[twinlensreflex]

(Original post by Drewski)
'Only' one gold. Comparatively doesn't match up to others. Imo.

But she's sweet! Surely that makes up for it. She won a gold in 2008 too...

[Hopple]

(Original post by twinlensreflex)
But she's sweet! Surely that makes up for it. She won a gold in 2008 too...

If you're going for sweet, Trott's got that easily, and an extra gold this games

[Drewski]

(Original post by twinlensreflex)
But she's sweet! Surely that makes up for it. She won a gold in 2008 too...

If we gave SPOTY out for sweetness it would remain permanently with the British women's gymnastic team.

[Atmos]

(Original post by notnek)
Considering how big tennis is around the world and how many competitors there are (no.1 most played solo sport in the world), I would say that winning a Grand Slam is a greater achievment than winning the Tour De France.

So if Murray wins the US (I make him joint favourite) then I would choose him for my SPOTY but only just.

So because a sport is more popular it means that winning in it is more difficult?

It may mean more competition in terms of numbers, but it doesn't mean the competition is any better than it would be if it were 10x less the size.

[dhr90]

I wonder if after the paralympics we might have changed our minds...

[Hopple]

(Original post by Atmos)
So because a sport is more popular it means that winning in it is more difficult?

It may mean more competition in terms of numbers, but it doesn't mean the competition is any better than it would be if it were 10x less the size.

Generally, if more people are having a go, you'll have to be better at it to win. Imagine if Usain Bolt had never bothered sprinting, we'd have different Olympic champions and record holders.

[notnek]

(Original post by Atmos)
So because a sport is more popular it means that winning in it is more difficult?

Yes. Greater competition decreases the chance of winning, whatever your ability.

It may mean more competition in terms of numbers, but it doesn't mean the competition is any better than it would be if it were 10x less the size.

Your argument isn't making much sense to me. I don't see how you can talk about competition being better in two completely different sports.

[Atmos]

(Original post by notnek)
Yes. Greater competition decreases the chance of winning, whatever your ability.


Your argument isn't making much sense to me. I don't see how you can talk about competition being better in two completely different sports.

I wasn't talking about competition being better in two different sports. I were saying that just because there's more interest in the sport does that mean the 'top' people are better than they would be if there wasn't as much interest in the sport?

[Soft Cat]

Difficult this one as on paper they could and should all win. But I agree with the majority in that Bradley Wiggins should win it not just because of his Olympic Medals but also by being the first Brit to ever win the Tour De France which is such a huge achievement and a gruelling event to tackle.

Chris Hoy is now our most successful Olympian so he deserves a shoutout.

Jessica Ennis the golden girl of British Athletics and the face of London 2012. But is that enough to warrant the crown from the other two?

Andy Murray finally won Gold. If he were to now go on and win the US Open and perhaps grab the World Number one ranking then he will definately have a strong case.



So for me it's a tussle between Bradley Wiggins and Chris Hoy.....Hoy's won it before right? So the public may well go for Wiggins.

Mo Farah and Ben Ainslie are dark horses.

Andy Murray's case would only be strengthened as I said with a grand slam win and a rise in the rankings not to mention his massive popularity.

I can't really think of anyone else to be honest. If there weren't so many gold medalists Beth Tweddle and Louis Smith would deserve recognition for taking British Gymnastics to unknown heights. GB winning medals in gymnastics was practically unheard of until Beijing and now London 2012. Unlikely they'll even get nominated but worth a mention.

If Sarah Stevenson wins Olympic Gold I'm sure she'll be on the shortlist.

Possibly one of the boxers if they win gold.


As for non-Olympic nominees then I think the only realistic candidate would be Carl Froch given the manner of his win against Lucien Bute and assuming he follows that up with a successful defence. But he certainly won't win it even if he does somehow make the shortlist.

Otherwise all members of the shortlist will most likely be gold medalists from London 2012.

[Drewski]

(Original post by Soft Cat)
Otherwise all members of the shortlist will most likely be gold medalists from London 2012.

Possibly Luke Donald, still World Number 1 in golf...?

[I got pooled!!!!]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
if murray won wimbledon it wouldn't have even been a competition.

(Original post by Drewski)
I'll agree with that. But Wiggins would have been a close second.

I still think Wiggins would win, no one britain has ever been on the podium and Wiggins won by 6 min and 19 seconds from his nearest rival.

On top of that he has won 3 other tours and won 1 gold in olympics this year, also hasn't lost a time trial all year!!!

[Atmos]

I don't see how it cant be Wiggins.

1st Brit to win the Tour of Romandie and Tour de France. Also won the Paris Nice, the Criterium du Dauphine, and a gold medal at the Olympics.

[notnek]

(Original post by Atmos)
I wasn't talking about competition being better in two different sports. I were saying that just because there's more interest in the sport does that mean the 'top' people are better than they would be if there wasn't as much interest in the sport?

I you take 100 random time-trial cyclists (taking part in a random time-trial) and compare them with another different random set of 1000 cyclists then it's very likely that the median time of the top ten of the 1000 will be better than the median of the top ten of the smaller group.

The best time may not be part of the set of 1000 but you should see better times in general at the top of the larger group.

And this probability will become even stronger (almost certain) when the participants are in the millions and the difference between the two groups is larger.

[St. Brynjar]

Obviously Wiggins. He oozes 'cool', everything about him and his achievements make me believe he should and will win it. The battle for the other few places is intense though.

Farah, double gold medalist with a great back story will definitely be in amongst the winners. Andy Murray's had a terrific year, I thought his post-Wimbledon defeat interview could have been enough to whip up support in his favour in an average Olympics. But this has been no average Olympics. If He'd have won the doubles as well then he might be a contender but I think it's between him and Ennis for the third place. I don't think Ennis deserves it any more than any other Olympic gold medalist from shooting to canoeing. I'd rather see someone like Alistair Brownlee pick up an award than Ennis but she'll do well because of her 'poster girl' image.

I think Hoy and Ainslie will be harshly snubbed. Hoy is our greatest ever Olympian and has conducted himself immaculatley these games. A true role model for young athletes. Ainslie's win this year was so dramatic and he's done so much for a 'boring' sport so I'd love to see him honoured, but it's been such a great year for sport he'll likely be ignored.

I expect any one of Rutherford, Kenny, Trott, Pendleton, Louis Smith (Who would be a contender had he won gold), Weir, Simmonds, Nicola Adams, Dujardin, Brownlee, McIlroy or even Tom Daley to be nominated. It's a really tough year.

Result: 1. Wiggins 2. Farah 3. Ennis 4. Murray 5. Hoy 6. Ainslie 7. Simmonds 8. Trott 9. Dujardin 10. Brownlee
Team: Team GB/GB Cycling
Coach: Matt Parker (Marginal Gains)
Overseas: Bolt
Lifetime: Coe

[stanners97]

Wiggins becoming the 1st British winner of le Tour and an Olympic gold is better than 2 gold, imo. Farah will probably come second to him, with Ennis third. I don't see how it can be Murray, even if he wins the US Open (which he won't).

[Fusion]

I wonder whether the public would have an appetite for yet another cyclist (cycling is hardly a major sport in Britain), for this reason I think Mo might pip him.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Fusion)
I wonder whether the public would have an appetite for yet another cyclist (cycling is hardly a major sport in Britain), for this reason I think Mo might pip him.

Look at the poll XD I'm surprised at it too, but if it's anyway representative of how the public in general will vote, Wiggins will win it with an embarrassing landslide. I suppose it would help to re-do the poll from after Mo won his second, but it'd take a 30% swing to Mo.

[Drewski]

(Original post by Hopple)
Look at the poll XD I'm surprised at it too, but if it's anyway representative of how the public in general will vote, Wiggins will win it with an embarrassing landslide. I suppose it would help to re-do the poll from after Mo won his second, but it'd take a 30% swing to Mo.

In fairness, the poll was started a week before Mo won his second Gold, but I still think it's accurate. Wiggo will win, but that's not to say Mo's achievement is any less.

[thegaffer91]

After this sensational year of sport, it is going to be impossible to come up with a shortlist that recognises all the sensational achievements of British athletes.

But if you had to submit your list of 10 today, who would you choose?

My 10 would be the following:

Bradley Wiggins
Jess Ennis
Mo Farah
Chris Hoy
Ben Ainslie
Andy Murray
Katherine Grainger
David Weir
Sarah Storey
Ellie Simmonds

And even then there are people missing who in most years would be unlucky to miss out on the top 3 - ignoring all the other amazing olympians and paralympians, what about the likes of Lewis Hamilton or Rory McIlroy? Jonathan Marray? the list could go on and on.

[CJG21]

I'd say Hannah Cockcroft over Sarah Storey.