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?

JPX wrote:

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.

What's the point in mentioning all these "If's" and "Buts"?
If you auntie had balls she'd be your uncle.

Clarke was the best player over the week, so he won.
In perfect conditions the best player doesn't always win. In golf especially the field is very open and there are frequently surprise winners.

Scottrf wrote:

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.

If you'd read this conversation in full Scott you would have realised I have been stating that bad weather was a major factor in Clarke's win. I'm saying that if it hadn't been poor weather I don't think Clarke would have won. Capiche?

super_realist wrote:

JPX wrote:

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.

What's the point in mentioning all these "If's" and "Buts"?
If you auntie had balls she'd be your uncle.

Clarke was the best player over the week, so he won.
In perfect conditions the best player doesn't always win. In golf especially the field is very open and there are frequently surprise winners.

Yeah I know. We agreed that right back where this started. Clarke was the best player so he won, but needed the weather to help him out.

JPX wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

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.

If you'd read this conversation in full Scott you would have realised I have been stating that bad weather was a major factor in Clarke's win. I'm saying that if it hadn't been poor weather I don't think Clarke would have won. Capiche?

I did read the conversation in full. The weather didn't put the ball in the hole regardless.

Watch indoor golf if that's what you prefer.

super_realist wrote: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?

You never know who is going to win any event. But I dont really like watching links golf shots, I dont like the dreary nature of the courses visually, especially when the weather is rubbish and it often is.

I think JPX is right to a point, I really believe at this stage in his career the Open was the only major Clarke could win.

Scottrf wrote:
I did read the conversation in full. The weather didn't put the ball in the hole regardless.

Watch indoor golf if that's what you prefer.

Did I say it did?

I'll say it again for you, the bad weather 'helped' Clarke and was a major factor for his win. I have the opinion that if it had not been driving wind and rain that Mickelson, Johnson or Fowler would probably have won, as Clarke wouldn't have been able to keep up with them. The poor conditions were a God send for him.

JPX wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

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.

If you'd read this conversation in full Scott you would have realised I have been stating that bad weather was a major factor in Clarke's win. I'm saying that if it hadn't been poor weather I don't think Clarke would have won. Capiche?

You keep saying it, but it doesn't matter. The weather was bad, Clarke coped best with it, and deserved to win.

I might as well say if England had 11 world class players they would win the World Cup, but they don't so they probably won't. Pointless conjecture.

Yes, he probably wouldn't have won if the weather was good, but then neither would a lot of other players. How do you know he wouldn't have won? He's won tournaments in good weather before and he played very well in the days prior to that when the weather was good, so who knows?

At this point in the debate the radio host would normally say "What's your point caller?"

Incidently Clarke scored 68-68-69-70, so played great when the weather was good and great when the weather was bad, so he could very well have won it regardless of the weather.

That's all irrelevant though. He did win it, it was important to the public and a memorable win. The Open and Masters are the two biggest solo events in the publics eyes.

Scottrf wrote:That's all irrelevant though. He did win it, it was important to the public and a memorable win. The Open and Masters are the two biggest solo events in the publics eyes.

It was memorable to the public because a fat old has been won it and they love an underdog. In terms of sportiong drama it was a complete nothing of a golf tournament, the last 9 holes were a dreary procession.

Diggers wrote:

Scottrf wrote:That's all irrelevant though. He did win it, it was important to the public and a memorable win. The Open and Masters are the two biggest solo events in the publics eyes.

It was memorable to the public because a fat old has been won it and they love an underdog. In terms of sportiong drama it was a complete nothing of a golf tournament, the last 9 holes were a dreary procession.

Well luckily for him it's an award for memorable performances.

super_realist wrote: You keep saying it

I keep getting asked?

super_realist wrote: Yes, he probably wouldn't have won if the weather was good

Agreed, we got there in the end

Totally agree with Diggers last comment.

P.S I haven't once said he didn't deserve the win.

Scottrf wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Scottrf wrote:That's all irrelevant though. He did win it, it was important to the public and a memorable win. The Open and Masters are the two biggest solo events in the publics eyes.

It was memorable to the public because a fat old has been won it and they love an underdog. In terms of sportiong drama it was a complete nothing of a golf tournament, the last 9 holes were a dreary procession.

Well luckily for him it's an award for memorable performances.

And if that memorable achievement is performed by a big fat knacker who drinks guiness then all the better. Housewifes choice.

JPX wrote:

super_realist wrote: You keep saying it

I keep getting asked?

super_realist wrote: Yes, he probably wouldn't have won if the weather was good

Agreed, we got there in the end

Totally agree with Diggers last comment.

P.S I haven't once said he didn't deserve the win.

I don't understand what difference the weather makes. If you win you played the best golf.
Why are you making a deal of the weather when it plays a part in every single golf tournament?

He played the best golf is a tournament very suited to a style of golf he grew up playing. He had that as an advantage over the field, he used to that advantage to the full so he deserved to win.

So you're asking me again?

You said yourself he probably wouldn't have won if the weather had been good. Precisely my original point that you objected to. Obviously, the weather plays a part, I've been saying that all along.

I don't think Clarke would have won the Open if the weather hadn't played into his hands i.e. by making all his rivals struggle and fall away. My opinion is that he wouldn't have won, in fact I don't think he'd have been runner up, if the weather had been half decent. He hasn't got the game to keep up with Mickelson, Fowler and Johnson. Not sure how much clearer I can say it.

Diggers wrote:He played the best golf is a tournament very suited to a style of golf he grew up playing. He had that as an advantage over the field, he used to that advantage to the full so he deserved to win.

Agreed, just as players who have grown up playing parkland, heath, desert or at altitude or any other sort of golf course have a slight advantage when competing in tournaments on those sort of courses.

XXX may not have won Augusta if the greens hadn't been so fast, XXX may not have won St. Andrews if it hadn't been so windy etc etc.

JPX wrote:So you're asking me again?

You said yourself he probably wouldn't have won if the weather had been good. Precisely my original point that you objected to. Obviously, the weather plays a part, I've been saying that all along.

I don't think Clarke would have won the Open if the weather hadn't played into his hands i.e. by making all his rivals struggle and fall away. My opinion is that he wouldn't have won, in fact I don't think he'd have been runner up, if the weather had been half decent. He hasn't got the game to keep up with Mickelson, Fowler and Johnson. Not sure how much clearer I can say it.

JPX, the point is that the weather (oir course conditions) plays a part in every golf tournament, but I haven't heard you saying that anyone who wins other tournaments was down to weather.
Did Donald win the Scottish Open because he's a rain player?

Would he have won if the weather had been calm on the final day? Perhaps, Perhaps not, but there were people who played better than him on the final round and scored better, so was it really that much of an advantage to Clarke?

He was one of only two players to shoot 3 rounds in the 60's, so why didn't anyone else do that in the first three days when the weather was better.

He played great when the weather was good, and he played great when the weather was bad, ,however some players played better than him on that day, such as Garcia and Mickelson. What's their excuse for not playing well when the weather was good?

Neither of us can say whether he would have won or not. Perhaps it was just his tournament. His Ivanisevic tournament if you like.

super_realist wrote: Did Donald win the Scottish Open because he's a rain player? Would he have won if the weather had been calm on the final day?

Yes he would, Donald is a top player at the peak of his game.

super_realist wrote:so was it really that much of an advantage to Clarke?

For me, yes it was.

super_realist wrote:He played great when the weather was good, and he played great when the weather was bad, ,however some players played better than him on that day, such as Garcia and Mickelson. What's their excuse for not playing well when the weather was good?

Neither of us can say whether he would have won or not. Perhaps it was just his tournament. His Ivanisevic tournament if you like.

Agreed.

They were all wearing trousers though

Clarke's results since The Open (all in good weather conditions)

Missed Cut
68th
Missed Cut
Missed Cut
38th

Far more to do with motivation than anything else.
Understandable given it's the biggest win of his career and he'd probably long given up hope of winning it.

Does he get appearance fees now?

I would like to point out (just to play devils advocate) that if this Sports Personality for just 2011 then technically Alistair Cook wasn't even England's best batsman, Ian Bell was. Obviously they took the whole of the Ashes into account which is fair enough but if you look, Cook had one great innings against India and then the rest were pretty average/poor. His numbers in Australia were incredible but then again so were Trott's.

For me it has to be Cavendish. What he has achieved is incredible. His Green Jersey and World Championship wins have already been mentioned but just to put into context what else he has achieved (for those who say its all about the team), he has won 20 stages overall in the tdf, only one sprinter in the history of the tdf has won more, and he is only 2 behind him. It may be a team sport but it is so much harder for sprinters to win multiple stages as it in theory becomes a lottery at the end of a sprint as so many riders are going for it, that is why all the top stage winners are yellow jersey riders. He has turned, what is usually a lottery, into a situation where multiple teams ride together against his team to stop him winning, yet he still manages to win more stages than anyone, let alone the other sprinters. His team obviously help him enormously (and btw he is the first person to say this) but there is no other rider in the world that can do he what he does. He will go down as the greatest sprinter of all time in road races and it is a shame that he is not as recognised for his achievements in Britain as he is around the rest of the world, especially Europe.

This is not to diminish anything that the others have done, I just believe what Cavendish has done this year has been unrivalled.