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?

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:Bit like regional news, if there's no news, don't bother trying to make a news bulletin.

What?

You must have seen a Regional News programme and thought "what the hell are they reporting that for" as if it's purely in there to fill the time in.
Similarly, if there was no one deserving of the award then don't bother having one.

AS for being Knighted, I'd be embarassed to be knighted simply for sport. If I'd done something truly important, heroic or something like that then yes, but sport, not really.

Not that I'm interested but here's my selection.

1. Cavendish
2. Farrah
3. Cook
4. Dai Greene
5. Strauss
6. Khan
7. Donald
8. McIlroy
9. Clarke (only won because he was the one who did the "least badly" on the day)
10. Murray (nuff said)

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:Bit like regional news, if there's no news, don't bother trying to make a news bulletin.

What?

Regional news isn’t a real sport because the presenters wear trousers.

Scottrf wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:Bit like regional news, if there's no news, don't bother trying to make a news bulletin.

What?

Regional news isn’t a real sport because the presenters wear trousers.

How do you know?

Not sure I'd have Strauss in there. Don't really see what he's done.

You may have a point, as I wonder that very thing every time I watch our regional news programme. (Look North with Peter Levy in case you are interested. Peter once went out with Carol Vorderman, don't you know. I know this because Paul the comedy local weatherman mentions it every week.) They should scrap it and just show an old Pink Panther cartoon instead, or Crazy-Legs Crane, something like that.

Ditto Regional Weather, do I really need to see the same information on a larger scale map, that I saw on the National news two minutes earlier and which is seldom correct anyway.

First we've had trousers and now we've got regional news and weather.

What next will find it's way onto the SR hitlist?

You'd be embarrassed if you got a knighthood for sport, but you're not embarrassed by your ramblings on this messageboard?

So you think people find the same things on the news, regional or national, interesting? That's clearly not the case, what's boring to one person is interesting for another.

Not saying that at all Diggers, but there is a staggering amount of "filler" on Regional News such as a house that looks like Hitler, or Jesus in a piece of toast.

super_realist wrote:Not saying that at all Diggers, but there is a staggering amount of "filler" on Regional News such as a house that looks like Hitler, or Jesus in a piece of toast.

Its more entertaining that tennis, golf, or womens sports

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

super_realist wrote:Not saying that at all Diggers, but there is a staggering amount of "filler" on Regional News such as a house that looks like Hitler, or Jesus in a piece of toast.

Its more entertaining that tennis, golf, or womens sports

or Cricket

super_realist wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

super_realist wrote:Bit like regional news, if there's no news, don't bother trying to make a news bulletin.

What?

Regional news isn’t a real sport because the presenters wear trousers.

How do you know?

Not sure I'd have Strauss in there. Don't really see what he's done.

He wears trousers a lot, I like that in a man.

super_realist wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

super_realist wrote:Not saying that at all Diggers, but there is a staggering amount of "filler" on Regional News such as a house that looks like Hitler, or Jesus in a piece of toast.

Its more entertaining that tennis, golf, or womens sports

or Cricket

kwinigolfer wrote:Why would Beckham receive a knighthood?
For services to himself?

If his charitable contributions merit a gong then so be it.

But difficult to see why his football career would merit such an honour until and unless he goes on to achieve greater distinction. As opposed to greater celebrity.

Services to sport and to his country. He is an international ambassador on both counts and one the finest representatives either has seen for many many years.

Embassador? Is that a cross between an Ambassador and an Embassy?

Services to sport?

Do they do one for services to pedantry?

Union Cane wrote:Do they do one for services to pedantry?

The Annual Union Cane Award? Be no point, the winner would be as predictable as an Andy Murray performance in a grandslam semi-/final.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Do they do one for services to pedantry?

The Annual Union Cane Award? Be no point, the winner would be as predictable as an Andy Murray performance in a grandslam semi-/final.

You should just go with 'final' for that putdown, because if he's been in a final before, that automatically implies that his performances in semi-finals are not altogether predictable.

I'm just throwing my hat into the ring for the pedantary award.

djlovesyou wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Do they do one for services to pedantry?

The Annual Union Cane Award? Be no point, the winner would be as predictable as an Andy Murray performance in a grandslam semi-/final.

You should just go with 'final' for that putdown, because if he's been in a final before, that automatically implies that his performances in semi-finals are not altogether predictable.

I'm just throwing my hat into the ring for the pedantary award.

I was going to say the same thing, I'm shocked I wasn't already in the running.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Do they do one for services to pedantry?

The Annual Union Cane Award? Be no point, the winner would be as predictable as an Andy Murray performance in a grandslam semi-/final.

He's only been in 8 semis and won 3 of them. Not really easy to predict at all. Cant really argue with the final part though.

Cook's good but haven't Sangakkara and Kallis been ranked above him nearly all 2011 ?

djlovesyou wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Do they do one for services to pedantry?

The Annual Union Cane Award? Be no point, the winner would be as predictable as an Andy Murray performance in a grandslam semi-/final.

You should just go with 'final' for that putdown, because if he's been in a final before, that automatically implies that his performances in semi-finals are not altogether predictable.

I'm just throwing my hat into the ring for the pedantary award.

He could get a bye in the semi, that way his appearance in the final would have nothing to do with his (predictable) performance in the semi.....

erictheblueuk wrote:Cook's good but haven't Sangakkara and Kallis been ranked above him nearly all 2011 ?

Yes but thats because he had a truely abysmal 2010. SPOTY is based on this year, where hes been by far the most effective batsman in test cricket despite England [playing against 3 of the other top 5 teams. He also took on the Capatincy of the limited overs sides after the world cup.
Its also British SPOTY, hence Nadal or whoever not being nominated ahead of Murraymint. Hes also been pretty good at wearing trousers.
Im not sure hes acheived anything that unbelievably historic or thats captured the publics imagination enough to win him the vote, but he did achieve "best in class" and was part of a side that won in australia for the first time since the 14th century (possible exageration) and annoyed the hell out of a lot of Indian internet trolls.

1 clarke/McIlroy
2 clarke/McIlroy
3 Cook

Clarke (only won because he was the one who did the "least badly" on the day)

Is that not the same in every sport??????????

I dont like Clarkes trousers very much

still wouldn't have khan as my boxer of the year so wouldn't have had him on the short list. good year not a great one. Froch has been better for me and don't want to open a can of worms again but also burns

but for me its Cav every day of the week. tip of next year bradley wiggins. says it all about our footballers at the mo no nominations, wasn't it the same last year too. pick it up boys next year in the euros year

Betfair is indicating that it's between Cav and Clarke, with McIlroy and Farah the only other two realistic each-way shots.

We'll see how the betting goes in the next week or so, but it seems to me that Cavendish could win pretty handily, and deservedly so.

If next year four different Brits win a golf major plus a different Brit finishes top of the order of merit - then we would have five male golfers represented in the BBC SPOT for 2012. There must also be a reasonable chance of Andy Murray winning a slam title or maybe the Olympic gold - so it would be hilarious if he were to win this year - only to a win a slam tournament next year. Tee Hee.

djlovesyou wrote:Betfair is indicating that it's between Cav and Clarke, with McIlroy and Farah the only other two realistic each-way shots.

We'll see how the betting goes in the next week or so, but it seems to me that Cavendish could win pretty handily, and deservedly so.

Thank goodness it isn't going to be a man who stops for cucumber sandwiches.

Clarke? Come on, seriously, he can't win it surely? He only won the Open because he did the least badly on the final day. In half decent conditions he wouldn't have had the game to "win" it. McIlroy shouldn't win due to his joke of a Masters final round and arrogance shown off the course. So come on Cavendish!

Mind you, Giggs won so I suppose anyone can.

Surely Cavendish will win. Hopefully the golf vote will be split. Don't want another undeserved sports personality of the year winner like Ryan Giggs.

JPX wrote:Clarke? Come on, seriously, he can't win it surely? He only won the Open because he did the least badly on the final day. In half decent conditions he wouldn't have had the game to "win" it. McIlroy shouldn't win due to his joke of a Masters final round and arrogance shown off the course. So come on Cavendish!

Mind you, Giggs won so I suppose anyone can.

So you are only a worthy winner of a tournament if the weather is clement?

Clarke deserved to win because he dealt with the conditions the best and moderated his game to suit conditions.

Whether he deserves SPOTY is another question, but he certainly deserved to win The Open, because he had the lowest score.

Yes Clarke dealt with the bad weather the best and the weather is the reason he won it. For me there is no way he would have won if the weather had been even average. Anyway, that's another conversation, even if he had won in perfect condition I don;t think he should win SPOTY, as he's done zip the rest of the year.

Weather is an integral part of golf and The Open in particular. The person with the skill to cope with it deserves to win. Weather plays a part in golf probably more than any other "sport" so it's silly to say that "if" the weather had been better........ because it wasn't, would you then be saying that whoever won in calm conditions didn't deserve to win because they wouldn't win if the weather had been bad?

He probably wouldn't have won if the weather had been better, but it wasn't and he did. To mention if's and but's is pointless conjecture. Parts of the week the weather was good and he was in there from the very start to the finish.

So how can you deny him his worthy win?

He also won another tournament in May before The Open, so he did not do "zip" in 2011 as you suggest.

Agree though, it isn't enough to win SPOTY, Donald has been the stand out golfer to me anyway, but Cav deserves it because he's a proper athlete.

But SR, Clarke is a total fat knacker, he was massive at the Open. Surely you must object to him on those grounds alone. He makes Lowry look like a waif.

super_realist wrote:He also won another tournament in May before The Open, so he did not do "zip" in 2011 as you suggest.

Wow the Iberdrola Midweek Stableford? I'd fancy my chances against the field that played in that.

JPX, you really are being silly here. There was nothing wrong with the field either.

Diggers, yes Clarke is massive, but he still deserved to win The Open, I don't see how anyone can deny that.

He did deserve it, but all that proved to me is what a lottery the Open can be and that's it's comfortably my least favourite major.

I think that's what makes it interesting (apart from when it's held at TOC, I'd agree with you that it's boring when it's held there)

Are any of the majors less of a lottery, lots of one time winners in the last five years.

There is nothing worse (and less exciting) than predictability in sport.

How boring would it be to know who was going to win before it took place?

Thank goodness it isn't going to be a man who stops for cucumber sandwiches. [/quote]


Thank goodness it isn't going to be a man who stops for ten pork pies and five pints of guiness

Come on SR, there were only 3 players inside the top 100 world rankings in that field. Ok he beat what was in front of him but it's not really a big deal.

Yet, when he beat everyone within the top 100 at The Open, you don't think that's a worthy or deserved result?

No pleasing some people.

No, because the bad weather won it for him. Bit like Lawrie.

What rubbish, The weather didn't win it for him or Lawrie, because the weather is the same for everyone. If you can't play in it, it isn't Clarkes fault, just as if someone wins in fair weather it isn't their fault if other players aren't good in benign conditions.

Do you even play golf?

Lawrie had Jean Van de Velde to mainly thank for his win

super_realist wrote:What rubbish, The weather didn't win it for him or Lawrie, because the weather is the same for everyone. If you can't play in it, it isn't Clarkes fault, just as if someone wins in fair weather it isn't their fault if other players aren't good in benign conditions.?

Yes but if the weather had been good he wouldn't have won. Do you really think Lawrie would have come from 10 strokes back if the weather had been good?

super_realist wrote:Do you even play golf?

Only when the weather's good, as the best players tend to win.

skyeman wrote:Lawrie had Jean Van de Velde to mainly thank for his win

Eh, he shot a 67 in tough conditions on one of the worlds toughest courses. VDV was poor though, granted, but Lawrie deserved his win.

JPX wrote:No, because the bad weather won it for him. Bit like Lawrie.

Awful comment.

I might enter a tournament and hope the weather 'wins it' for me.