SPOTY 2014

First topic message reminder :

Surprised nobody has started this topic yet... it always generates some interest on here every year.

So the cupboard is pretty bare this year. Surely it's a two horse race between Rory and Lewis.

I think Rory's achievements are greater, but Lewis will win because his title carries the greater cachet.

Pretty incredible that, in a world cup year, Gareth Bale gets short-listed when he wasn't even in the tournament. He had a great debut season but hardly set the world alight. And more so then ever before, half the short list features unknowns from obscure sports who are barely famous in their own house.

PS: still a bit disappointed by Peaty finishing below Pavey, but I guess Jo was a popular choice.

PPS: good shouts for McGinley for coach of the year, and the women's rugby team. Both well-deserved.

Exactly navy.

I don't get the coin toss reference to f1. It's not a 50/50 chance. Yep it was one sided. But it's not always dominated by a team. Just this year one team have been far and away better then the rest. It could have been either Lewis or rory, I'd have been happy with either. I like jo pavey for third, and Chris hoy seems a good guy. Though as a team Mercedes should have won that award.

MFC

I agree that a better Red Bull would have illustrated just how much better Hamilton is compared to Rosberg. I also agree that Hamilton thrashed Rosberg. I really wish Hamilton hadn't spun in Brazil as it would have made it ever more clear.

Not to turn into a sycophant but I also agree McIlroy was a more deserving winner.

I think some people on here don't really understand probability, in that just because two outcomes are possible doesn't mean they're equally likely (I remember once arguing with someone who thought every golfer in a Major field had the same chance of winning...).

Though to be fair, in Probability Theory a coin toss is usually the term used to describe a Bernoulli random variable, which is simply an event with two possible outcomes. Of course, by that reasoning, Rory winning every Major next year is simply a "coin toss" (either he does, or he doesn't), but...

I don't remember that more than two teams have ever been in contention in a single F1 season. Additionally we often see the same teams dominating, regardless of the drivers.

I think it would be fair to say that the car has a 80-90% say in who'll eventually be winning.

JAS wrote:So there you have it, a golfer will have to win the grand slam in a winning Ryder Cup year and hope the engineering coin toss comp wasn't won by a Brit in the same year...basically.

Good shout McGinley for coach of the year though.

That's it in a nutshell really. This award has long been a joke, with perhaps Andy Murray, Hoy and Wiggins being the only truly meritorious winners in recent years.

Hamilton won, not because his "achievements" were the greatest, but because F1 is more popular than golf is. It's more like the X Factor than we realise or an FHM Hottie of the Year vote.

It's impossible to claim that Hamilton's "world" championship, which essentially came down to a shootout between 2 drivers from the same team and no one else, was greater than 2 majors, a Ryder Cup and the BMW.

Hamilton and Rosberg were like two normal people in a running race wearing trainers and the rest of the field looked like Shane Lowry wearing hobnail boots.

"Sports Personality"?

Does that mean you have to work on your personality, rather than your sport, to be able to win?

In F1, it does seem to me that the biggest single factor is the quality of the car, and not the skill of the driver. F1 was dominated this year by benz, after several seasons of Red Bull. Vettel won a lot of GPs last year, but I don't think he won one this year.

Good for Lewis Hamilton to be part of a winning team, but if one of the other teams unveils a better car next year then he'll be competing for 3rd place.

Rory was a bit unfortunate I think. He did have a fantastic season, but the golf season ends a few months before the F1 season, so Hamilton's achievements are much fresher in the mind.

McLaren wrote:MFC

I agree that a better Red Bull would have illustrated just how much better Hamilton is compared to Rosberg.  I also agree that Hamilton thrashed Rosberg.  I really wish Hamilton hadn't spun in Brazil as it would have made it ever more clear.

Not to turn into a sycophant but I also agree McIlroy was a more deserving winner.

???? You'll have to explain that one to me. All I can see if Red Bull had a better car, is Ricciardo proving to be more than an occasional spanner in the works.

If Hamilton was THAT much better than Rosberg, then it wouldn't have come down to the very last race of the season.

The world championship, if you can call it that was only ever contested by one team and two drivers, pathetic.

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:MFC

I agree that a better Red Bull would have illustrated just how much better Hamilton is compared to Rosberg.  I also agree that Hamilton thrashed Rosberg.  I really wish Hamilton hadn't spun in Brazil as it would have made it ever more clear.

Not to turn into a sycophant but I also agree McIlroy was a more deserving winner.

???? You'll have to explain that one to me. All I can see if Red Bull had a better car, is Ricciardo proving to be more than an occasional spanner in the works.

Hamilton won, roughly, twice as many races as Rosberg (I can't recall the exact number but it was along those lines). However, because the car was so much better than the RB, Rosberg was (with the exception of the last race) able to always come second to Lewis, thus not losing too many points. Basically, Hamilton had (I think) one more DNF than Rosberg, and to make up that difference (25 points, i.e. one race win) had to win four extra races.

Had the RB been closer, it's more than possible that for a few of those Hamilton wins one or both of Ricciardo/Vettel would have got between the two Mercedes, thus increasing the points gap. Obviously this is also true of the races Rosberg won, but given Rosberg only beat Hamilton in (I think) three of those races, you can see how this scenario would have favoured Hamilton more than Rosberg.

Like I said, counter-intuitive at first, but hope that's made it clearer?

I still maintain that Rory should have won, I mean two Majors has to top winning a WC in an incredibly dominant car (for what it's worth, Hamilton's win in 08 was mure more impressive IMO). I don't think it's all that necessary to diminish Hamilton's achievements so much though, Rory's wins speak for themselves and don't need denigrating the competition...

PS: to SR, Cavendish's win in 2011 was also well-deserved. Won the points jersey and the World Champs, the two highest achievements a road sprinter can get, in one year.

Having reviewed the breakdown of the votes, and seeing that F1 and Equestrian were 1st and 4th, it's about time we took the vote away from the public vote and let serious experts and sports journalists make the decision.

The equestrian community is quite large and organised, demonstrated by that horsey royal inexplicably winning the other year.
Dancing horses for Christs sake, how can anyone consider that a sport or an achievement.

Just ridiculous that Rory didn't win. The problem is that only 600 thousand people voted, that's next to nothing.

Least Hamilton dressed up for the occasion, with his trainers and did I really hear correct? He took his dog?

So who voted on here?

out of curiosity I looked at the comparison between buton and hamilton when they were both at mclaren to see if Hamilton is such an exceptional driver. Hamilton beat button marginally in 2 of the 3 seasons and button hammered him in the other season. What is so special about Hamilton, does he not have roughly the same ability as button? After all they were in the same car for 3 years and not much to seperate them. Maybe Button deserved to be nominated as well because he beat his team mate this year as well. Maybe every British driver who beats his team mate deserves a nomination because that is all hamilton did. He beat 1 driver.

Skiddy

Hamilton is a much faster driver than button. One of the reasons McLaren were debating whether or not to keep Button for next year is that the data from the time he and Lewis were at McLaren showed Lewis to be a far superior driver. On points Button may have seemed closer (he may actually have had a higher 3 season total?) but timing data was clearly in lewis's favor.

From looking at the F1 championship table, Hamilton beat 20 other racers. Yep he had the best car. But he still won the title. F1 is a more popular world wide sport then Golf. They both achieved the pinnacle of their chosen sport. I do not think you can compare sports. And all the top 10 have achieved in their sport, any of them could win. The best route to decide is a public vote. Some people really take things a bit to seriously.

Did Hamilton mention god in his acceptance speech?

Couldn't bare to watch the last hour Mac, I hear he's a bit of a Koran Kreep though, so most likely.

I dont think he involved God at all. Just his family.

I hope he thanked the only other competitor in the "world" championship

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:Wonder if Salmond has gerrymandered himself an appearance.

Absolutely guaranteed I would think. Probably have that muppet, Sturgeon, as well .

a great disservice to the muppets who are quite entertaining

Sand wrote:Just ridiculous that Rory didn't win. The problem is that only 600 thousand people voted, that's next to nothing.

Least Hamilton dressed up for the occasion, with his trainers and did I really hear correct? He took his dog?

I didn't watch it but surely that's no way to talk about Nicole Scherzinger !


Anyway I don't think it would have mattered who had won out of Hammy and Rory. As you would still have people bellyaching about the result. As some say Golf is not a real sport and Hammy had the best equipment and only 1 competitor.

earlshaugh wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:Wonder if Salmond has gerrymandered himself an appearance.

Absolutely guaranteed I would think. Probably have that muppet, Sturgeon, as well :roll:.

a great disservice to the muppets who are quite entertaining

I have always wondered why muppet is meant as an insult given how great the show was and that most of them were pretty bright?

erictheblueuk wrote:

Sand wrote:Just ridiculous that Rory didn't win. The problem is that only 600 thousand people voted, that's next to nothing.

Least Hamilton dressed up for the occasion, with his trainers and did I really hear correct? He took his dog?

I didn't watch it but surely that's no way to talk about Nicole Scherzinger !


Anyway I don't think it would have mattered who had won out of Hammy and Rory. As you would still have people bellyaching about the result. As some say Golf is not a real sport and Hammy had the best equipment and only 1 competitor.

No his actually dog... Why would you do that?

I think Rory dumping Wozniacki by text message, after the wedding invites were sent, basically lost him all female votes & some fans.

Pretty pathetic all the golfing community now gathering in support of Rory, unlike last night, & them crying like babies at him not winning & us having to endure these embarrassing Twitter posts from players like Poulter.

Nobody is crying about Pube Head not winning, people are laughing that the voting public consider Hamilton and his advantageous position of being in the best car and having competition from just one solitary driver as being a better achievement than what McIlroy did in 2014.

Sand wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

Sand wrote:Just ridiculous that Rory didn't win. The problem is that only 600 thousand people voted, that's next to nothing.

Least Hamilton dressed up for the occasion, with his trainers and did I really hear correct? He took his dog?

I didn't watch it but surely that's no way to talk about Nicole Scherzinger !


Anyway I don't think it would have mattered who had won out of Hammy and Rory. As you would still have people bellyaching about the result. As some say Golf is not a real sport and Hammy had the best equipment and only 1 competitor.

No his actually dog... Why would you do that?

Still a b!tch?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

McLaren wrote:MFC

I agree that a better Red Bull would have illustrated just how much better Hamilton is compared to Rosberg.  I also agree that Hamilton thrashed Rosberg.  I really wish Hamilton hadn't spun in Brazil as it would have made it ever more clear.

Not to turn into a sycophant but I also agree McIlroy was a more deserving winner.

???? You'll have to explain that one to me. All I can see if Red Bull had a better car, is Ricciardo proving to be more than an occasional spanner in the works.

Hamilton won, roughly, twice as many races as Rosberg (I can't recall the exact number but it was along those lines). However, because the car was so much better than the RB, Rosberg was (with the exception of the last race) able to always come second to Lewis, thus not losing too many points. Basically, Hamilton had (I think) one more DNF than Rosberg, and to make up that difference (25 points, i.e. one race win) had to win four extra races.

Had the RB been closer, it's more than possible that for a few of those Hamilton wins one or both of Ricciardo/Vettel would have got between the two Mercedes, thus increasing the points gap. Obviously this is also true of the races Rosberg won, but given Rosberg only beat Hamilton in (I think) three of those races, you can see how this scenario would have favoured Hamilton more than Rosberg.

Like I said, counter-intuitive at first, but hope that's made it clearer?...

Ta. I get that point but I put it to you that if the RB was competitive w/ the Merc, Ricciardo could have p!ssed all over Hamilton's parade quite easily. It's irrelevant really anyway. The RB wasn't a good enough car in comparison. As so often in the recent past, it's one team's to win or lose and therefore there's often only one driver in it. In actual fact, it's probably unusual that Merc had two good drivers so it wasn't a done deal until the end. At no time, however, was any other driver remotely in with a chance.

beninho wrote:...The best route to decide is a public vote....

Nope. It demonstrably isn't. It would be far better to limit the vote to sportswriters, the sportsmen and women themselves and other 'experts'. A sort of Players' Player of the Year kind of thing. As it stands, it's a sporting 'X Factor'.

earlshaugh wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:Wonder if Salmond has gerrymandered himself an appearance.

Absolutely guaranteed I would think. Probably have that muppet, Sturgeon, as well .

a great disservice to the muppets who are quite entertaining

Ah. A very good point and my humble apologies to Miss Piggy et al.

navyblueshorts wrote: As it stands, it's a sporting 'X Factor'.

Likewise, although I don't watch it, you have to treat "Strictly" in exactly the same way, otherwise why did John Sergeant last so long? Public vote.

I'm never wrong wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote: As it stands, it's a sporting 'X Factor'.

Likewise, although I don't watch it, you have to treat "Strictly" in exactly the same way, otherwise why did John Sergeant last so long? Public vote.

Yep. Take your pick of the nonsense - Strictly, X Factor, Britain's Got Talent, I'm a Celebrity....etc etc. It's the sort of mental power that in, say, a poll on whether Woods or Nicklaus is the greatest you get people voting Woods because "Well, I wasn't born when Jack was in his pomp so I have to vote Tiger" .

See BBC web site is saying Hamilton's win was a "surprise" . Not to anyone capable of making an honest appraisal of the whole tawdry mess that is SPOTY these days.

Indeed, time they took it away from the public.

It has always been judged by the public, so its not like it changed the rules at any point. So i dont see why it should be changed when it has been running 60 years. The public gets what the public wants. Its nothing to do with achievement, and one being better then the other.

Just because something has always been done one way, doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

SPOTY voting has been rife with rather odd and unmetrited winners in recent years, from the organised gerrymandering of the horsey royal, to the oddity of Ryan Giggs, who achieved nothing on a personal level in the year he won it, and should have got a lifetime award instead, to the sentimental award to Tony McCoy.

The public voting has led to a severe lack in credibility of the award, and the Hamilton episode simply enhances that.

Just because you do not like it or a some people do not like it does not mean the people that vote are wrong though. Its a democratic system. The person with the most votes wins and has always won. You may not like the people that win, but they have all achieved one way or another in their sport. The award is not given to the person whose achievement is better the then other person. Its given to who the public vote as their favorite achievement.

Anyone can vote, and have always been able to vote.

beninho wrote:It has always been judged by the public, so its not like it changed the rules at any point. So i dont see why it should be changed when it has been running 60 years. The public gets what the public wants. Its nothing to do with achievement, and one being better then the other.

Except actually, to continue with The Jam, the public wants what the public gets. It's also given all the treatment as if it's some sort of serious sporting award. Well, if it is, stop doing it in such a demonstrably rubbish fashion. It's scheiss. Sporting reality TV.

Absolutely Navy, if it's projected as the pinnacle of sporting awards then it should be based on achievement, not what people's favourite achievement is.

You can barely even call Hamilton's year an achievement in the first place.

Id say if McIlroy wins the Masters next year he will scoup the award. When Hamilton first won the drivers championship he missed out to Chris Hoy so maybe the same will happen at some stage for McIlroy.

It is not great show, but has it ever been good? People hark back to when it was Sports Review of the year, i don't recall it to much. But it could be a review show then, as the bbc could show highlights from most if not all the sports. Its an overblown overlong show now, just focusing on what they have the rights for, such as the commonwealth games. I cannot say if it a serious award or not, i am never going to be up for it. It seems that the people nominated take it pretty seriously, they usually all turn up to the ceremony. I am sure it pales against anything they have won in their sport, but i doubt any past winners threw it straight in the bin when they got home.

I certainly don't get what society wants, at least when it comes to this vote!

It all depends on what happens throughout the year, Hamilton won the title in November, Mcilroy had a few good weeks in summer. It seems that it was forgotten. Anyway didnt Chris Hoy win all his medals on bikes specially made and practices put in place by brailsford, which kept them ahead of all the competing countries? Does that diminish his success?

Its all democracy. I didnt vote conservative, i have to live with the results because a lot of brain dead morons did. Nothing wrong with complaining about it, but its a fair vote decided by the public.

I think you're missing the point Ben, the result is irrelevant, it's WHY people voted for Hamilton, given his "achievements" were questionable to say the least that is surprising.

You find his achievements questionable, some other people on a golf forum find his achievements questionable, I daresay people on motor sport forums find Mcilroys achievements questionable, he won 4 events this year? Out of 40 odd. He didnt play 40 odd, but if you have no interest in the sport, all they may know is golf is on most weeks, and Mcilroy won 4 times....big deal.

What may be surprising to you, is clearly not surprising to the 200k plus who voted and many millions that watch F1 in the uk.

Ben, the issue is not being world champion, the issue is being world champion where he only had to beat one other competitor. No one else was at the races so to speak.

If the F1 World championship had 5 teams and ten drivers pushing each other week in week out it would be fine, but simply beating your team mate, to me at least is about as little competition as you can get and an incredibly hollow "achievement".


Now, I'm not especially trumpeting McIlroys cause, but his year dwarfs Hamiltons when you look into it, and I'd say quite a few of the other nominees would too.

Trouble is, F1 has a lot of fans, so, despite the obvious shortcomings of F1 as a sporting spectacle in 2014, they'll vote regardless.
That makes it more of an xfactor popularity contest than one based on a more meritocratic basis and to many the award is rather lacking in credibility.

Yes, democracy is democracy, but is Hamilton winning a two horse World Championship REALLY the greatest achievement by a British sportsperson this year?  Of course, it's a matter of opinion, but if you actually asked anyone who followed more than one sport, I doubt you'd find many who would give it to Hamilton.

I thought it was quite telling that virtually the first thing Hamilton did on receiving the trophy was turn to Rory and apologetically say 'you had such a great year'.

SmithersJones wrote:I thought it was quite telling that virtually the first thing Hamilton did on receiving the trophy was turn to Rory and apologetically say 'you had such a great year'.

Yeah, I dislike Hamilton, but credit where it's due, he said he'd have voted for Pube Head.

super

I would consider myself an expert in golf and F1 and if you asked me I would say there is a case for both winning SPOTY.


PS I am really starting to worry about your grasp of probabilities. Just because there are two people who can win something it does not mean each has a 50% chance of winning.

McLaren wrote:super

I would consider myself an expert in golf and F1 and if you asked me I would say there is a case for both winning SPOTY.


PS I am really starting to worry about your grasp of probabilities.  Just because there are two people who can win something it does not mean each has a 50% chance of winning.

Mac, The bottom line in regards to the F1 is that there was only ever ONE team that was going to win. The car was so much better than any other in the field, therefore it was incredibly likely that ONE of the TWO drivers from that team would win the Drivers title.

Whilst each driver is not equal, Hamilton in real terms had to beat no one except his own team mate due to them both having such an advantage over the rest of the field by virtue of being in the best car.

Hamilton beat the rest of the field by default of course, not necessarily by being a better driver, but primarily by being in a better car than them. He beat Rosberg by being better over the course of a year. The competition element was really only ever between 2 drivers.

So, it was only ever going to be Rosberg or Hamilton once it became clear which team had the vastly superior car. That's not something we can attribute to Hamilton, nor something we can blame him for, but in reality, because of his cars advantage, he only realistically had to outperform his team mate.

Call that sport?