achievements on the BBC
Never understand why people are confused by this - surely "sports personality" is just a more elegant way of saying "sports person" when you can't say sportsman or sportswoman? As for Gazza, in 1990 there was a good case that, with a declining Maradona and Mattheus, he was the best player in the world that year. Not sure, outside of Bobby Moore (who would of course have been well behind pele) we've had an English player even close to that level - the gap between messi and Ronaldo and anyone British today for example is massive (including Bale).
Would it surprise you to know Michael Owen won the award in 2001?
The concept of Andy Murray winning a personality award baffles me.
I think it is ridiculous that Ronnie O'Sullivan is not in the 10 this year.
To win the world championship almost in third gear after a year out was a supreme achievement that only he could have done and one that will probably never be repeated.
This comes from the panel being very 'worthy' and athletics-biased, overall it is a poor year with a couple of outstanding achievements, and obviously Murray is a shoo-in.
And there are people that just shouldn't be on there this year.
If you did market research showing O'Sullivan's face and all of the others on that list plus the squads of any Premier League team, he would score a lot higher than most on recognition, and for better or worse the 'personality' aspect is not in doubt.
Plus snooker still gets TV audiences that virtually every other sport bar football would kill for in the big BBC finals.
Its not a 'who has the most recognisable face' award though, is it? And let's be honest, his face is more recognisable than the likes of Halfpenny and Rose for three reasons:
1. He's regularly on front pages for various stuff.
2. His sport is televised for hours and hours and hours on free to air TV, for the simple reason that its the cheapest sport in the world to cover.
3. The coverage is of individual players, always close up and recognisable - not scampering about a 100m x 70m pitch in the middle distance.
He's shown great fortitude to come back so strong, but I think a lot of people would baulk at voting for someone, who by their own admission doesn't give two shits about his own sport. Even your statement 'won in third gear' speaks volumes. Why would anyone vote for someone not giving of their best?
I can't see anyone in the list below who isn't much more deserving.
Justin Rose
Sir Ben Ainslie
AP McCoy
Ian Bell
Leigh Halfpenny
Mo Farah
Christine Ohuruogu
Hannah Cockroft
Andy Murray
Chris Froome.
Halfpenny does. He was an integral member of the lions tour, won the six nations and was on the IRB player of the year shortlist. I'm not sure what more he could do.You are - possibly deliberately - spinning that away from the main point. The fact he is recognised, or come to that matter been brilliant for years, doesn't get him the award (although as we all know it did for Ryan Giggs). But it is supplementary, secondary evidence that this list does not reflect what people watch and talk about.
Hannah Cockroft, Ben Ainslie, Christine Ohuruogu and Leigh Halfpenny never get on that list ahead of O'Sullivan this year in a fair fight. Not in a million years.
Whether or not is cheap to cover (and it isn't) is totally irrelevant to how many people watch. Even the landscape of fragmented audiences and dozens of channels snooker holds up very strong.
And while you could have a sensible debate about whether what he did is his brilliance or the shortcomings of his rivals (or probably both), that doesn't negate the feat/story.
You are - possibly deliberately - spinning that away from the main point. The fact he is recognised, or come to that matter been brilliant for years, doesn't get him the award (although as we all know it did for Ryan Giggs). But it is supplementary, secondary evidence that this list does not reflect what people watch and talk about.
Hannah Cockroft, Ben Ainslie, Christine Ohuruogu and Leigh Halfpenny never get on that list ahead of O'Sullivan this year in a fair fight. Not in a million years.
Whether or not is cheap to cover (and it isn't) is totally irrelevant to how many people watch. Even the landscape of fragmented audiences and dozens of channels snooker holds up very strong.
And while you could have a sensible debate about whether what he did is his brilliance or the shortcomings of his rivals (or probably both), that doesn't negate the feat/story.
But who ever said that the list should reflect what people 'watch and talk about'? If it did, let's be honest, the list would comprise Andy Murray and nine footballers.
Of course people are not stopping each other in the street daily to chat about Ben Ainsley. That doesn't detract from what he achieved, which really was an incredible story (he's also been 'brilliant for years' if you want that to be considered).
People like Farah and Froome dedicate their entire lives, to making themselves the most physically and mentally perfect exponents of their chosen arts. O'Sullivan, by his own constant frank admissions, never has. His genius means that he's had a succesful career, regardless, but for me that lack of application means I'd never vote for him.
Halfpenny does. He was an integral member of the lions tour, won the six nations and was on the IRB player of the year shortlist. I'm not sure what more he could do.
O'Sullivan? Meh. I know you're a snooker correspondent but I think that sport had it's day years ago IMO. It doesn't really have any global reach and is it really a sport? I'd say the same for darts. But I guess you and others would make a case for the opposite so consequently I wouldn't have a problem with him being in the top ten.
Is his achievement any better than Froome (remember the fanfare when Wiggins won the TDF) or Justin Rose who won major in about the toughest conditions you can? .
Personally, I'd say it is.
Of course the whole "no winner since Fred Perry" thing will influence it....but he has also won a the most prestigous tennis tournament at a time when 3 of the greatest players of all time are also competing.
The tour is obviously a phenomenal achievement....but it's bordering on a team sport. The fact they openly select which rider they will back shows this.
Rose is also a brilliant achievement but in a much more open sport (how many different winners of majors do we see?)
For that reason I would say Murray's win outweighs all the others and with quite some ease...which says something considering how good Rose's achievement was.
Obviously my opinion so I'm sure a big cycling fan will disagree with my view of Froome's success.
I think the issue about Ronnie and SPOTY is his dedication to the sport. More often than personality or the number of victories it is the sheer dedication and passion for the sport that is the link between those sportsmen and women that reach the Top 3.
I agree that Ronnie winning a 5th world title after a year out is a remarkable achievement almost unparalleled in the modern era, and is testament to the pure talent he possesses for the game. Yet he'd struggle to make the Top 3, whereas Darren Clarke finished runner-up in 2006 despite having a shocking year because he played a crucial role in the Ryder Cup just weeks after his wife died.